Jared Weiss: This whole conversation starts with our recent appearance together on Real GM Radio, where you made an offhand comment that Isaiah Thomas was a fake all-star. While it was certainly overblown, it's an interesting take and deserves further debate.
Tim Bontemps: I think this is one of those situations where fans jump on the phrasing of one thing said in passing without much thought and then turn it into a huge deal. The point of what I was saying was this: Isaiah Thomas is a good player, and one who deserves the success he's had in Boston. However, he's also a player who has found himself in the absolute perfect situation. He's a score-first point guard who is on a team with (at least before Al Horford signed) basically no one else who could score. That allowed him to basically have the ball in his hands for every second he was on the court.
Last season he was one of the last All-Star picks in a pretty weak Eastern Conference field. His main competition for a spot were guys like Kemba Walker and Reggie Jackson - both of whom I would put into the same category. Meanwhile, the Western Conference was missing guys like Damian Lillard and Blake Griffin (though for different reasons).
Essentially: Do I think Isaiah Thomas is one of the 24 best players in the NBA?
No.
Did I think he was last year?
No.
Will I be surprised if he doesn't make another All-Star team?
No.
He was a good player who had a good year at a good time, and was rewarded for it. That's where I was going with it.
Jared: Thomas may have been elevated by his opportunity more than any other all-star caliber player in the league last year. He squeaked in, especially since Kyrie Irving was hurt and Kemba Walker is in a lower profile city. The West had at least three guys who could've made the roster ahead of him.
Tim: See, I completely forgot about Kyrie Irving. He's another guy that obviously would have made the team ahead of Isaiah if he'd been healthy. That was the whole point I was trying to make. In a vacuum, where does Isaiah rank just among point guards? In some order, Curry, Paul, Westbrook, Irving, Lowry, Lillard, and Wall are all definitely ahead of him. That's already seven guys, and that doesn't take into account any other positions, or any other guys at his.
It's no knock on him -- he's a fun player and, as the recent story that came out about him and the teenage kid can attest, he's an even more fun person. But in a vacuum, you don't look at him and say, "Yes, he's an All-Star." You say, "That guy had a great year with the Celtics last year."
Jared: The funny thing is there probably won't be a chance to see if last season was a flash in the pan, because the Horford addition will make life so much easier for him. His efficiency should improve enough to make up for any dip in overall output that shines bright during the All-Star campaign season. I think he also just sells well as an All-Star because he is so entertaining to watch and isn't that reckless of a player for a scoring point.
So where does he go from here? Is he at the top of a plateau for his own individual development? Does the Horford addition and further development from key Celtics players make him even better since he will carry less offensive burden?
Tim: See, I'm not sure I agree with you about Horford signing there. That's not to say it wasn't a great signing -- it definitely was. But part of my thought process as far as Isaiah goes, and it relates to the end of your answer, is that I think we know exactly what Isaiah Thomas is.
If you look at his stats over the past few seasons, they're always right about the same places. He shoots roughly the same percentages no matter where he is, and no matter who is around him. There's a certain amount of skill in that -- in fact, the biggest thing he brought to the Celtics was that he's capable of producing a lot of offense on his own. But if you lower his usage rate, are you getting more production from him? I don't think so.
I don't think adding Horford makes Isaiah more efficient, and I don't think moving him off the ball or making him have a reduced role makes him more effective. Because of his size he's a guaranteed negative defensively, and he's not bringing a ton to the table if he's playing off the ball. Maybe he gets more assists passing the ball to Horford, but I think the Celtics will get better and Thomas will likely see his numbers dip, at least in the counting stats. That's because, unlike last year, they now have a player that's going to need the ball in his hands sometimes on a regular basis.
So yes, having Horford is a huge win for the Celtics, and could make them the No. 2 team in the East this season. But I don't know how much it helps Isaiah in terms of stats. It could help his All-Star case for another reason, though: even if his numbers are lower, if the Celtics have the best record in the East (which I think is possible) then he will get an All-Star spot with Horford by default, barring injury.
Jared: I look at the shot distribution in this way: Sullinger took 10.0 shots per game last year while Horford took 12.8. So a lot of that 2.8 difference will be coming out of Thomas' stat line. Since Horford is a decently better shooter than Sullinger, those shots lost for Thomas are likely to turn into assists. And his true shooting percentage, which was hampered by many of the bad shots in traffic and fading threes he had to throw up when the offense collapsed, should improve just from not having to take those shots as frequently in a more reliable offense fueled by Horford.
We saw Kyrie Irving's TS% increase by 50 basis points when LeBron came to town, while his attempts declined by one per game. While LeBron is way more of an offensive revolution than Horford, the improvement from Luol Deng to LeBron James is at least in the same galaxy as the improvement from Jared Sullinger to Al Horford.
Tim: See, I don't buy a lot of this. I don't see Isaiah stopping playing the way he did the past year and a half just because Horford is there. I think we know exactly what we are getting with him, good and bad. I would also think Boston will have Horford or Isaiah on the court basically all the time, or as much as possible, because of the lack of scoring everywhere else.
I also think comparing this to Cleveland is a false equivalency. Not only is LeBron far better than Horford, but the Cavaliers also added Kevin Love, and simply have a vast superior talent level to Boston. Adding Horford isn't going to transform Boston in the same manner.
Jared: I'd say comparing the Celtics' improvement to the Cavs' improvement is like comparing Young Thug to Travis $cott's new album. They resemble each other as much as my 10th grade Photoshop class project resembled Banksy.
I don't disagree that Thomas will play the same way he always has. I just see the number of broken plays significantly declining with Horford on board. Many of those broken plays ended with a low-percentage Thomas shot. So according to the Jason Terry Effect, not being as responsible for cleaning up when it hits the fan should make you look overall more efficient.
The funny thing is that Thomas and Horford both played 32 minutes per game last year. Stevens has the depth to keep Horford at those minutes. Turner allowed Stevens to keep Thomas at that workload, but now it's on Smart's shoulders to enable that. It's one of the biggest question marks facing this team.
Tim: Couldn't agree more [about Cleveland]. Boston is a nice team, but still is playing in a different stratosphere talent-wise to Cleveland.
In theory, I think you're right. In practice, I don't think it'll quite work that way. That would require Thomas to change how he plays, and I just don't see that happening. He's a lot like a fellow Seattle native, Jamal Crawford, in that regard in my eyes. He is what he is, almost regardless of who is around him.