Brad Stevens has no intentions of starting Isaiah Thomas

[Donoghus]

  Find me a team that has successfully started a 5'9 PG next to a 6'2 shooting guard.

My 8th grade Boys Club team?

[D.o.s.]

if thomas had to match up against the best starting pg in the nba night after night, i think his defensive limitations would become more apparent. against 2nd string pgs, he has a better chance of holding his own, or at least not being owned.

Good news! The thing you're speculating about as if it hasn't already happened, has already happened. Isaiah Thomas has already been matched up against the NBA's best starting point guards, night after night. Bad news: What you're assuming would happen, did not happen. He held his own defensively about as well as any other PG in the league.

This is in reference to his play with which franchise, exactly? the world beating Scramento Kings, widely  regarded for their excellent backcourt defense by no one ever?

Did you do a single minute of research before puking up that irrelevant snark? Or did you figure it was sufficient to move the goalposts miles away from judging IT's defense based on individual head-to-head performances to judging the entire ******* Sacramento franchise?

I've followed Thomas' career since he came into the league. He's a fun player, and a bad defender. He is not an average defender. He is a below average defender. There is no metric you can find that will support your assertion that " Isaiah Thomas has already been matched up against the NBA's best starting point guards, night after night.... [And] He held his own defensively about as well as any other PG in the league."

But, since you asked for sources:
http://bkref.com/tiny/PSjVS

Have fun. 

[D Dub]

But, since you asked for sources:
http://bkref.com/tiny/PSjVS

Have fun. 

Interesting metric.  When re-sorted in the positive direction, it gives you a 4-way tie for most prolific defensive season ever had (as a guard) between:

Trey Burke 11'-12'
Jamal Crawford 11'-12'
Jordan Crawford 11'-12'
Evan Fournier  14'-15'

Uhh..Really?
I'm not a stat guy by any means...but can someone explain how this passes the sniff test?

[tstorey_97]

Bradley and Smart start, I assume, because they are better defenders.

Their games are more dedicated to defense. This is a reflection of the Celtics' defensive tradition. Defense is more important than offense.

I can't think of a more ideal situation for Thomas than to be part of a back court with two team mates who are legit NBA defensive threats. It's a terrific mix and Ainge is no dummy.

I agree that Thomas' size is perhaps, a liability, but, his performance late in games with the Celtics has shown that he can carry a team. Really haven't had this around here for awhile.

I will say that for the last 25 games or so Stevens has put together some solid benches (about 4 or 5 of them)

The Celtics bench now has been winning pretty much all of it's matchups. Not bad for a non playoff team really. 

[BitterJim]

But, since you asked for sources:
http://bkref.com/tiny/PSjVS

Have fun. 

Interesting metric.  When re-sorted in the positive direction, it gives you a 4-way tie for most prolific defensive season ever had (as a guard) between:

Trey Burke 11'-12'
Jamal Crawford 11'-12'
Jordan Crawford 11'-12'
Evan Fournier  14'-15'

Uhh..Really?
I'm not a stat guy by any means...but can someone explain how this passes the sniff test?

I don't agree with the metric, but it's among active players, not all players

For single seasons; played in the NBA/BAA; in the regular season; from 1946-47 to 2014-15; is active; played G or G-F; requiring Minutes Per Game >= 25; sorted by ascending Defensive Win Shares.

[Moranis]

So, you're using a single game against the league's most elite shooting backcourt to judge Thomas's viability as a starting PG, and he failed in your eyes because one of the best shooters in NBA history wound up shooting the ball well? Against whom does Curry not shoot the ball well? If being burned by Curry's shooting were something that disqualified a player from being a starting PG, the league would only have one starting PG, Curry himself.

I'm using the entire history of NBA basketball to say that undersized shooting guards like Bradley rarely have long-term starter potential.   Micro-guards like Earl Boykins/Isaiah Thomas can typically only be used as change-of-pace bench players, because they become a liability defensively.  There's a reason why Thomas is playing on his 3rd team in a couple years and it's due to his size.   The Golden State game was a wonderful example of why the world is the way it is.

One solution... trading Bradley for a larger guard?  Or if someone like James Young (6'6 215) supplants Bradley and we trade Bradley in a package to upgrade one of our other major needs (SF, PF, C), that means no matter what the combo (Thomas + Young, Thomas + Smart, Smart + Young) you'll have almost enough size to deal with the opposing team's back court.   Our issue is the Thomas + Bradley lineup.  That's a size mis-match no matter who they are going against. 

Find me a team that has successfully started a 5'9 PG next to a 6'2 shooting guard.

The Hornets were pretty successful starting 5'3" Mugsy Bogues, 6'5" Kendall Gill, and 6'5" David Wingate as three of their starters on a team that won a playoff series and had a couple of 50 win seasons. 

Houston made the NBA finals with 5'9" Calvin Murphy leading the way along with 6'1" Allen Leavell, 6'3" Tom Henderson, and 6'3" Mike Dunleavy who were basically the 4 man guard rotation.  Again that team went to the NBA Finals before losing to Boston in 6 in the 80-81 season (and it wasn't a fluke Murphy was an integral part of all of those early 80's Rockets teams on his way into the Hall of Fame).

The Spurs won a title with 5'10" Avery Johnson leading the way and playing the 2nd most minutes in the playoffs that year (behind Duncan).  Johnson and Del Negro were the backcourt of a WCF team a few years before that.  Del Negro isn't exactly a big guy either at only 6'4"

The reality is there aren't that many really short guys to make the league because it is harder, but the ones that do make it for a reason and their teams generally aren't worse off because of it. 

[Dino Pitino]

So, you're using a single game against the league's most elite shooting backcourt to judge Thomas's viability as a starting PG, and he failed in your eyes because one of the best shooters in NBA history wound up shooting the ball well? Against whom does Curry not shoot the ball well? If being burned by Curry's shooting were something that disqualified a player from being a starting PG, the league would only have one starting PG, Curry himself.

I'm using the entire history of NBA basketball to say that undersized shooting guards like Bradley rarely have long-term starter potential.

Okay, that's Bradley, at SG. (And it's still just a pattern based on players who are not Avery Bradley. What in the entire history of Avery Bradley indicates that he individually is not a viable defender of starting shooting guards? He's played for years. What's his data, his pattern say?)

Micro-guards like Earl Boykins/Isaiah Thomas can typically only be used as change-of-pace bench players, because they become a liability defensively.

Players like...typically. But individually, in real versus speculative outcomes, Isaiah Thomas was no worse than average defensively as a starting PG. Sometimes he got burned; most of the time he was average; sometimes he even clamped down on premier starting PG. All the while he was above average offensively most of the time.

There's a reason why Thomas is playing on his 3rd team in a couple years and it's due to his size.

It's due to perception about his size, it's due to conventional wisdom about his size. The point of being a wise general manager is to locate and acquire undervalued players. The whole idea with Isaiah Thomas is that the whole league's conventional thinking might be wrong in his individual case. That idea cannot possibly be judged by using...more conventional wisdom.

The Golden State game was a wonderful example of why the world is the way it is.

Nor can it be judged by using one game against the best shooting PG in the world and using that PG's completely unsurprising great shooting as proof that IT can't cut it. That's not moving the goalposts. It's more like re-spotting the ball a mere 10 yards from the goalposts. In other words, it is the easiest test of your thesis possible, one that every single PG in the league no matter how bad or average or great has probably failed multiple times.

One solution... trading Bradley for a larger guard?  Or if someone like James Young (6'6 215) supplants Bradley and we trade Bradley in a package to upgrade one of our other major needs (SF, PF, C), that means no matter what the combo (Thomas + Young, Thomas + Smart, Smart + Young) you'll have almost enough size to deal with the opposing team's back court.   Our issue is the Thomas + Bradley lineup.  That's a size mis-match no matter who they are going against.

Possibly. Or could just start Smart. Bradley could then sub for either, and as a SG against second units his height would be less of an issue. But it's not certain that his height is an issue, yet. How does Bradley do defensively against starting SG, particularly taller ones? There is data. Game footage. Game logs. Advanced metrics. There is no need to rely on conventional wisdom to answer these questions. In fact, that's exactly what the smartest GMs in sports have been doing for a good while now, examining conventional wisdom for flaws in order to discover underrated gems. Isaiah Thomas may someday be a textbook example, might someday have a rule of thumb named after him at a Sloan Conference, etc.

Find me a team that has successfully started a 5'9 PG next to a 6'2 shooting guard.

It's always nice to have a precedent, but sometimes good and great things have no exact precedent. Or even a remotely similar precedent. And it could even be foolish to require such a precedent for a league where the style of play is in flux, where values may have shifted to the point that the unprecedented is more possible than ever.

[D.o.s.]

But, since you asked for sources:
http://bkref.com/tiny/PSjVS

Have fun. 

Interesting metric.  When re-sorted in the positive direction, it gives you a 4-way tie for most prolific defensive season ever had (as a guard) between:

Trey Burke 11'-12'
Jamal Crawford 11'-12'
Jordan Crawford 11'-12'
Evan Fournier  14'-15'

Uhh..Really?
I'm not a stat guy by any means...but can someone explain how this passes the sniff test?

I don't agree with the metric, but it's among active players, not all players

For single seasons; played in the NBA/BAA; in the regular season; from 1946-47 to 2014-15; is active; played G or G-F; requiring Minutes Per Game >= 25; sorted by ascending Defensive Win Shares.

It's also worth noting that you're both doing it wrong: resorting will only list the 100 players listed on that page, not every player that falls under the search parameters. If you click "show/hide search form," you can uncheck "use ascending order" and do a fresh search by clicking "get results."

Hint: you won't get Burke, Crawford, and Fournier at the top. 
http://bkref.com/tiny/A4tte

[kozlodoev]

But, since you asked for sources:
http://bkref.com/tiny/PSjVS

Have fun. 

Interesting metric.  When re-sorted in the positive direction, it gives you a 4-way tie for most prolific defensive season ever had (as a guard) between:

Trey Burke 11'-12'
Jamal Crawford 11'-12'
Jordan Crawford 11'-12'
Evan Fournier  14'-15'

Uhh..Really?
I'm not a stat guy by any means...but can someone explain how this passes the sniff test?

Defensive win shares are completely meaningless, since they're based on box score data. Unless of course you believe that steals, blocks and team-specific defensive ratings can be used to approximate a player's defensive efficiency.

The full technical writeup on this is here for the interested. I'll just plug in this paragraph:

Out of necessity (owing to a lack of defensive data in the basic boxscore), individual Defensive Ratings are heavily influenced by the team's defensive efficiency. They assume that all teammates are equally good (per minute) at forcing non-steal turnovers and non-block misses, as well as assuming that all teammates face the same number of total possessions per minute.

[hwangjini_1]

So, you're using a single game against the league's most elite shooting backcourt to judge Thomas's viability as a starting PG, and he failed in your eyes because one of the best shooters in NBA history wound up shooting the ball well? Against whom does Curry not shoot the ball well? If being burned by Curry's shooting were something that disqualified a player from being a starting PG, the league would only have one starting PG, Curry himself.

I'm using the entire history of NBA basketball to say that undersized shooting guards like Bradley rarely have long-term starter potential.

Okay, that's Bradley, at SG. (And it's still just a pattern based on players who are not Avery Bradley. What in the entire history of Avery Bradley indicates that he individually is not a viable defender of starting shooting guards? He's played for years. What's his data, his pattern say?)

Micro-guards like Earl Boykins/Isaiah Thomas can typically only be used as change-of-pace bench players, because they become a liability defensively.

Players like...typically. But individually, in real versus speculative outcomes, Isaiah Thomas was no worse than average defensively as a starting PG. Sometimes he got burned; most of the time he was average; sometimes he even clamped down on premier starting PG. All the while he was above average offensively most of the time.

There's a reason why Thomas is playing on his 3rd team in a couple years and it's due to his size.

It's due to perception about his size, it's due to conventional wisdom about his size. The point of being a wise general manager is to locate and acquire undervalued players. The whole idea with Isaiah Thomas is that the whole league's conventional thinking might be wrong in his individual case. That idea cannot possibly be judged by using...more conventional wisdom.

The Golden State game was a wonderful example of why the world is the way it is.

Nor can it be judged by using one game against the best shooting PG in the world and using that PG's completely unsurprising great shooting as proof that IT can't cut it. That's not moving the goalposts. It's more like re-spotting the ball a mere 10 yards from the goalposts. In other words, it is the easiest test of your thesis possible, one that every single PG in the league no matter how bad or average or great has probably failed multiple times.

One solution... trading Bradley for a larger guard?  Or if someone like James Young (6'6 215) supplants Bradley and we trade Bradley in a package to upgrade one of our other major needs (SF, PF, C), that means no matter what the combo (Thomas + Young, Thomas + Smart, Smart + Young) you'll have almost enough size to deal with the opposing team's back court.   Our issue is the Thomas + Bradley lineup.  That's a size mis-match no matter who they are going against.

Possibly. Or could just start Smart. Bradley could then sub for either, and as a SG against second units his height would be less of an issue. But it's not certain that his height is an issue, yet. How does Bradley do defensively against starting SG, particularly taller ones? There is data. Game footage. Game logs. Advanced metrics. There is no need to rely on conventional wisdom to answer these questions. In fact, that's exactly what the smartest GMs in sports have been doing for a good while now, examining conventional wisdom for flaws in order to discover underrated gems. Isaiah Thomas may someday be a textbook example, might someday have a rule of thumb named after him at a Sloan Conference, etc.

Find me a team that has successfully started a 5'9 PG next to a 6'2 shooting guard.

It's always nice to have a precedent, but sometimes good and great things have no exact precedent. Or even a remotely similar precedent. And it could even be foolish to require such a precedent for a league where the style of play is in flux, where values may have shifted to the point that the unprecedented is more possible than ever.

you raise interesting points and make intriguing arguments. but would you please also provide some data that supports this?

[Dino Pitino]

if thomas had to match up against the best starting pg in the nba night after night, i think his defensive limitations would become more apparent. against 2nd string pgs, he has a better chance of holding his own, or at least not being owned.

Good news! The thing you're speculating about as if it hasn't already happened, has already happened. Isaiah Thomas has already been matched up against the NBA's best starting point guards, night after night. Bad news: What you're assuming would happen, did not happen. He held his own defensively about as well as any other PG in the league.

This is in reference to his play with which franchise, exactly? the world beating Scramento Kings, widely  regarded for their excellent backcourt defense by no one ever?

Did you do a single minute of research before puking up that irrelevant snark? Or did you figure it was sufficient to move the goalposts miles away from judging IT's defense based on individual head-to-head performances to judging the entire ******* Sacramento franchise?

I've followed Thomas' career since he came into the league. He's a fun player, and a bad defender. He is not an average defender. He is a below average defender. There is no metric you can find that will support your assertion that " Isaiah Thomas has already been matched up against the NBA's best starting point guards, night after night.... [And] He held his own defensively about as well as any other PG in the league."

But, since you asked for sources:
http://bkref.com/tiny/PSjVS

Have fun. 

It was fun, thank you. Your bad faith in posting that was amply demonstrated by the fact that I had to scroll multiple pages to find the most relevant season, '14. Once you saw his name listed at the bottom of a defensive list you must've done a little fistpump and smirked, not noticing or perhaps not caring that those two seasons, '12 and '13, were only his first two years. What does the most recent (and therefore most relevant) season as a starter tell us? Hmm?

[D.o.s.]

I suppose I'll have to repeat myself here:

I've followed Thomas' career since he came into the league. He's a fun player, and a bad defender. He is not an average defender. He is a below average defender. There is no metric you can find that will support your assertion that " Isaiah Thomas has already been matched up against the NBA's best starting point guards, night after night.... [And] He held his own defensively about as well as any other PG in the league."

What you're saying is demonstrably incorrect. I'm not sure how else to say that.

His most recent DWS (which, as has been pointed out, is suspect) puts him behind Ty Lawson, who is manning the dumpster fire in Denver. It doesn't suggest he's a good defender, or even an average one. Because he isn't.

[Dino Pitino]

you raise interesting points and make intriguing arguments. but would you please also provide some data that supports this?

Go through the box score of each of the 54 games he started in '14 and try to detect a pattern of opposing point guards going off on him versus having average games or even worse games than they usually have.

http://www.basketball-reference.com/players/t/thomais02/gamelog/2014/

[BornReady]

i mean he earned his spot and is still developing so demoting smart will cut up his confidence and hinder further development

also putting in thomas would mean taking out smart because bradley is a better catch and shoot player, while smart is more on the ball player

[Dino Pitino]

I suppose I'll have to repeat myself here:

I've followed Thomas' career since he came into the league. He's a fun player, and a bad defender. He is not an average defender. He is a below average defender. There is no metric you can find that will support your assertion that " Isaiah Thomas has already been matched up against the NBA's best starting point guards, night after night.... [And] He held his own defensively about as well as any other PG in the league."

What you're saying is demonstrably incorrect. I'm not sure how else to say that.

"Demonstrably", lol? You have yet to demonstrate it. You're not sure how else to say it maybe because...you got nothing? Try again, this time with the repeat button off.