Fact or Fiction: Isaiah Thomas is now an NBA Superstar

[CelticSooner]

No

[PhoSita]

I see Al Horford as the best player on the Celtics.

I really like Al's game, but this opinion is way out there.

[PhoSita]

For what it's worth --

About halfway through his seventh season, Isaiah has played 400 career games.

He's scored 7226 points.

He's tallied 2042 assists.

He's attempted 2078 free throws.

He's nailed 719 three pointers.


You wanna see the list of guys who have reached those marks through their first seven seasons?

Lebron James
Ray Allen
James Harden
Tim Hardaway
Gilbert Arenas
Antoine Walker


Now, if Isaiah manages to play 14 seasons and is able to double the production of his first six and a half seasons, he would join two other players who have managed to get to 14,000 points, 4,000 assists, 4,000 free throw attempts, and 1400 three pointers through 14 seasons:

LeBron James
Chauncey Billups

[max215]

My definitions of star and superstar are pretty simple (though not always 100% rigid):

Star- he'd be on my All-Star team
Superstar- I'd have him on All-NBA

At this moment, Isaiah Thomas would be on my 2nd Team All-NBA.

Side Note: if you believe that pre-D'Antoni Harden was a superstar (he was), I'd like to see the argument that IT isn't.

[vjcsmoke]

People have different definitions of Superstar.  Some think it's anyone who makes an all-star team.  Some think it's anyone who makes an All-NBA 1st team.  Some think it's anyone who wins MVP.  I'd say all three are wrong.  I never considered Rose or Nash "superstars" for instance despite them winning MVP awards.  SUperstars are the transcendent players that rarely come around.  Wilt.  Kareem.  Magic.  Bird.  Jordan.  Hakeem.  Shaq.  Duncan.  LeBron.  Embiid.  Simmons.  It's a short list.

LOL, you killed your own credibility when you called Embiid and Simmons superstars.

[RAAAAAAAANDY]

Top 20-30?

I would argue top 10.  top 15 at worst.

Can you really name 10 other players you'd rather have the ball in their hands for the Celtics when we need points scored and the win?

Isaiah has become an elite NBA scorer.  The comparisons to Iverson are not amiss imo.

I mean I'd rather have the ball in IT's hands if I need a bucket than Kawhi Leonard... But Leonard is pretty clearly the better player. That's a pretty limited definition.

I think he's on the fringe of the top 20, which makes him a star but not a superstar. He can't be your best overall player for a title team but I think he could be your best offensive option on a title team.

[nickagneta]

I said no for a couple of different reasons.

1. To be a superstar people have to know you. I just feel the average person thinks Isaiah Thomas is Isiah Thomas. They are clueless as to who our IT is. The average sports fan has to know who you are. If the average sports fan sees you in a commercial and then says "Who is that?". If that happens, you arent a superstar. If the average NBA fan isnt convinced you are a superstar, you arent.

2. Superstars have to have done something in the playoffs. They have to have produced and suceeded when it most matters. IT hasn't done that.

3. Superstars have to have been at a superstar level more than one year. IT may be putting up superstar numbers now, but one year does not a superstar make.

[Ogaju]

I voted yes for the sake of the Celtics because you need a superstar to be successful in this league.

To me a superstar is a player that a multitude of fans will pay money to see play, or hang around to perform heroics.

IT fits the bill on both counts. Back up the brinks truck.

[vjcsmoke]

I disagree that a Superstar has to be an elite defender as well.

Who will dispute that Dirk Nowitzki in his prime was not a superstar?  He was never more than league average defensively.

Yet even in his prime he has never put up as many points per game as Isaiah is currently scoring.

Was Dirk good enough to win a championship by himself?  No, he needed help.  And he put it altogether when Tyson Chandler arrived and the Mavs won the title.

Just because you don't win the whole thing all by yourself doesn't make you not a superstar.

How many championships did KG, Ray Allen, and Paul Pierce win before joining together? Exactly 0.

How many did Lebron win before joining with Wayde and Bosh?  0.

IT is special.  I can see why there are doubters. But he's done so much.  I feel like he has proven himself and will prove himself again in the playoffs.  Hopefully we can get that 3rd piece. I feel like we are on the cusp of building a contender and IT is a key piece of that jigsaw.

Offensively sure, but IT is not a very good defender.  Both the eye test and advanced metrics tell you this.  And five years of this level on offense without defensive improvement won't make him a superstar.  It is IT's defense that will always keep him from the superstar level.

[Celtics18]

I said no for a couple of different reasons.

1. To be a superstar people have to know you. I just feel the average person thinks Isaiah Thomas is Isiah Thomas. They are clueless as to who our IT is. The average sports fan has to know who you are. If the average sports fan sees you in a commercial and then says "Who is that?". If that happens, you arent a superstar. If the average NBA fan isnt convinced you are a superstar, you arent.

2. Superstars have to have done something in the playoffs. They have to have produced and suceeded when it most matters. IT hasn't done that.

3. Superstars have to have been at a superstar level more than one year. IT may be putting up superstar numbers now, but one year does not a superstar make.

I like your criteria.  Isaiah is on his way.  Hopefully, he can start to cement his status this post-season.

[Smokeeye123]

No but after watching him in person I think he has moved from a #3 on a championship team to a number #2. He has it, whatever it is.

 I definitely hope the Celtics sign him to a max in 2 years. And this is coming from someone who 3 months ago wanted him out the door for someone good.

[LarBrd33]

I see Al Horford as the best player on the Celtics.

I really like Al's game, but this opinion is way out there.

Not really.  There's a reason why Thomas is averaging 28ppg while Bradley and Crowder are shooting career high percentages.   It's because we added Al horford - the player who previously was the best player on a 60 win Atlanta team.   He's the best player on the Celtics and makes the game easier for his teammates.  He's also been the best defender on the team while Thomas has been the worst.

Now, obviously Thomas is very popular and fun to watch.  He's a really good scorer.  He's having an all-star season.  He's got an impressive 4th quarter scoring streak going.  But he's not the best player on the Celtics and he's not a superstar.

[LarBrd33]

I see Al Horford as the best player on the Celtics.

I think it's close.  That's no knock on Isaiah, but more a comment on how I feel about Al as a player.

It's not far fetched to have Horford in the current top twenty among NBA players.

Reminds me of when people thought Rondo was the best player on the Celtics even though old man KG was still clearly the most valuable player.  Horford's contributions this season are underrated.  Pretty much everyone is shooting career high percentages since he arrived.

Not biting.   Nice effort, though.

Not biting what?  It's true.  Even late in his Celtic tenure, KG was still by far the best player on the Celtics.  Rondo got the flashy assists, but KG was the engine that wins were based on.   When Rondo went down with his injury, the team's offense actually improved and they climbed above .500 and made the playoffs without him.  When KG left, we sunk to a bottom 3 record. 

These were "controversial" opinions here until people saw the exact same pattern happen with Rondo on three teams since.   He was never the best player here.  Not even close.   

And while Thomas is scoring like a genuine all-star this season, the ignoring of Horford's two-way impact in favor of the flashy popular stat guy is similar to the misguided belief Rondo was better than KG. 

Horford and Thomas are both all-stars.  Horford isn't as good as old man KG.  But he's the best player on the Celtics.

This isn't an outlandish opinion, fellas.  Literally 11 hours ago ESPN posted this video making the same argument:  http://www.espn.com/video/clip?id=18458148

[wayupnorth]

I'm with Mark Cuban in that I don't consider Russell Westbrook a superstar.  So I sure as hell don't consider Thomas one.

People have different definitions of Superstar.  Some think it's anyone who makes an all-star team.  Some think it's anyone who makes an All-NBA 1st team.  Some think it's anyone who wins MVP.  I'd say all three are wrong.  I never considered Rose or Nash "superstars" for instance despite them winning MVP awards.  SUperstars are the transcendent players that rarely come around.  Wilt.  Kareem.  Magic.  Bird.  Jordan.  Hakeem.  Shaq.  Duncan.  LeBron.  Embiid.  Simmons.  It's a short list.

This post is made explicitly to get a rise out of certain posters on this board.

I wish there was a word for that sort of thing.

[LarBrd33]

I'm with Mark Cuban in that I don't consider Russell Westbrook a superstar.  So I sure as hell don't consider Thomas one.

People have different definitions of Superstar.  Some think it's anyone who makes an all-star team.  Some think it's anyone who makes an All-NBA 1st team.  Some think it's anyone who wins MVP.  I'd say all three are wrong.  I never considered Rose or Nash "superstars" for instance despite them winning MVP awards.  SUperstars are the transcendent players that rarely come around.  Wilt.  Kareem.  Magic.  Bird.  Jordan.  Hakeem.  Shaq.  Duncan.  LeBron.  Embiid.  Simmons.  It's a short list.

This post is made explicitly to get a rise out of certain posters on this board.

I wish there was a word for that sort of thing.

Humor?