IT4 vs Damian Lillard: Who's the better player?

[PhoSita]

This is silly homer nonsense.

By the numbers, they're pretty close.

Both are relied upon a great deal by their respective teams to make offense happen.

Lillard scored more with better shooting percentages.  Lillard gets more assists and a fair amount more rebounds.  Lillard isn't quite the defensive liability that Thomas is because Lillard is 6'3" (which is rather big for a PG).  VORP, BPM, etc. all favor Lillard. 

I firmly maintain this is homer nonsense.

Well, if you'll read what I originally posted, you basically just agreed with me.

So yeah.

I read what you wrote, you equated them in the near-term, giving Lillard the edge in the long-view. Moranis doesn't equate them in the near-term.

I think we can quibble over the meaning of "pretty close," but Moranis went through the same selection of stats that I did, concluding that Lillard has the edge in a handful of areas, so he gets the nod.

He did gloss over the areas in which Thomas is better, right now.

It's hard to argue that, by the numbers alone, they look very similar.  I agree that if you look beyond the numbers, it becomes easier to distinguish Lillard from IT.

Bottom line, I don't think Moranis really actually read what I wrote, he just saw "they're pretty close right now," and jumped straight to "HOMER!"

I'd say most people around here would hesitate to call me that, but I must say it's amusing to see it nonetheless.

[greece66]

This is silly homer nonsense.

actually my initial reaction was exactly the same. But then I looked at their stats and they are extremely similar. Lillard has a small edge in advanced stats but that's all.

http://bkref.com/tiny/pDkiG

[PhoSita]

This is silly homer nonsense.

actually my initial reaction was exactly the same. But then I looked at their stats and they are extremely similar. Lillard has a small edge in advanced stats but that's all.

http://bkref.com/tiny/pDkiG

Right.  I think this discussion can be interesting if we focus on why they are so similar in stats but are perceived to be on different levels as players.  Rightly so, perhaps.  Or maybe not.

[Roy H.]

Add me to the side that doesn't see this as particularly close.

[indeedproceed]

This is silly homer nonsense.

By the numbers, they're pretty close.

Both are relied upon a great deal by their respective teams to make offense happen.

Lillard scored more with better shooting percentages.  Lillard gets more assists and a fair amount more rebounds.  Lillard isn't quite the defensive liability that Thomas is because Lillard is 6'3" (which is rather big for a PG).  VORP, BPM, etc. all favor Lillard. 

I firmly maintain this is homer nonsense.

Well, if you'll read what I originally posted, you basically just agreed with me.

So yeah.

I read what you wrote, you equated them in the near-term, giving Lillard the edge in the long-view. Moranis doesn't equate them in the near-term.

I think we can quibble over the meaning of "pretty close," but Moranis went through the same selection of stats that I did, concluding that Lillard has the edge in a handful of areas, so he gets the nod.

He did gloss over the areas in which Thomas is better, right now.

It's hard to argue that, by the numbers alone, they look very similar.  I agree that if you look beyond the numbers, it becomes easier to distinguish Lillard from IT.

Bottom line, I don't think Moranis really actually read what I wrote, he just saw "they're pretty close right now," and jumped straight to "HOMER!"

I'd say most people around here would hesitate to call me that, but I must say it's amusing to see it nonetheless.

I think the take is a homerish take. Lillard took a team with zero expectations after a devastating free agency, assumed the mantle of unquestioned leader in a vacuum in a more competitive conference and got to 44 wins and a playoff berth.

If you want to look at the stats, I very much agree with Moranis in that you can point to the defensive metrics and easily see why the metrics are still not ready to stand on their own with much consistency. IT obviously benefits from a better defensive system, with better defensive players. Lillard has to carry more of his own water. Neither guy are defensive plusses, but Lillard's defense this year compared to last (and the previous 3 before) is night and day.

Lillard and IT are both somewhat mercurial score-first point guards, they're both good players, but Lillard would be the best point guard in the East if he played there.

And this doesn't mean I don't love IT (although I love him less after the past 2 games), but Lillard had a tougher row to hoe. If IT and Lillard switched places, do you really think IT would do as much, as well with Portland as Lillard has? Because, I think Lillard would do a sight better in Boston.

[jambr380]

IT is 5'9" so he will never be considered as good as guys like Lillard and Irving even though the stats show just how close they are.

It is why we were able to trade a very late first round pick and Marcus Thornton for him. I think we should all be very happy that we are the team got him for such a small haul on such a team-friendly deal. Perceptions matter, even if results show otherwise.

[Atzar]

I think the take is a homerish take. Lillard took a team with zero expectations after a devastating free agency, assumed the mantle of unquestioned leader in a vacuum in a more competitive conference and got to 44 wins and a playoff berth.

If you want to look at the stats, I very much agree with Moranis in that you can point to the defensive metrics and easily see why the metrics are still not ready to stand on their own with much consistency. IT obviously benefits from a better defensive system, with better defensive players. Lillard has to carry more of his own water. Neither guy are defensive plusses, but Lillard's defense this year compared to last (and the previous 3 before) is night and day.

Lillard and IT are both somewhat mercurial score-first point guards, they're both good players, but Lillard would be the best point guard in the East if he played there.

And this doesn't mean I don't love IT (although I love him less after the past 2 games), but Lillard had a tougher row to hoe. If IT and Lillard switched places, do you really think IT would do as much, as well with Portland as Lillard has? Because, I think Lillard would do a sight better in Boston.

I think you're bending the context here.

Lillard has same the situation now that IT had last year.  They both carried a ragtag group of castoffs into the playoffs.  So any plaudits that apply to one also apply to the other in this instance.

The Western Conference is top-heavy, but not necessarily strong.  Nobody in that conference matters after the top four.  This isn't like the 2013-2014 season, where a 49-win team scraped in as the 8 seed.  The five-through-eight seeds are bowling pins bracing for impact. 

Lillard is getting worked just like IT in the playoffs this year.  Shooting 21% from deep, 33% overall, assists are down, turnovers are up.  So in a similar vein to my first point, any criticism you give IT has to go to Lillard too. 


All of that said, I do think Lillard would do better in Boston, though.  Stevens gets more out of his players on defense in terms of effort and also has the personnel to hide a poor defender, so I think he'd be an adequate defender here.  He's already a very good offensive player; that's not the issue.

[indeedproceed]

I think the take is a homerish take. Lillard took a team with zero expectations after a devastating free agency, assumed the mantle of unquestioned leader in a vacuum in a more competitive conference and got to 44 wins and a playoff berth.

If you want to look at the stats, I very much agree with Moranis in that you can point to the defensive metrics and easily see why the metrics are still not ready to stand on their own with much consistency. IT obviously benefits from a better defensive system, with better defensive players. Lillard has to carry more of his own water. Neither guy are defensive plusses, but Lillard's defense this year compared to last (and the previous 3 before) is night and day.

Lillard and IT are both somewhat mercurial score-first point guards, they're both good players, but Lillard would be the best point guard in the East if he played there.

And this doesn't mean I don't love IT (although I love him less after the past 2 games), but Lillard had a tougher row to hoe. If IT and Lillard switched places, do you really think IT would do as much, as well with Portland as Lillard has? Because, I think Lillard would do a sight better in Boston.

I think you're bending the context here.

Lillard has same the situation now that IT had last year.

They both carried a ragtag group of castoffs into the playoffs.  So any plaudits that apply to one also apply to the other in this instance.

I hate this arguement, because I'm not trying to short-sell IT. Again, I love IT. I agree that they're similar, but I don't think they're the same. Lillard's team was decimated. You think comparing Thomas joining the crappy Eastern conference on a lotto bound team at the trade deadline (then going 20-11 I think) is the same as losing Aldridge (Best player, face of franchise, team leader), Matthews (3a best), Batum (3b best), and RoLo (5th best) players in the off-season in a better Western Conference is the same hill to climb? I think what Lillard did this year is probably on par with what IT did in 31 games last year, because what the C's did to finish the year last season was mind-boggling. What IT has done with an entire year of the C's is not.

The Western Conference is top-heavy, but not necessarily strong.  Nobody in that conference matters after the top four.  This isn't like the 2013-2014 season, where a 49-win team scraped in as the 8 seed.  The five-through-eight seeds are bowling pins bracing for impact. 

Disagree so hard. I think Denver, Utah, Portland, Dallas, Memphis, Houston, all have better win totals if you swap them with Boston's schedule. Hell with Portland, just look at the miles traveled.

Lillard is getting worked just like IT in the playoffs this year.  Shooting 21% from deep, 33% overall, assists are down, turnovers are up.  So in a similar vein to my first point, any criticism you give IT has to go to Lillard too. 

Yeah, but Lillard is getting worked by the Point God. IT is getting worked by Jeff Teague and Dennis Schroeder, neither of which would theoretically be in the same class as IT, or at least able to stop him.

All of that said, I do think Lillard would do better in Boston, though.  Stevens gets more out of his players on defense in terms of effort and also has the personnel to hide a poor defender, so I think he'd be an adequate defender here.  He's already a very good offensive player; that's not the issue.

This..yeah.

[Moranis]

This is silly homer nonsense.

By the numbers, they're pretty close.

Both are relied upon a great deal by their respective teams to make offense happen.

Lillard scored more with better shooting percentages.  Lillard gets more assists and a fair amount more rebounds.  Lillard isn't quite the defensive liability that Thomas is because Lillard is 6'3" (which is rather big for a PG).  VORP, BPM, etc. all favor Lillard. 

I firmly maintain this is homer nonsense.

Well, if you'll read what I originally posted, you basically just agreed with me.

So yeah.

I read what you wrote, you equated them in the near-term, giving Lillard the edge in the long-view. Moranis doesn't equate them in the near-term.

I think we can quibble over the meaning of "pretty close," but Moranis went through the same selection of stats that I did, concluding that Lillard has the edge in a handful of areas, so he gets the nod.

He did gloss over the areas in which Thomas is better, right now.

It's hard to argue that, by the numbers alone, they look very similar.  I agree that if you look beyond the numbers, it becomes easier to distinguish Lillard from IT.

Bottom line, I don't think Moranis really actually read what I wrote, he just saw "they're pretty close right now," and jumped straight to "HOMER!"

I'd say most people around here would hesitate to call me that, but I must say it's amusing to see it nonetheless.

I read everything you wrote and absolutely understand it.  IT is no where near the player Lillard is.  You can watch them and see that.  The fact that Lillard has better stats only hammers that point home (statistically they are close but that doesn't make them close as players).  Ish Smith averaged 15/7 in Philly, I don't think that makes him a better player than Jeff Teague who averaged 16/6 or Goran Dragic who averaged 14/6 (and was a worse shooter).  Context matters. 

[PhoSita]

I think the take is a homerish take. Lillard took a team with zero expectations after a devastating free agency, assumed the mantle of unquestioned leader in a vacuum in a more competitive conference and got to 44 wins and a playoff berth.

I don't disagree with this characterization, but I think you could easily make a case that Boston is a 30ish win team without Isaiah.  They'd be completely sunk on offense.


Look, I find this all a little silly because all of us seem to agree that Lillard is better.  In terms of stats, it's surprising to see that Thomas is actually relatively close to Lillard.  But if you go beyond the stats, Lillard comes out ahead. 

I just don't agree with the sentiment, "No contest, Lillard is SO much better than IT," which is how I read Moranis's posts here.

As for defense, I'm going to disagree that the stats do Lillard an injustice by rating him worse.  Lillard still has a ways to go defensively.  Thomas has inherent limitations that will always prevent him from being a plus defender, but I think his effort and focus are better than Lillard, and given the way the Celtics team defense works (i.e. everybody has to be locked in), I think it's fair to give Isaiah credit for the fact that his team is far better defensively.  It's not like he's got amazing shot-blockers prowling the paint behind him.


We can argue about how Lillard would perform if he happened to be on Boston, but I don't know how we can ever really "prove" that.  Probably he'd be even better than he is now if he were on the Celts.

On the other hand, the Blazers are a pretty well coached squad, and have more shooting.

Anyway, I'm focusing on present results, here.  I think it's really impressive and surprising that Isaiah has been able to thrive in Boston to the degree we've seen. 

That there is even a discussion to be had here, even though I think reasonable minds will ultimately agree Lillard is the better, more dangerous player with higher long term value and upside, is remarkable to me.

[jambr380]

I read everything you wrote and absolutely understand it.  IT is no where near the player Lillard is.  You can watch them and see that.  The fact that Lillard has better stats only hammers that point home (statistically they are close but that doesn't make them close as players).  Ish Smith averaged 15/7 in Philly, I don't think that makes him a better player than Jeff Teague who averaged 16/6 or Goran Dragic who averaged 14/6 (and was a worse shooter).  Context matters.

Obviously Ish Smith is on a MUCH worse team with a higher usage rate. There have been plenty of players on crappy teams who put up stats. If your team is performing extremely well and you put up similar stats, you are likely a more effective/efficient player than the former. IT and Lillard are on teams of similar quality.

I will stand by the assertion that Lillard is currently only slightly better than IT and we should all be ecstatic that IT is ours on such a great deal.

[Celtics4ever]

Lillard and it is not close.  Perhaps OP needs some glasses?

[Rondo9]

The stats are very similar. I don't think it's a stretch to say that they are almost similar players.