2002-2003: Kobe Bryant vs Tracy McGrady

[Chronz]

2003 is the only year that T-Mac was considered better than Kobe. It is quite amazing considering given that T-Mac was basically on an island by himself while Kobe had a 1st teamer with him and had better stats.

Have you seen Kobes stats without Shaq on the floor throughout their tenure?

[Asianiac_24]

McGrady was slightly better in 03

[Blame Rasho]

2003 is the only year that T-Mac was considered better than Kobe. It is quite amazing considering given that T-Mac was basically on an island by himself while Kobe had a 1st teamer with him and had better stats.

Have you seen Kobes stats without Shaq on the floor throughout their tenure?

I have only been posting here for 20 years… so what do you think.

[Owly]

I think this is about a distinction between comparing the year that the player had (as it happened to happen, with very particular stats etc) and our conception of the (underlying?) player in the that year (which is heavily informed by the former, but also surrounding years, our own interpretations, frameworks and biases etc) and our attempt to create a holistic understanding of them. The former is more "solid" (still we interpret it but one can say "he was on a team that was eliminated in the second round") the latter more probabilistic (and I suppose speculative). The former I'd think of/label as the "year" (that the player had) and the latter the "player" (in that particular year).

I think either could be discussed and probably are. I think that's fine otoh. I'd suggest it's just about being clear in what one means.

I dunno. It seems disingenuous to discuss a player in a particular season and then find a way to diminish that player based on things which didn't happen in that season.

Personally, from the above I can't see why - depending on what you mean "things that didn't happen" (and I suppose "a player in a season"). Basically see above but if everything isn't predestined then I can see saying this number is likely "lucky" and finding relevance in that. Now to be clear I can also see a "season" focused angle that doesn't care. If one is clear what they are discussing it shouldn't be an issue and then if one wanted to make a case that the one is more relevant or better approach then they can. They are different things and to say "I am only interested in X" also seems fine.

I'd find a really hard-line stance on this hard to reconcile with not ending up in a position of finding no relevance or value to someone saying "I wouldn't bank on James Posey repeating that '04 production/shooting given the season over again" (sub in Bobby Simmons or Erick Dampier or Eric Murdock or whoever you think has an outlier peak). If there's any place discussing luck and a notion of the underlying player then I can't get behind an angle that something like the question of shooting luck is "wholly irrelevant" even if it's not something you are interested.

Finally I'll add that that doesn't mean I'd be okay with hand-waving away a great season just on the assumption that it was noise both because of the significant relevance of what did happen and an outlier season not necessarily being caused by luck.

Don't know, maybe I'm just repeating myself.

[Owly]

2003 is the only year that T-Mac was considered better than Kobe. It is quite amazing considering given that T-Mac was basically on an island by himself while Kobe had a 1st teamer with him and had better stats.

Have you seen Kobes stats without Shaq on the floor throughout their tenure?

I don't know that I have or else haven't retained them, do you have a comprehensive source? Do you have '03 per 100 possessions for production plus efficiency (or even box composites, though this seems optimistic) as this would seem to be pertinent to this discussion?
For comparison McGrady's numbers below.

McGrady '03
TS .564
per 100 production
pts 42
turn 3.4
assists 7.2
reb 8.5 (2.1 off, 6.4 def)
steals 2.2
blocks 1

[AEnigma]

2003 is the only year that T-Mac was considered better than Kobe. It is quite amazing considering given that T-Mac was basically on an island by himself while Kobe had a 1st teamer with him and had better stats.

Have you seen Kobes stats without Shaq on the floor throughout their tenure?

I don't know that I have or else haven't retained them, do you have a comprehensive source? Do you have '03 per 100 possessions for production plus efficiency (or even box composites, though this seems optimistic) as this would seem to be pertinent to this discussion?
For comparison McGrady's numbers below.

McGrady '03
TS .564
per 100 production
pts 42
turn 3.4
assists 7.2
reb 8.5 (2.1 off, 6.4 def)
steals 2.2
blocks 1

2001-04 Kobe, with and without Shaq, all games
TS: 55.1% -> 51.5%
pts per 100: 32.3 -> 42.5
assists per 100: 7.2 -> 6.2
t/o per 100: 3.8 -> 4.2
team ortg: 111.6 -> 101.67

And before anyone asks, no, zeroing in on 2003 specifically does not help Kobe.

[tsherkin]

Personally, from the above I can't see why - depending on what you mean "things that didn't happen" (and I suppose "a player in a season"). Basically see above but if everything isn't predestined then I can see saying this number is likely "lucky" and finding relevance in that. Now to be clear I can also see a "season" focused angle that doesn't care. If one is clear what they are discussing it shouldn't be an issue and then if one wanted to make a case that the one is more relevant or better approach then they can. They are different things and to say "I am only interested in X" also seems fine.

My point was that talking about stuff that happened after is directly irrelevant to what DID actually happen when you're speaking of a single season. None of the stuff that came after matters to what was happening in the given season.

If you're trying to evaluate a player in a more complete sense, then obviously inclusion is relevant, but when you're specifically discussing the events of a season, all that matters is what happened in that season. You're not making broader commentary on the player outside of those parameters.

[rk2023]

It's close and there could be an argument had either way, but I would go with McGrady. I think he was a better floor raiser than Kobe at this point and better equipped to handle such an offensive load. Could be a flawed comparison, but I believe Kobes 2001-2004 non-Shaq minutes aren't quite the caliber of TMAc's in this span (I would have to double check).

What I will say: had situations and career dev. been different for the 2 with McGrady being drafted and developed by the Lakers / being the 2nd option and 1b to an ATG / near "greatest ever" prime and apex player at various slates of games - with Kobe breaking into his own on a cast as empty as the early 2000s Magic, there would be far different conversations.