TMACFORMVP wrote:Re: Pierce. I like the idea, because I love his game, but it also makes me wonder if it's time for Pierce, what makes him that much better, if at all better than McGrady?
01: Mac was better in nearly every facet of the game, had the more impressive post season with high volume and shutting down Glenn Robinson, opposed to Pierce's Celtics who failed to make the playoffs. McGrady was the clearly better player this season, IMO.
02: Much closer, I still think McGrady is better in nearly every facet of the game, but Pierce has the big "post-season" run to the ECF. I put in parenthesis, b/c we're giving credit to Pierce for 24/8/4 on 40% in the post season, but knocking McGrady for not getting his team past the first round when he did 31/6/5 on 46%. I hate to use it as an arguing point, but Walker's impact on that team was felt too, he was nearly dead even with Pierce in efficiency in the post while also chipping in with 3-4 assists, 22 points, and 8-9 boards. Pierce was the best player on the team, but I still think McGrady was the better player this season -- we'll call it a wash to be generous.
03: McGrady is clearly better, no question. To say that Magic supporting cast was "absolute crap" would be an understatement. Hill only plays 29 games, Armstrong was 34, Mike Miller was traded in a WTF sort move for Drew Gooden (which got McGrady very upset). Guys like Andrew Declerq, Pat Garrity, and Jacque Vaughn were starters for longer than they should have been stretches.
04: Both have down years from their previous season. Obviously McGrady's infamous 21 win season, missed 15 games (2-13 w/out him, 19-48 w/him). Pierce however also saw his efficiency dip, comparable rebounding, McGrady slightly better play-making, though Pierce had made up some of the gap. The Celtics also didn't break any records, only wining 36 games, and getting swept in the post-season. I think when both players have this much a lack of team success, I'd still think McGrady was the better player this season. Appreciably better scorer, while being a similar caliber all rounded player.
05: Pierce is good, but McGrady is the appreciably better scorer, similar caliber rebounder (slight edge to Pierce), while McGrady is on another level as a play-maker. I'd argue this was McGrady's best season defensively as well. Another first round exit, but he was brilliant with 30/7/7 and locking down Nowitzki. Again, another year where I think McGrady is considerably ahead (only wings w/ Kobe and LeBron to average 25/5/5 this season).
06: McGrady's injured. Pierce rebounds with a big statistical season, but the Celtics only win 33 games. Worth noting that the Rockets were 7-28 w/out T-Mac in the lineup, opposed to 27-20. I'd argue that McGrady was the more impactful player this season STILL, but I'd understand if Pierce would get the edge here.
07: McGrady's clearly better again, IMO. Pierce misses games, McGrady stays relatively healthy missing only 11 games (2-9 w/out him - 50-21 w/him). On levels Pierce has never come close to as a play-maker, and was still comparable as a scorer. This is however, the first season I'd say McGrady underachieved in terms of team success considering what he was given. It's still worth noting despite McGrady's sub-par performance, the role he had was large. In G3 or G4, only four players scored the entire game for the Rockets. The Rockets "third option" Luther Head absolutely choked under the pressure, and Yao was unable to effectively beat single coverage of Okur or Boozer with over 5 turnovers, and inefficient shooting himself. Both of these guys however had enough to beat the Jazz even despite a crap supporting cast, and didn't get it done. In G7, McGrady sparked the comeback, something like 29 points, 13 assists (had I believe a direct correlation with the score on every possession but four), but didn't score in the last couple of minutes to seal a victory.
BTW, Yao missed 32 games this season, the Rockets w/ McGrady in the lineup for those games missed went 20-10.
08: Interesting debate. Pierce gets Ray Allen, Kevin Garnett, a couple years of development from Rondo/Perkins, and big plays from Posey, and the role players in the post season (Brown, House, etc). But Pierce tremendously improves his man defense and efficiency. McGrady's supporting cast gets better as well, but Yao goes down with his annual injury.
McGrady actually started the season on fire, top 5 in scoring, moving off the ball fantastically, till he got injured against the Lakers. He didn't have any back problems, but he was dealing with the shoulder, and later in the season, his knees. His efficiency after the injury was HORRIBLE, and his defense wasn't as good as Pierce's.
Their all round game is similar (though I'd still give the edge to Mac here, his play-making for the team was huge), but Pierce was far more efficient. I don't have a problem with Pierce being better here, but I'd like to say that think Mac was a guy better than his stats would indicate. They went 9-7 w/out him, but 46-20 with him in the lineup. He spearheaded the Rockets 22 game winning streak (including 10 w/out Yao), and literally created the offense for everyone on the team. Whether it'd be three point shots for the shooters, or pick and pops with a guy like Scola, McGrady created so much space on the floor. That might not necessarily mean he's better than Pierce, but makes up the statistical gap in someway.
Little rant on efficiency, but I think it's slightly overrated (this doens't so much apply to the argument at hand, just in general). There has to be something taken into account for volume, after watching this season closely for McGrady, he was irreplaceable for the team unless it was another superstar. His stats would not indicate this, but I think it's similar with Iverson during his prime. Was his efficiency poor, yes, but his volume, and impact on the team was a positive one for those Sixers teams, not a negative like many people claim.. McGrady was pretty good in the post-season, but failed to show up in 4th in G1 and G2 of the series. Without Yao however, the Rockets didn't have much a shot.
I'd call it a a near wash in terms of impact, but Pierce was probably the better player.
That's the end of Mac's peak/prime. He was clearly better in 01, 03, 05, 07, better in 04 and 02, while being similar in 08 maybe a slight edge to Pierce. Paul was better in '06, but I still don't think when both were on the floor, that Pierce was the more impactful player.
And it reflects in that stretch: Mac has 6 Top 10 Finishes in MVP voting (6, 4, 4, 7, 6, 8), wile Pierce has 1 (7). Pierce has 3 All-NBA Third teams opposed to McGrady's 2 third team selections, 3 second team selections, and 2 first team selections.
A higher volume scorer, less efficient, but a better all round player with a bigger impact on the game, IMO. Total w/o McGrady: 20-46 (.434%). Total w/ McGrady: 172-90 (.523%). That's for his Rockets career.. And his Magic supporting cast was horrible.
So, we're giving credit really for Pierce's 09, 10, and 11 seasons, for added longevity, despite an inferior peak and he being slightly past his peak as well? I don't even mind Pierce over Mac, but I think if it's time for Pierce nominations, then at the same time, it should be near split votes with McGrady as well. I hate to use this argument, but I'd be very interested to see what Mac would do in '08, probably not fit as well, but in terms of the grand scheme of things, would they have NOT won the championship (with the C's)? I'm not sure, but Pierce did that, and did a terrific job of fitting into that role, so he gets a boost for that.
I personally do not have these guys for a little while..so it's interesting to look at I'd think.
I currently have McGrady and Pierce next to each other in the mid 30s, so I welcome this debate.
I do agree that McGrady was clearly better in 2001, although 2001 Pierce was underrated at the time because of team situation.
In 2002, I could make the argument that Pierce was better. People don't remember this, but (a) he played defense under Jim O'Brien and (b) he did stuff like come out and score 46 points on blistering shooting in the decisive G5 vs. Philadelphia, or scoring 19 in the 4th to lead the biggest comeback over in G3 vs. the Nets. He was just very much under the radar as a player.
In 03, McGrady is light years better, while Pierce basically reincarnates his 02 level of play.
In 04, McGrady's play drops way off (probably closer to his 02 levels, but so does Pierce's. I have McGrady's in/out that year and it was +7.8 (his on/off also comes out to a decent +4.3 per game).
2005 is really the first year I totally disagree with your assessment. Pierce was asked to play a different role that year and started to really play some of his best basketball as the season progressed, creating a lot of offense and almost point-forwarding the team at times. That they somehow finished with the 9th ranked offense (111 ORtg with Pierce!), IMO, is a testament to the quality of Pierce's unselfish play and Doc Rivers approach (the lesson, as almost always is the case, is that it's better to involve your teammates). Then again, I can't explain with words how bad their halfcourt offense was at times, and just totally came back to bite them against Indiana in the PS. Doc didn't really want Pierce doing anything to press, so I do hold that against Pierce a little.
Now, McGrady was good that year, and I liked a lot of his play against Dallas. But this was still play that was a good-sized drop from his peak season. (How would we compare it to say, 02 or 04?) Maybe I need to re-evaluate that, but I don't remember equating T-Mac's play that year to the wings you mention -- certainly not to Dwyane Wade. Personally, I could see taking Manu over McGrady in 05 (and both over Pierce). The Rockets were
better in 777 minutes without McGrady, which isn't a great sign. Adjusting those numbers, Engelemann has his RAPM at +2.0, good for 49th, Pierce 19th at +3.4 and Manu 6th at +4.9. Pierce's on/off is +8.7 FTR.
2006 McGrady gave Hou a
7.2 point boost when he played, bringing their MOV to +1.5. But 2006 was arguably Pierce's best season to date, and McGrady's injury basically makes the season of zero value to a team.
2007 Yes, McGrady is clearly better as Pierce misses a bunch of time. It was a really interesting year from McGrady in that with him
Houston was 9.3 points better and a +6.1 MOV team (!) His on/off was +6.5 (Roland +11.0) and RAPM number +2.2 (31st).
I get confused because they played Utah back-to-back years, but I believe that was the series McGrady was a crazy playmaker. Just constantly rubbing off stuff into double-teams and making great decisions with the ball. Unfortunately, he didn't shoot it very well. Overall, Houston's offense wasn't very good in that series, which isn't the greatest mark for McGrady, but I remember really liking his decision-making so I'm not sure how to weigh that.
2008 Pierce is clearly better, as you said, even if due to injury. Houston was +4.6 team without McGrady and +4.7 with him.
--
So let's revisit McGrady from 2005 and compare it someone like Manu. First of all, I do think Ginobili was
clearly a better defender. So, did McGrady have a comparable offensive advantage?
Hard to see it being so big. He's a superior volume scorer, but Ginobili is so efficient with the basketball. McGrady may also have a playmaking edge, but it's not considerable. IIRC, there were key moments in the Phoenix series where he just broke them with iso/high PnR up top. Euro step. Step back. Drive and dish. It's not reflected in the stats because of the team he played on (multipolar balance), but when he was in the flow, dude could go. Don't underestimate how damn good 22.2 pts 6.2 reb and 4.8 ast is in 36 mpg on 60.1 TS% -- Manu's WCF's against Phoenix. (For perspective, T-Mac's per36 scoring that year was 22.7 on 52.6% TS.)
For the record, McGrady was 7th in MVP and had 248 points in all-nba voting (to Manu's 12), so McGrady was clearly regarded as a regular season elite and Ginobili wasn't. I think you can either say "that's impressive for a guy playing under 30 minutes a night," or "that's because he only played 30 minutes a night." Could he have played more and been as successful? I think so...maybe not in the long haul, but I always point people to stretches like Feb 2008 when he was asked to start and carry a large load, or his last 2 months of 2010.
In 53 wins Manu shot 63.9% TS and in 21 losses 52.6% TS. That's a guy having enormous impact/correlation on a championship level team. And in the 4 FInals victories, the trend continued: IN wins, 22.8 pts, 5.8 reb 5.5 ast on 70.1% TS.
For McGrady, I'd love to watch that G6 again. Seeing guys bring performances like that against elimination is always encouraging. The AP called it "inspired" and I vaguely remember him blowing up in a big 4th quarter run. Yes, I think some of these McGrady seasons are worth a deeper look.
That's nice.
