Fact or Fiction: Isaiah Thomas is now an NBA Superstar

[celticsclay]

Thomas is playing at a superstar level for most of this season.  If he can keep this up for say 5 seasons, then he would be considered a superstar.  Teams adjust, it gets harder, superstars are able to adjust, we shall see if IT can.

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.

Can you name a player in the modern era (the last 20-25 years) that averaged 28 points and 6 assists with decent shooting that was not considered a superstar? It is possible there are people that fit this, but nobody comes to mind. I kind of doubt IT can do that, but if he does average 28 points per more on good shooting for 5 years it would not be possible to act like he wasn't a superstar.

Guys who put up generally those numbers for multiple seasons (not 5 years, but Thomas hasn't done that either).  Most aren't PG's so they don't have the assists but they do have more rebounds.  Alex English, Adrian Dantley, World B. Free, Jerry Stackhouse, Gilbert Arenas, Bernard King, Kik Vandeweghe.  Then you had guys that did it for a season like Tom Chambers, Mark Aguirre, Dale Ellis.  That of course doesn't account for pace, so if there were seasons where there were a lot less points scored, a guy with 26 ppg, might actually be equivalent to Thomas' 28 ppg of today (like Mitch Richmond, Glen Rice, etc.).  I'm not doing the math to figure that one out.

Of course those guys all have the defense problem that Thomas has, which is why they weren't considered superstars (though someone like Arenas was arguably a superstar during his prime).

Hey Moranis let's try this again since you did your standard tactic of confusingthe argument with unrelated stuff (did you take a class on how to do this in every conversation).

Lets slow it down again you commented "five years of this level on offense without defensive improvement won't make him a superstar. "

I asked you to name any player in the modern era that had this kind of performance last 20-25 years.

You named
1) Alex English: In hall of fame. Most consider the hall of fame being a superstar (not to mentioned he retired 25 years ago)
2) Adrian Dantley: In Hall of fame (not to mention retired 25 years ago
3) World B Free: Both retired more than 25 years ago, only averaged 28 points in two seasons. Does not come close to meeting criteria that was required. Lazy bs inclusion designed to muddle the point
4) Jerry Stackhouse averaged 28 more than once his entire career. Again does not come close toi meeting what we were discussing. Lazy bs inclusion to muddle the point.
5) Gilbert Arenas only averaged 28 twice entire career and also had career cut short by a combination of injuries and character issues (including a lengthy suspension for having a gun in the locker room). Lazy bs inclusion to muddle the point
6) Bernard King - In the hall of fame, but only averaged over 28 points once his career. Many do feel he could have been an all-time great without that injury.
7) Kiki Vand - Only averaged 28 points once per game in his career does not meet criteria. More lazyiness intended to muddle the point.

You then throw out a bunch more irrelevant stuff naming guys that do not meet the criteria.

So in summary you named 13 players. Almost none of the players you suggested actually met the criteria for what I asked.  The few that did come closest are in the hall of fame.

I can't stress how annoying it is to have you repeatedly do this kind of stuff and just constantly muddle discussions with irrelevant information to a pretty clear and fair question.

It's like being in my office and asking someone if they saw a red stapler recently and they come back mentioning they saw a blue hole puncher two weeks ago and a grey stapler 3 years ago in the old office. Please just stop doing this already.

To anyone else that wants to try and answer the question that Vermont Green asked, has there ever been a player that averaged IT's current offensive stats for 5 years in the modern era that was not considered a superstar?

Well, "superstar" is a fairly unclear designation.  LarBrd gave a description, which I actually kind of agree with, of a superstar as one of the rare, transcendent all time greats.  If that's the case, then getting into the Hall of Fame doesn't automatically imply superstardom.

If we are using the most stringent standards for admission to the club, then there have been a number of players to average @ 28PPG for five seasons (or more) who aren't "superstars."

I realize this is getting very semantic here.

I get that part of it. I think that part is fair. People are going to have a different definition of superstar. However, even so it would be interesting to see how many guys did average 28 points or more 5 years in a row and were not considered a superstar.

 I imagine it is a pretty short list.

What I do object to is someone muddling the argument by naming a player like Stackhouse when he averaged 28 points or more once his entire career (on 40% for a horrid team no less).

I object to Stackhouse too.  People will want to kill me for this, but the best I got is probably George Gervin.

Even with the most exclusive Super Star list, I would personally want to add the "Ice Man."  He's a favorite of mine, but I could see leaving him off.

If we are not considering George Gervin  superstar I will just bow out of the conversation. He played in 9 straight all star games, was all-star mvp, second in mvp twice, 7 time all-nba, 50 greatest player of all time list etc...

[LarBrd33]

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

[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

[Neurotic Guy]

Fiction.

I think he's on his way, but he needs to carry a team through a post-season series, when the opppsing team tries to shut him down but can't, before he's arrived.

I expect that to happen in April and May, but until then, not quite. Now he's a star, but superstar requires more.

I agree with the first part of this 100%.   I am still dubious that he can up his game further than what we are seeing.  He is an incredible talent and is absolutely a star, but I agree with the way you define superstar and he is not there yet, and I have doubts that he can get there.

[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.

[green_bballers13]

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

I think they're equal. IT is a top 10 scorer and his D might be bottom 10. Horford is pretty good at offense and pretty good at defense (7/10, in my opinion).

If winning basketball games is necessary for being a superstar, then a lot of the young guys in the league (AD, KAT, etc) haven't proven it yet.

If being exceptional on both offense and defense is needed for your definition, then IT is def not one. Neither are a lot of the all stars.

If scoring points is necessary (the Carmelo Anthony approach), then he's def a superstar.

[green_bballers13]

I just read an article on this topic on espn insider, I think.  The conclusion was that Thomas and Kyrie Irving are stars who are a notch below superstars Curry, Westbrook, and Paul because their defense is so bad.  The Cavs are literally no better with Irving on the court than they are with him on the bench or on the injured list.

You could have a mountain of advanced statistical evidence to prove this.
Kyrie Irving himself could tell me that he is replacement level or below.

There's no chance that this is right. 0.00%

[Celtics18]

Thomas is playing at a superstar level for most of this season.  If he can keep this up for say 5 seasons, then he would be considered a superstar.  Teams adjust, it gets harder, superstars are able to adjust, we shall see if IT can.

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.

Can you name a player in the modern era (the last 20-25 years) that averaged 28 points and 6 assists with decent shooting that was not considered a superstar? It is possible there are people that fit this, but nobody comes to mind. I kind of doubt IT can do that, but if he does average 28 points per more on good shooting for 5 years it would not be possible to act like he wasn't a superstar.

Guys who put up generally those numbers for multiple seasons (not 5 years, but Thomas hasn't done that either).  Most aren't PG's so they don't have the assists but they do have more rebounds.  Alex English, Adrian Dantley, World B. Free, Jerry Stackhouse, Gilbert Arenas, Bernard King, Kik Vandeweghe.  Then you had guys that did it for a season like Tom Chambers, Mark Aguirre, Dale Ellis.  That of course doesn't account for pace, so if there were seasons where there were a lot less points scored, a guy with 26 ppg, might actually be equivalent to Thomas' 28 ppg of today (like Mitch Richmond, Glen Rice, etc.).  I'm not doing the math to figure that one out.

Of course those guys all have the defense problem that Thomas has, which is why they weren't considered superstars (though someone like Arenas was arguably a superstar during his prime).

Hey Moranis let's try this again since you did your standard tactic of confusingthe argument with unrelated stuff (did you take a class on how to do this in every conversation).

Lets slow it down again you commented "five years of this level on offense without defensive improvement won't make him a superstar. "

I asked you to name any player in the modern era that had this kind of performance last 20-25 years.

You named
1) Alex English: In hall of fame. Most consider the hall of fame being a superstar (not to mentioned he retired 25 years ago)
2) Adrian Dantley: In Hall of fame (not to mention retired 25 years ago
3) World B Free: Both retired more than 25 years ago, only averaged 28 points in two seasons. Does not come close to meeting criteria that was required. Lazy bs inclusion designed to muddle the point
4) Jerry Stackhouse averaged 28 more than once his entire career. Again does not come close toi meeting what we were discussing. Lazy bs inclusion to muddle the point.
5) Gilbert Arenas only averaged 28 twice entire career and also had career cut short by a combination of injuries and character issues (including a lengthy suspension for having a gun in the locker room). Lazy bs inclusion to muddle the point
6) Bernard King - In the hall of fame, but only averaged over 28 points once his career. Many do feel he could have been an all-time great without that injury.
7) Kiki Vand - Only averaged 28 points once per game in his career does not meet criteria. More lazyiness intended to muddle the point.

You then throw out a bunch more irrelevant stuff naming guys that do not meet the criteria.

So in summary you named 13 players. Almost none of the players you suggested actually met the criteria for what I asked.  The few that did come closest are in the hall of fame.

I can't stress how annoying it is to have you repeatedly do this kind of stuff and just constantly muddle discussions with irrelevant information to a pretty clear and fair question.

It's like being in my office and asking someone if they saw a red stapler recently and they come back mentioning they saw a blue hole puncher two weeks ago and a grey stapler 3 years ago in the old office. Please just stop doing this already.

To anyone else that wants to try and answer the question that Vermont Green asked, has there ever been a player that averaged IT's current offensive stats for 5 years in the modern era that was not considered a superstar?

Well, "superstar" is a fairly unclear designation.  LarBrd gave a description, which I actually kind of agree with, of a superstar as one of the rare, transcendent all time greats.  If that's the case, then getting into the Hall of Fame doesn't automatically imply superstardom.

If we are using the most stringent standards for admission to the club, then there have been a number of players to average @ 28PPG for five seasons (or more) who aren't "superstars."

I realize this is getting very semantic here.

I get that part of it. I think that part is fair. People are going to have a different definition of superstar. However, even so it would be interesting to see how many guys did average 28 points or more 5 years in a row and were not considered a superstar.

 I imagine it is a pretty short list.

What I do object to is someone muddling the argument by naming a player like Stackhouse when he averaged 28 points or more once his entire career (on 40% for a horrid team no less).

I object to Stackhouse too.  People will want to kill me for this, but the best I got is probably George Gervin.

Even with the most exclusive Super Star list, I would personally want to add the "Ice Man."  He's a favorite of mine, but I could see leaving him off.

If we are not considering George Gervin  superstar I will just bow out of the conversation. He played in 9 straight all star games, was all-star mvp, second in mvp twice, 7 time all-nba, 50 greatest player of all time list etc...

You are willing to consider 'Nique as not a superstar, but Ice Man is going too far? 

Unfortunately for him, Gervin was hurt by a lack of team success.  Those Spurs teams were good, but they never got to the Finals.

[Celtics18]

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.

[Ilikesports17]

Thomas is playing at a superstar level for most of this season.  If he can keep this up for say 5 seasons, then he would be considered a superstar.  Teams adjust, it gets harder, superstars are able to adjust, we shall see if IT can.

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.

Can you name a player in the modern era (the last 20-25 years) that averaged 28 points and 6 assists with decent shooting that was not considered a superstar? It is possible there are people that fit this, but nobody comes to mind. I kind of doubt IT can do that, but if he does average 28 points per more on good shooting for 5 years it would not be possible to act like he wasn't a superstar.

Guys who put up generally those numbers for multiple seasons (not 5 years, but Thomas hasn't done that either).  Most aren't PG's so they don't have the assists but they do have more rebounds.  Alex English, Adrian Dantley, World B. Free, Jerry Stackhouse, Gilbert Arenas, Bernard King, Kik Vandeweghe.  Then you had guys that did it for a season like Tom Chambers, Mark Aguirre, Dale Ellis.  That of course doesn't account for pace, so if there were seasons where there were a lot less points scored, a guy with 26 ppg, might actually be equivalent to Thomas' 28 ppg of today (like Mitch Richmond, Glen Rice, etc.).  I'm not doing the math to figure that one out.

Of course those guys all have the defense problem that Thomas has, which is why they weren't considered superstars (though someone like Arenas was arguably a superstar during his prime).

Hey Moranis let's try this again since you did your standard tactic of confusingthe argument with unrelated stuff (did you take a class on how to do this in every conversation).

Lets slow it down again you commented "five years of this level on offense without defensive improvement won't make him a superstar. "

I asked you to name any player in the modern era that had this kind of performance last 20-25 years.

You named
1) Alex English: In hall of fame. Most consider the hall of fame being a superstar (not to mentioned he retired 25 years ago)
2) Adrian Dantley: In Hall of fame (not to mention retired 25 years ago
3) World B Free: Both retired more than 25 years ago, only averaged 28 points in two seasons. Does not come close to meeting criteria that was required. Lazy bs inclusion designed to muddle the point
4) Jerry Stackhouse averaged 28 more than once his entire career. Again does not come close toi meeting what we were discussing. Lazy bs inclusion to muddle the point.
5) Gilbert Arenas only averaged 28 twice entire career and also had career cut short by a combination of injuries and character issues (including a lengthy suspension for having a gun in the locker room). Lazy bs inclusion to muddle the point
6) Bernard King - In the hall of fame, but only averaged over 28 points once his career. Many do feel he could have been an all-time great without that injury.
7) Kiki Vand - Only averaged 28 points once per game in his career does not meet criteria. More lazyiness intended to muddle the point.

You then throw out a bunch more irrelevant stuff naming guys that do not meet the criteria.

So in summary you named 13 players. Almost none of the players you suggested actually met the criteria for what I asked.  The few that did come closest are in the hall of fame.

I can't stress how annoying it is to have you repeatedly do this kind of stuff and just constantly muddle discussions with irrelevant information to a pretty clear and fair question.

It's like being in my office and asking someone if they saw a red stapler recently and they come back mentioning they saw a blue hole puncher two weeks ago and a grey stapler 3 years ago in the old office. Please just stop doing this already.

To anyone else that wants to try and answer the question that Vermont Green asked, has there ever been a player that averaged IT's current offensive stats for 5 years in the modern era that was not considered a superstar?

Well, "superstar" is a fairly unclear designation.  LarBrd gave a description, which I actually kind of agree with, of a superstar as one of the rare, transcendent all time greats.  If that's the case, then getting into the Hall of Fame doesn't automatically imply superstardom.

If we are using the most stringent standards for admission to the club, then there have been a number of players to average @ 28PPG for five seasons (or more) who aren't "superstars."

I realize this is getting very semantic here.

I get that part of it. I think that part is fair. People are going to have a different definition of superstar. However, even so it would be interesting to see how many guys did average 28 points or more 5 years in a row and were not considered a superstar.

 I imagine it is a pretty short list.

What I do object to is someone muddling the argument by naming a player like Stackhouse when he averaged 28 points or more once his entire career (on 40% for a horrid team no less).

I object to Stackhouse too.  People will want to kill me for this, but the best I got is probably George Gervin.

Even with the most exclusive Super Star list, I would personally want to add the "Ice Man."  He's a favorite of mine, but I could see leaving him off.

If we are not considering George Gervin  superstar I will just bow out of the conversation. He played in 9 straight all star games, was all-star mvp, second in mvp twice, 7 time all-nba, 50 greatest player of all time list etc...

You are willing to consider 'Nique as not a superstar, but Ice Man is going too far? 

Unfortunately for him, Gervin was hurt by a lack of team success.  Those Spurs teams were good, but they never got to the Finals.

All Stars: Gervin 9, Nique 9
All-NBA 1st team: Gervin 5, Nique 1
All-NBA 2nd team: Gervin 2, Nique 4
Scoring Champ:Gervin 4, Nique 1
numbers: Gervin 25/5/3 Nique 25/7/3

I can see why one would prefer Gervin.

[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.

[celticsclay]

Thomas is playing at a superstar level for most of this season.  If he can keep this up for say 5 seasons, then he would be considered a superstar.  Teams adjust, it gets harder, superstars are able to adjust, we shall see if IT can.

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.

Can you name a player in the modern era (the last 20-25 years) that averaged 28 points and 6 assists with decent shooting that was not considered a superstar? It is possible there are people that fit this, but nobody comes to mind. I kind of doubt IT can do that, but if he does average 28 points per more on good shooting for 5 years it would not be possible to act like he wasn't a superstar.

Guys who put up generally those numbers for multiple seasons (not 5 years, but Thomas hasn't done that either).  Most aren't PG's so they don't have the assists but they do have more rebounds.  Alex English, Adrian Dantley, World B. Free, Jerry Stackhouse, Gilbert Arenas, Bernard King, Kik Vandeweghe.  Then you had guys that did it for a season like Tom Chambers, Mark Aguirre, Dale Ellis.  That of course doesn't account for pace, so if there were seasons where there were a lot less points scored, a guy with 26 ppg, might actually be equivalent to Thomas' 28 ppg of today (like Mitch Richmond, Glen Rice, etc.).  I'm not doing the math to figure that one out.

Of course those guys all have the defense problem that Thomas has, which is why they weren't considered superstars (though someone like Arenas was arguably a superstar during his prime).

Hey Moranis let's try this again since you did your standard tactic of confusingthe argument with unrelated stuff (did you take a class on how to do this in every conversation).

Lets slow it down again you commented "five years of this level on offense without defensive improvement won't make him a superstar. "

I asked you to name any player in the modern era that had this kind of performance last 20-25 years.

You named
1) Alex English: In hall of fame. Most consider the hall of fame being a superstar (not to mentioned he retired 25 years ago)
2) Adrian Dantley: In Hall of fame (not to mention retired 25 years ago
3) World B Free: Both retired more than 25 years ago, only averaged 28 points in two seasons. Does not come close to meeting criteria that was required. Lazy bs inclusion designed to muddle the point
4) Jerry Stackhouse averaged 28 more than once his entire career. Again does not come close toi meeting what we were discussing. Lazy bs inclusion to muddle the point.
5) Gilbert Arenas only averaged 28 twice entire career and also had career cut short by a combination of injuries and character issues (including a lengthy suspension for having a gun in the locker room). Lazy bs inclusion to muddle the point
6) Bernard King - In the hall of fame, but only averaged over 28 points once his career. Many do feel he could have been an all-time great without that injury.
7) Kiki Vand - Only averaged 28 points once per game in his career does not meet criteria. More lazyiness intended to muddle the point.

You then throw out a bunch more irrelevant stuff naming guys that do not meet the criteria.

So in summary you named 13 players. Almost none of the players you suggested actually met the criteria for what I asked.  The few that did come closest are in the hall of fame.

I can't stress how annoying it is to have you repeatedly do this kind of stuff and just constantly muddle discussions with irrelevant information to a pretty clear and fair question.

It's like being in my office and asking someone if they saw a red stapler recently and they come back mentioning they saw a blue hole puncher two weeks ago and a grey stapler 3 years ago in the old office. Please just stop doing this already.

To anyone else that wants to try and answer the question that Vermont Green asked, has there ever been a player that averaged IT's current offensive stats for 5 years in the modern era that was not considered a superstar?

Well, "superstar" is a fairly unclear designation.  LarBrd gave a description, which I actually kind of agree with, of a superstar as one of the rare, transcendent all time greats.  If that's the case, then getting into the Hall of Fame doesn't automatically imply superstardom.

If we are using the most stringent standards for admission to the club, then there have been a number of players to average @ 28PPG for five seasons (or more) who aren't "superstars."

I realize this is getting very semantic here.

I get that part of it. I think that part is fair. People are going to have a different definition of superstar. However, even so it would be interesting to see how many guys did average 28 points or more 5 years in a row and were not considered a superstar.

 I imagine it is a pretty short list.

What I do object to is someone muddling the argument by naming a player like Stackhouse when he averaged 28 points or more once his entire career (on 40% for a horrid team no less).

I object to Stackhouse too.  People will want to kill me for this, but the best I got is probably George Gervin.

Even with the most exclusive Super Star list, I would personally want to add the "Ice Man."  He's a favorite of mine, but I could see leaving him off.

If we are not considering George Gervin  superstar I will just bow out of the conversation. He played in 9 straight all star games, was all-star mvp, second in mvp twice, 7 time all-nba, 50 greatest player of all time list etc...

You are willing to consider 'Nique as not a superstar, but Ice Man is going too far? 

Unfortunately for him, Gervin was hurt by a lack of team success.  Those Spurs teams were good, but they never got to the Finals.

No you either misunderstood me or I said it wrong. I was trying to say if people were not considering George Gervin to be a superstar than the definition of superstar was getting ridiculous. I think Nique and Gervin are clearly superstars and I don't think that is debatable. I also think that in this hypothetical world where IT kept averaging 28 points and 6 assists for 5 more years everyone would also easily consider him a superstar also.

[Celtics18]

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.

[celticsclay]

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.

Yea it was a solid effort.

[green_bballers13]

LB, Not only are they similar, but I think Jeff Green is going to be way a better NBA player than Jaylen Brown.....

Isaiah is really good for a team lacking scoring. He's a very good fit here. You can label him however you want. He's important to our current nightly effort.