Fact or Fiction: Isaiah Thomas is now an NBA Superstar

[wayupnorth]

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.

At least 50% of his posts are strictly to try and get a reaction out of other posters, because he knows it works.

[LarBrd33]

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.

At least 50% of his posts are strictly to try and get a reaction out of other posters, because he knows it works.

At least 100% of everyone's posts here are strictly to try and get a reaction out of other posters... otherwise we'd all just be writing in private diaries. 

[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.

Humor?

Not quite.

[BDeCosta26]

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

You coulda made a fairly reasonable argument for that before the season. But now? No way. IT is reaching the All-NBA level, superstar echelon now. A legit argument can be made for Thomas as a top 20 player. You couldn't reasonably do the same with Horford.

1)IT
2A)Horford
2B) Avery Bradley

I mean, Horford is still top 5 on the team in offensive rating and #1 on the team in defensive rating.  Thomas is last on the team in defensive rating. 

I think he's scoring really well.  Horford is a better basketball player.  And since HOrford isn't a superstar and he's better than Thomas, I see no rational argument for Thomas being a superstar.

Defensive metrics are pretty flawed. Though Thomas is probably one of our lesser defenders it's not like he's Harden or Lillard out there. He doesn't blow assignments very often, he hustles and gives good effort on that end, doesn't gamble in the passing lanes too often. He's a solid below average (as opposed to terrible) defender. While Al is an above average defender, and a good offensive player, Thomas is an ELITE level player on offense.

And as you've mentioned before LB, being a top level offensive player is more important than being a top level defensive one, no? I believe you've mentioned that before while discussing a particular 3rd year Celtics guard

[wayupnorth]

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.

At least 50% of his posts are strictly to try and get a reaction out of other posters, because he knows it works.

At least 100% of everyone's posts here are strictly to try and get a reaction out of other posters... otherwise we'd all just be writing in private diaries.

You are very aware of what I mean.

You find that funny, yet you know that is a statement that will cause people to react, because based on your posts, you quite possibly believe what you posted to be true.

I am not going to derail this thread any more than I have, but you gig is played out, obviouso, and far beyond old.

Especially when you could be one of the most eloquent posters on the boards, while providing an interesting insight.

[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?

Not quite.

I was referencing Mark Cuban who defines a superstar as a player who could lead a mediocre roster to 50 wins and win a playoff series.  He used Dirk Nowitzki as his example: "but Dirk for 15 years won 50 games no matter what. We put Moe, Larry and Curly next to him and we won 50 games. Russ is certainly an All-Star, but I consider Durant a superstar."

Others have pointed out that this might disqualify players like Jordan (who never had a winning record without Pippen in 4 attempts) and Bird (who always played next to at least two other hall-of-famers), but I'm not going to apologize for adding them to my list. 

To Cuban's point, Westbrook might end up actually winning 50+ games this season and leading a team to a playoff win.  At that point, maybe you re-evaluate if he's a superstar.  But right now, neither Cuban or I consider Westbrook a superstar.  And obviously if Westbrook isn't a superstar, neither is Thomas.

[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.

Humor?

Not quite.

I was referencing Mark Cuban who defines a superstar as a player who could lead a mediocre roster to 50 wins and win a playoff series.  He used Dirk Nowitzki as his example: "but Dirk for 15 years won 50 games no matter what. We put Moe, Larry and Curly next to him and we won 50 games. Russ is certainly an All-Star, but I consider Durant a superstar."

Others have pointed out that this might disqualify players like Jordan (who never had a winning record without Pippen in 4 attempts) and Bird (who always played next to at least two other hall-of-famers), but I'm not going to apologize for adding them to my list. 

To Cuban's point, Westbrook might end up actually winning 50+ games this season and leading a team to a playoff win.  At that point, maybe you re-evaluate if he's a superstar.  But right now, neither Cuban or I consider Westbrook a superstar.  And obviously if Westbrook isn't a superstar, neither is Thomas.

I am not saying I disagree with your superstar assessment, and even if I did, you have a fair viewpoint.

I even think you have a great point about how Al opened things up for everyone else, and while I think IT has been our best player, AL isn't far behind at all.

It is just that you know the sort of reaction you will get by adding Embiid and Simmons to the list while saying Thomas clearly isn't.

[LarBrd33]

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

You coulda made a fairly reasonable argument for that before the season. But now? No way. IT is reaching the All-NBA level, superstar echelon now. A legit argument can be made for Thomas as a top 20 player. You couldn't reasonably do the same with Horford.

1)IT
2A)Horford
2B) Avery Bradley

I mean, Horford is still top 5 on the team in offensive rating and #1 on the team in defensive rating.  Thomas is last on the team in defensive rating. 

I think he's scoring really well.  Horford is a better basketball player.  And since HOrford isn't a superstar and he's better than Thomas, I see no rational argument for Thomas being a superstar.

Defensive metrics are pretty flawed. Though Thomas is probably one of our lesser defenders it's not like he's Harden or Lillard out there. He doesn't blow assignments very often, he hustles and gives good effort on that end, doesn't gamble in the passing lanes too often. He's a solid below average (as opposed to terrible) defender. While Al is an above average defender, and a good offensive player, Thomas is an ELITE level player on offense.

And as you've mentioned before LB, being a top level offensive player is more important than being a top level defensive one, no? I believe you've mentioned that before while discussing a particular 3rd year Celtics guard

Like I said, this is not some outlandish wild opinion.  There's obviously a recency bias reacting to Thomas and his big points.   I made posts about Horford when he was still on Atlanta reacting to the fact that in a very small sampling of games he missed, it looked like his team played at a 60 win pace with him and a 41 win pace without him.   He was the engine that lead that team to their best season.  NOw he's in Boston, and I see him as clearly our best player.   Just 11 hours ago ESPN posted this video making the case for Horford as the MVP of the Celtics:  http://www.espn.com/video/clip?id=18458148  ... I'm not alone in these beliefs.  Funny enough, in that video that actually use Thomas' eye-popping scoring numbers as evidence of Horford's impact... as opposed to using those scoring numbers as evidence of Thomas' impact. 

Ya'll can disagree with me like you disagreed with me when I said old man KG was the MVP of the team over Rondo, but it's a completely defensible opinion that isn't "way out there" as PhoSita suggested. 

Don't misconstrue my admiration for Horford as me "hating" on Thomas.  I love Thomas.  I love Horford.  They are both all-stars.  I see Horford as the better player. 

[jpotter33]

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

You coulda made a fairly reasonable argument for that before the season. But now? No way. IT is reaching the All-NBA level, superstar echelon now. A legit argument can be made for Thomas as a top 20 player. You couldn't reasonably do the same with Horford.

1)IT
2A)Horford
2B) Avery Bradley

I mean, Horford is still top 5 on the team in offensive rating and #1 on the team in defensive rating.  Thomas is last on the team in defensive rating. 

I think he's scoring really well.  Horford is a better basketball player.  And since HOrford isn't a superstar and he's better than Thomas, I see no rational argument for Thomas being a superstar.

Defensive metrics are pretty flawed. Though Thomas is probably one of our lesser defenders it's not like he's Harden or Lillard out there. He doesn't blow assignments very often, he hustles and gives good effort on that end, doesn't gamble in the passing lanes too often. He's a solid below average (as opposed to terrible) defender. While Al is an above average defender, and a good offensive player, Thomas is an ELITE level player on offense.

And as you've mentioned before LB, being a top level offensive player is more important than being a top level defensive one, no? I believe you've mentioned that before while discussing a particular 3rd year Celtics guard

I'm sorry, but this is very far from true. I agree that defensive statistics aren't the greatest measurements of defensive prowess by themselves and the eye test should count more, but virtually every single thing points to IT as a disastrous defender, both due to his size and just being a bad defender in himself. He's even considered the very worst defender in the league in several differing defensive metrics:

http://www.espn.com/nba/statistics/rpm/_/page/11/sort/DRPM

http://nbamath.com/tpa-database/nba-2016-17-tpa-scores/

I don't think you appreciate how bad he really is defensively. He's worse than Harden or Lillard, because they at least have the size to bother shots. He can't get around screens to save his life, regularly misses defensive rotations, regularly gets blown by on drives, and 99% of the league can either isolate him or post him up and shoot over him. He's a much worse defender than what you claim, even for all of his offensive mastery.

I like IT, but the Toronto game ultimately showed how limited he really is as our "franchise" player right now. In the playoffs, they can legitimately just make him switch defenders or iso him, and he simply can't do anything about it due to his diminutive size. It's actually surprising that other teams don't pick on him defensively more.

EDIT: And let me say that it's not due to a disinterest in playing defense either. He actually plays hard (or at least to me it seems like that) on that end, but it just seems like he's physically incapable of being effective or even average on that side of the ball.

[Ogaju]

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?

troll?

[saltlover]

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?

troll?

Yep, that's the word.

[mmmmm]

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

You coulda made a fairly reasonable argument for that before the season. But now? No way. IT is reaching the All-NBA level, superstar echelon now. A legit argument can be made for Thomas as a top 20 player. You couldn't reasonably do the same with Horford.

1)IT
2A)Horford
2B) Avery Bradley

I mean, Horford is still top 5 on the team in offensive rating and #1 on the team in defensive rating.  Thomas is last on the team in defensive rating. 

I think he's scoring really well.  Horford is a better basketball player.  And since HOrford isn't a superstar and he's better than Thomas, I see no rational argument for Thomas being a superstar.

Defensive metrics are pretty flawed. Though Thomas is probably one of our lesser defenders it's not like he's Harden or Lillard out there. He doesn't blow assignments very often, he hustles and gives good effort on that end, doesn't gamble in the passing lanes too often. He's a solid below average (as opposed to terrible) defender. While Al is an above average defender, and a good offensive player, Thomas is an ELITE level player on offense.

And as you've mentioned before LB, being a top level offensive player is more important than being a top level defensive one, no? I believe you've mentioned that before while discussing a particular 3rd year Celtics guard

I'm sorry, but this is very far from true. I agree that defensive statistics aren't the greatest measurements of defensive prowess by themselves and the eye test should count more, but virtually every single thing points to IT as a disastrous defender, both due to his size and just being a bad defender in himself. He's even considered the very worst defender in the league in several differing defensive metrics:

http://www.espn.com/nba/statistics/rpm/_/page/11/sort/DRPM

http://nbamath.com/tpa-database/nba-2016-17-tpa-scores/

DRPM -- and RPM in general -- is a crappy stat even with a season worth of data.  It is even more of a crappy stat with only half a season of data.

Look just a little higher on the DRPM list that has Isaiah at the bottom (#437).  You'll find Avery Bradley at #405.

RPM is an the worst kind of abomination for advanced stats because it is hyped up to be credible when it is not.  It has error bars that make it's rankings absurd.  Collinearity problems permeate the data sets.   Even with a full season of data, there is no statistical significance to the ranking of one player 200 slots from another.

RPM is basically the Gilderoy Lockhart of advanced stats.


Sorry - those three letters trigger one of my pocket rants.

[fantankerous]

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?

troll?

Yep, that's the word.

LarBrd33 is my MVP (most valuable poster). Even when I disagree with him (e.g. Noel and Okafor). 

[saltlover]

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

You coulda made a fairly reasonable argument for that before the season. But now? No way. IT is reaching the All-NBA level, superstar echelon now. A legit argument can be made for Thomas as a top 20 player. You couldn't reasonably do the same with Horford.

1)IT
2A)Horford
2B) Avery Bradley

I mean, Horford is still top 5 on the team in offensive rating and #1 on the team in defensive rating.  Thomas is last on the team in defensive rating. 

I think he's scoring really well.  Horford is a better basketball player.  And since HOrford isn't a superstar and he's better than Thomas, I see no rational argument for Thomas being a superstar.

Defensive metrics are pretty flawed. Though Thomas is probably one of our lesser defenders it's not like he's Harden or Lillard out there. He doesn't blow assignments very often, he hustles and gives good effort on that end, doesn't gamble in the passing lanes too often. He's a solid below average (as opposed to terrible) defender. While Al is an above average defender, and a good offensive player, Thomas is an ELITE level player on offense.

And as you've mentioned before LB, being a top level offensive player is more important than being a top level defensive one, no? I believe you've mentioned that before while discussing a particular 3rd year Celtics guard

I'm sorry, but this is very far from true. I agree that defensive statistics aren't the greatest measurements of defensive prowess by themselves and the eye test should count more, but virtually every single thing points to IT as a disastrous defender, both due to his size and just being a bad defender in himself. He's even considered the very worst defender in the league in several differing defensive metrics:

http://www.espn.com/nba/statistics/rpm/_/page/11/sort/DRPM

http://nbamath.com/tpa-database/nba-2016-17-tpa-scores/

DRPM -- and RPM in general -- is a crappy stat even with a season worth of data.  It is even more of a crappy stat with only half a season of data.

Look just a little higher on the DRPM list that has Isaiah at the bottom (#437).  You'll find Avery Bradley at #405.

RPM is an the worst kind of abomination for advanced stats because it is hyped up to be credible when it is not.  It has error bars that make it's rankings absurd.  Collinearity problems permeate the data sets.   Even with a full season of data, there is no statistical significance to the ranking of one player 200 slots from another.

RPM is basically the Gilderoy Lockhart of advanced stats.


Sorry - those three letters trigger one of my pocket rants.

Was posting something similar, but I closed out the window and you've beaten me to it, and in far wittier fashion.  I'll also note that the TPA defensive component is really just DBPM, which has its own issues, by a different name.  I like how it has Tony Allen and James Harden as nearly equivalent.

But anyway, even if you want to TPA to be your uber-stat gospel (and you shouldn't), it ranks IT 18th overall despite being the worst defender by a large margin.

[fantankerous]

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

You coulda made a fairly reasonable argument for that before the season. But now? No way. IT is reaching the All-NBA level, superstar echelon now. A legit argument can be made for Thomas as a top 20 player. You couldn't reasonably do the same with Horford.

1)IT
2A)Horford
2B) Avery Bradley

I mean, Horford is still top 5 on the team in offensive rating and #1 on the team in defensive rating.  Thomas is last on the team in defensive rating. 

I think he's scoring really well.  Horford is a better basketball player.  And since HOrford isn't a superstar and he's better than Thomas, I see no rational argument for Thomas being a superstar.

Defensive metrics are pretty flawed. Though Thomas is probably one of our lesser defenders it's not like he's Harden or Lillard out there. He doesn't blow assignments very often, he hustles and gives good effort on that end, doesn't gamble in the passing lanes too often. He's a solid below average (as opposed to terrible) defender. While Al is an above average defender, and a good offensive player, Thomas is an ELITE level player on offense.

And as you've mentioned before LB, being a top level offensive player is more important than being a top level defensive one, no? I believe you've mentioned that before while discussing a particular 3rd year Celtics guard

I'm sorry, but this is very far from true. I agree that defensive statistics aren't the greatest measurements of defensive prowess by themselves and the eye test should count more, but virtually every single thing points to IT as a disastrous defender, both due to his size and just being a bad defender in himself. He's even considered the very worst defender in the league in several differing defensive metrics:

http://www.espn.com/nba/statistics/rpm/_/page/11/sort/DRPM

http://nbamath.com/tpa-database/nba-2016-17-tpa-scores/

DRPM -- and RPM in general -- is a crappy stat even with a season worth of data.  It is even more of a crappy stat with only half a season of data.

Look just a little higher on the DRPM list that has Isaiah at the bottom (#437).  You'll find Avery Bradley at #405.

RPM is an the worst kind of abomination for advanced stats because it is hyped up to be credible when it is not.  It has error bars that make it's rankings absurd.  Collinearity problems permeate the data sets.   Even with a full season of data, there is no statistical significance to the ranking of one player 200 slots from another.

RPM is basically the Gilderoy Lockhart of advanced stats.


Sorry - those three letters trigger one of my pocket rants.

To.  Stay away from espn metrics (rpm or Per).  They are designed to drum up interest, not to increase our knowledge about the sport.