Who is better, Hawkins or Thomas?
Connie Hawkins leads with a GOAT score of 84.2 against 84.2 for Isiah Thomas — a gap of 0.0 points on GOAT Rank's weighted model.
Shareable comparison — send this exact matchup to anyone.
Quick answer
GOAT Rank currently scores Connie Hawkins and Isiah Thomas level at 84.2. Connie Hawkins leads on Peak, Dominance, Statistics. Isiah Thomas leads on Longevity, Honours.
How the GOAT Score is calculated →Hawkins wins: Dominance, Peak, Statistics
Thomas wins: Longevity, Honours
Shareable URL · /compare/connie-hawkins-vs-isiah-thomas
Showing full careers. Pick a window to recalculate the selected period.
Hawkins leads in 3 of 5 weighted categories.
Cumulative output season by season — the shape of each career against the other.
| Ghost race · career day | 30 | 100 | 365 | 1000 | 1825 | 3650 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 🇺🇸 Hawkins | 0 | 0 | 55 | 118 | 359 | 710 |
| 🇺🇸 Thomas | 0 | 0 | 17 | 39.9 | 103.3 | 180.3 |
Careers are aligned from debut; the first 5 season periods are measured against the same career window.
| Metric | HawkinsRetired | ThomasRetired |
|---|---|---|
| ABA MVP awards | 1 | — |
| ABA championships | 1 | — |
| NBA All-Star selections | 4 | — |
| ABA points per game | 28 | — |
| Career points | 16,536 | — |
| NBA titles | — | 2 |
| Finals MVP | — | 1 |
| All-Star selections | — | 12 |
| Career assists | — | 9,061 |
| All-Star MVP | — | 2 |
| Points per game | — | 19.2 |
| Dominance w25% | 84 | 82 |
| Peak w20% | 94 | 88 |
| Longevity w20% | 74 | 82 |
| Honours w20% | 82 | 84 |
| Statistics w15% | 88 | 86 |
Connie Hawkins leads with a GOAT score of 84.2 against 84.2 for Isiah Thomas — a gap of 0.0 points on GOAT Rank's weighted model.
Thomas scores higher on honours, longevity. Hawkins leads on peak, dominance, statistics.
Both are scored on peak, dominance, honours, statistics, longevity within their sport. Hawkins: 84.2, Thomas: 84.2.
Make your case for Hawkins vs Thomas. The scoring is published in full — if you can point at the pillar or the weight you disagree with, we read it. Read the methodology paper.