RealGM 2017 Top 100 List #63

[trex_8063]

Before I jump into responding to various posters, and it looks like I have several to make (thank you everyone for the responses to my post), maybe someone can help with a side question -- how to locate other posts on REalGM, particularly my own. There's a My Posts option on the drop-down by my user name, but for quite a while now, all I get is an error message:

Sorry, search could not be performed. More information about this failure has been logged in the error log.

The post search function has been broken for some time; Howard (the global mod of the site) isn't sure when it will be fixed. Apologies for the inconvenience; I feel ya' on that.

[Outside]

I'm seriously curious -- how do you compare TMac and Harden with their poor playoff performances to other players still available who rose to the challenge in the biggest playoff moments but don't have the RS numbers that TMac and Harden have, like Sam Jones, James Worthy, and Joe Dumars?

I'll try to answer more completely to your whole post later, but I wanted to first address one question (with a question of my own):

Where does this notion [and I think you're the second to mention it] of TMac as a poor playoff performer come from?

TMac in his prime years ('01-'07) averaged 30.1 ppg/6.6 rpg/6.4 apg/3.2 topg @ 52.7% TS in the playoffs. Even that shooting efficiency isn't too bad considering the majority of that sample came from '01-'05, in which league avg TS was around 52% (lowest was 51.6% in '04, highest was 52.9% in '05). Was collectively a 25.5 PER, .150 WS/48, +6.8 BPM player (in 42.9 mpg) in the playoffs during his prime. Obviously may be some ups and downs from one year to the next, but overall, that's not a substantial drop-off from his rs standard at all; it's actually holding even (if not marginally up, statistically) of his rs standard.
And in '08 (a "near-prime" year), he was substantially better in the playoffs than in the rs.

Not saying he was as consistently up to [or better than] his rs standards as guys like Jones, Worthy, and Dumars (I haven't looked at the specifics). But how is he getting lumped in with Harden?

EDIT: As I mentioned in my vote post (post #2), he's got the 12th-highest career playoff PER of all-time (in both NBA and ABA); and the 15th-highest career playoff BPM of all-time (or since 1973). That doesn't seem like someone who should have to carry a label of "poor playoff performer".

And a big consideration vs Jones, Worthy, or Dumars: TMac (and Harden, for that matter, though I'm not supporting him yet) were substantially better players [in the rs].

TMac and particularly Harden are good examples of why judging their performance primarily on their aggregated PS stats doesn't give the full picture.

For TMac, here are the reasons why I downgrade his PS performance.

First off, he only played in 50 PS games, and 12 of those came as a benchwarmer on the Hawks and Spurs at the end of his career, so that leaves 38 PS games of any relevance. That is a reflection of being on poor teams that missed the playoffs six seasons, then not winning any series when he did make the PS.

Which brings us to the whole "didn't get out of the first round" thing. Some have argued that he was on lousy teams that were an underdog or at best even odds to win each series, but let's look at each playoff.

2000 - Toronto (45-37, 6 seed) vs NY (50-32, 3 seed). The Knicks were led by Latrell Sprewell and Allan Houston, plus 37-yr-old Patrick Ewing and declining Larry Johnson. The Raptors had Vince Carter, young TMac, and old/declining Antonio Davis, Kevin Willis, and Charles Oakley. The Knicks were the better team, but not overwhelmingly so, yet the Knicks beat them 3-0. McGrady's stats: 16.7 pts, 7.0 reb, 3.0 ast, 1.0 stl, 1.0 blk, 38.6 FG%, 28.6 3PT%, 49.0 TS%. Not a plus performance, the games were close, TMac was young, so not a huge minus, though still a minus.

2001 - Orlando (43-39, 7 seed) vs Milwaukee (52-30, 2 seed). Milwaukee was clearly better than Orlando and beat them 3-1. McGrady had 33.8 pts, 6.5 reb, 8.3 ast, 1.8 stl, 1.3 blk, 41.5 FG%, 20.0 3PT%, 48.3 TS%. He was a one-man show with little help, but the efficiency was poor, and his close-out game was the worst of the series -- 25 pts on 10-26 FG, 0-2 on threes, 3 reb, 8 ast, -16 in a game they lost by 8. The series was a plus performance, but not a huge one.

2002 - Orlando (44-38, 5 seed) vs Charlotte (44-38, 4 seed). Charlotte had home court but this was a toss-up series. Orlando had the usual underwhelming roster with TMac as the do-everything guy, but Charlotte was in a similar situation, with Baron Davis as their star surrounded by journeymen David Wesley, Elden Campbell, and Jamal Magloire. The Bobcats won 3-1. TMacs stats were 30.8 pts, 6.3 reb, 5.5 ast, 46.2 FG%, 31.3 FT%, 55.3 TS%, easily his best efficiency yet. The closeout game wasn't close (Charlotte won by 17 in Orlando), but McGrady had a good game -- 35 pts, 4 reb, 6 ast, 12-22 FG, 3-6 3pt, 65.2 TS%. A plus performance individually, but he wasn't able to get a series win or even get to a deciding game 5 against an equal opponent.

2003 - Orlando (42-40, 8 seed) vs Detroit (50-32, 1 seed). Detroit was easily the better team, yet McGrady led Orlando to a 3-1 series lead. But in the game 4 postgame press conference, he made the fateful statement, "It feels good to get to the second round." Detroit beat them by 31, 15, and 15 to close out the series. McGrady had very good stats -- 31.7 pts, 6.7 reb, 4.7 ast, 2.0 stl, 44.8 FG%, 34.0 3PT%, 56.1 TS%. This series is a Rorschach test for how people view McGrady -- supporters point to his overall stats and taking a massive underdog to the brink of an upset, detractors point to the "second round" statement and the way Orlando folded in games 5, 6, and 7, plus that McGrady played poorly in those games. I give the performance only a slight plus -- his performances in games 1-4 were excellent, but the "second round" comment is really bad, as was his and the team's performances in games 5-7. No, they weren't expected to win, but when he put his team in position to close the deal, not only could he not close the deal, he played really poorly. Credit is due for taking the Pistons to seven games, but blame is due for blowing a 3-1 lead and not showing up for any of those closeout games.

2005 - Houston (51-31, 5 seed) vs Dallas (58-24, 4 seed). Horrible luck to be matched against Dallas in the first round (this was a poster child for eliminating division-based seeding). Dallas won 4-3. Dallas had Dirk plus some good secondary players (Jason Terry, Jerry Stackhouse, Josh Howard, Michael Finley). TMac finally had a sidekick with Yao Ming, but the roster was thin after that. Houston won the first two games in Dallas but then lost the next two games in Houston. In the crucial game 5, McGrady was 25 pts, 9 reb, 6 ast but 7-22 FG, 1-4 3PT, 44.4 TS% in a game Houston lost by 3 (Yao had a very good game). TMac had a good game 6 and Houston forced a deciding game 7, but Houston lost game 7 by (gulp) 40. TMac's stat line: 27 pts, 7 reb, 7 ast, 10-26 FG, 1-7 3PT, 46.4 TS%. His totals were good, but his efficiency was bad, and the team didn't show up. Like 2003, his overall stats were good, but the narrative wasn't, and neither was his performance in the crucial games.

2007 - Houston (52-20, 5 seed) vs Utah (51-31, 4 seed). Even though Utah was the higher seed, Houston had home court advantage due to their better record. Another seven-game series, another 4-3 loss. Houston again got out to a 2-0 lead, Utah won the next two, Houston won game 5 at home, then Utah won games 6 and 7. Utah had Carlos Boozer, Deron Williams, Mehmet Okur, and Matt Harpring. Houston had McGrady, Yao, Rafer Alston, and Shane Battier. On balance, Houston had the better roster and home court advantage. Yao matched TMac's scoring (both averaged 25 per game), so he wasn't a one-man show. TMac's stats: 25.3 pts, 5.9 reb, 7.3 ast, 39.4 FG%, 25.0 3PT%, 47.8 TS%. Good overall stats, poor efficiency (especially with an effective Yao). Should be considered favorites to win the series, yet didn't. MCGrady's performance in game 7 was good this time -- 29 pts, 5 reb, 13 ast, 50.1 TS%. Got a 2-0 lead but couldn't close out a lesser opponent.

2008 - Houston (55-27, 5 seed) vs Utah (54-28, 4 seed). A replay of the prior PS, except this time the Jazz won in six games instead of seven. Houston was at a disadvantage because of Yao being out with an injury, so even though Houston had home court, Utah would be the better team. McGrady had very good production but poor efficiency -- 27.0 pts, 8.2 reb, 6.8 ast, 1.5 stl, 42.5 FG%, 20.8 3PT%, 47.8 TS%. McGrady had a good game 6, but the Jazz won games 1 and 2 in Houston, split the next two in Utah for a 3-1 lead, and then closed the Rockets out in 6, like teams are supposed to do when they get a 3-1 lead. The Rockets weren't supposed to win, and they didn't disappoint. McGrady's production was very good, his efficiency very poor. His team didn't do any better than expected.

So big picture, I see a guy being considered among the very best to play the game who never once led his team to a series win and often (not always, but often) underperformed in the biggest games. Either that's never leading a team to any significant postseason success, or if you explain it away by saying that he had inferior rosters, then I have to say his stats are inflated by being a very good player with a really high usage rate. At this point in the rankings, we still have numerous players who outperformed expectations in the PS, who stepped up in the biggest games, and showed they could perform at a high level on the biggest stage. The pressure increases with each round, the competition rises, and the true measure of a player is made as teams advance through the playoffs. I'm going to give significant credit to players who proved themselves and elevated their games in the pressure situations of closeout games and particularly in the conference finals and finals compared to a player who never made it out of the first round.

Basketball is a team game, and the end goal is team winning. Truly great players elevate their teammates and their teams beyond expectations and perform at their best against the best. McGrady showed he can put up numbers, but he didn't show he could elevate his team in the playoffs, and his resume doesn't have any of the greatest tests of late-round playoff games against the best opponents.

[Outside]

Runoff vote: Vince Carter

It's not that I'm in love with Carter as the nominee here, but Carter has superior longevity in both RS and PS, and I'm not ready yet to vote for McGrady due to the PS issues I discussed in a prior post.

[Outside]

While I dealt with these issues tangentially in my prior response, I didn't address them directly, so I'll take the opportunity to address them here.

EDIT: As I mentioned in my vote post (post #2), he's got the 12th-highest career playoff PER of all-time (in both NBA and ABA); and the 15th-highest career playoff BPM of all-time (or since 1973). That doesn't seem like someone who should have to carry a label of "poor playoff performer".

Not a fan of PER in general, but high PER usually correlates with good players, so it's worth addressing in this case. The main mitigating factors here are McGrady's low number of PS games, his high usage rate on several of his PS teams leading to stats inflation, the relatively low quality of opponents compared to players who had a substantial number of games in later rounds, and his uneven performance, which was repeatedly marked by poor performance in crucial games (or at least as crucial as can be found in the first round).

And a big consideration vs Jones, Worthy, or Dumars: TMac (and Harden, for that matter, though I'm not supporting him yet) were substantially better players [in the rs].

I agree. Which goes to my central question -- how much to value RS performance vs PS. I don't have a strict formula for this, but my sense is that I'd value RS somewhere in the 60 percent range, but I also give bonus points to PS performance at the highest level against the best competition. McGrady and Harden obviously have the edge in RS production, but Jones, Worthy, and Dumars has PS performance in general and those bonus point situations in particular in their favor.

What I value most is a player who contributes substantially to a winning team, a team that achieves more by being more than the sum of its parts. Those players often sacrifice individual stats, particularly RS stats, for the benefit of the whole. I rank players for this project by how much they contribute to winning, their winning impact, not just by individual stats. Some players are luckier than others and land in a great situation for winning, with teammates, coaches, and systems that create great chemistry, while other players are stuck in poor situations due to bad roster construction, injuries, poor coaching, or a limited system (often more than one of those).

McGrady wasn't so lucky in that regard, and that's not his fault, but even an unlucky great player should be able to elevate his team somewhere along the line to beat a better foe. McGrady didn't have many of those opportunities, but he did have them, and he never showed that he could elevate his team to seize that opportunity.

[trex_8063]

I disagree somewhat with how you've elected to view some of these series performances. It mostly relates to a less-than-complete view of offensive efficiency, and also what occasionally appears to be preferential focus on the lesser games within a given series (and relatively skimming the best games)......

2001 - Orlando (43-39, 7 seed) vs Milwaukee (52-30, 2 seed). Milwaukee was clearly better than Orlando and beat them 3-1. McGrady had 33.8 pts, 6.5 reb, 8.3 ast, 1.8 stl, 1.3 blk, 41.5 FG%, 20.0 3PT%, 48.3 TS%......

.....and only 2.0 topg. That's a 4.13 Ast:TO ratio, and by my Modified TOV% which I've spoken of previously, that comes to a series mTOV% of 3.73%........to give you an idea how low that is, there is no one (repeat: NO ONE) with a career mTOV% even as low as 6%; most players have an mTOV% >9%.

Everyone gets so fixated on shooting efficiency, but then virtually disregard turnover economy (which is a sort of important component of offensive efficiency). For instance, if McGrady had the exact same per game numbers that you've listed, but with 55% TS and 4.0 topg, you [and others] would likely be calling that a monster series. Personally, I don't believe the trade-off between 6-7% lesser shooting efficiency and 2 fewer topg is inequitable.

......He was a one-man show with little help, but the efficiency was poor, and his close-out game was the worst of the series -- 25 pts on 10-26 FG, 0-2 on threes, 3 reb, 8 ast......

.....and ZERO turnovers.

2002 - Orlando (44-38, 5 seed) vs Charlotte (44-38, 4 seed). Charlotte had home court but this was a toss-up series. Orlando had the usual underwhelming roster with TMac as the do-everything guy, but Charlotte was in a similar situation, with Baron Davis as their star surrounded by journeymen David Wesley, Elden Campbell, and Jamal Magloire. The Bobcats won 3-1. TMacs stats were 30.8 pts, 6.3 reb, 5.5 ast, 46.2 FG%, 31.3 FT%, 55.3 TS%, easily his best efficiency yet. The closeout game wasn't close (Charlotte won by 17 in Orlando), but McGrady had a good game -- 35 pts, 4 reb, 6 ast, 12-22 FG, 3-6 3pt, 65.2 TS%. A plus performance individually, but he wasn't able to get a series win or even get to a deciding game 5 against an equal opponent.

McGrady's turnover rate was not quite as good as in the previous series (again referring to the folly in looking ONLY at shooting efficiency), though I don't disagree with your overall assessment of his performance. fwiw, I do think the Charlotte supporting cast was a bit better: imo, PJ Brown, Magloire, Campbell, Wesley, Augmon, etc > Darrell Armstrong, Pat Garrity, Troy Hudson (ugh!), Monty Williams, 36-year-old Horace Grant, etc.

2003 - Orlando (42-40, 8 seed) vs Detroit (50-32, 1 seed). Detroit was easily the better team, yet McGrady led Orlando to a 3-1 series lead. But in the game 4 postgame press conference, he made the fateful statement, "It feels good to get to the second round." Detroit beat them by 31, 15, and 15 to close out the series. McGrady had very good stats -- 31.7 pts, 6.7 reb, 4.7 ast, 2.0 stl, 44.8 FG%, 34.0 3PT%, 56.1 TS%. This series is a Rorschach test for how people view McGrady -- supporters point to his overall stats and taking a massive underdog to the brink of an upset, detractors point to the "second round" statement and the way Orlando folded in games 5, 6, and 7, plus that McGrady played poorly in those games. I give the performance only a slight plus -- his performances in games 1-4 were excellent, but the "second round" comment is really bad, as was his and the team's performances in games 5-7. No, they weren't expected to win, but when he put his team in position to close the deal, not only could he not close the deal, he played really poorly. Credit is due for taking the Pistons to seven games, but blame is due for blowing a 3-1 lead and not showing up for any of those closeout games.

I'm not sure if I really want to fixate on his post-G4 statements; are we implying the Magic stopped playing after that point (AND that it's his fault?). As easily as claiming the Magic stopped competing at that point we could suggest the Pistons hadn't been playing UP TO that point (in allowing a clearly inferior team to go up 3-1 on them). To some degree it may be the Pistons needed to arrive at the right adjustments (namely, utilizing rookie Tayshaun more, who seemed to have great success in hindering TMac); Pistons were 0-2 in the two games they didn't play Prince, fwiw. Should also be noted that key role player Corliss Williamson missed the first two games of the series (Pistons split those two).

Overall, I'd take note that the Pistons were the 4th-rated defense in the land and had NO ONE else to focus on (also had two good defenders at the SF---Prince and Michael Curry---who could do shift-work on TMac). In light of all that, I'd say his performance was remarkable.

You note that he didn't play up to your satisfaction in the closing games, but fairly gloss over that they wouldn't have been in any position to have a chance of closing if not for TMac's amazing individual play. If he doesn't go for 43 pts @ 64.6% TS with 7 reb, 3 ast, 1 stl, 1 blk, 4 tov (still a respectable mTOV%) in 4-pt win in G1, do the Magic still win?
In game 3, if he doesn't go for 29 pts @ 59.4% TS with 7 reb, 5 ast, 2 stl, 3 blk, and only 1 turnover, do the Magic still win?

I'd note also that in G2 (a loss), he had a good game, but the rest of the team wet the bed going 11 of 42 (26.2%) from the field, including 0/8 from 3pt range.

If I got in the ring with Mike Tyson and somehow managed to make it to the final round before I finally got knocked out, I sometimes feel this type of criticism would be like me taking flack for not closing the fight out (since I'd made it that far and all). Obviously I'm being a bit hyperbolic, but you get what I'm saying: the Magic had NO place winning more than one (two, tops) games against that Pistons team; they only got as far as game 7 because McGrady played out of his mind for much of the series against a tough as hell defensive opponent.

Oh, and I also disagree that he didn't show up in any of the close-out games:
Game 6--->37 pts @ 52.1% TS (league avg was 51.9% that year), 11 reb, 5 ast, 2 stl, 4 tov. That's a more than respectable game for any superstar.

2005 - Houston (51-31, 5 seed) vs Dallas (58-24, 4 seed). Horrible luck to be matched against Dallas in the first round (this was a poster child for eliminating division-based seeding). Dallas won 4-3. Dallas had Dirk plus some good secondary players (Jason Terry, Jerry Stackhouse, Josh Howard, Michael Finley). TMac finally had a sidekick with Yao Ming, but the roster was thin after that. Houston won the first two games in Dallas but then lost the next two games in Houston. In the crucial game 5, McGrady was 25 pts, 9 reb, 6 ast but 7-22 FG, 1-4 3PT, 44.4 TS% in a game Houston lost by 3 (Yao had a very good game). TMac had a good game 6 and Houston forced a deciding game 7, but Houston lost game 7 by (gulp) 40. TMac's stat line: 27 pts, 7 reb, 7 ast, 10-26 FG, 1-7 3PT, 46.4 TS%. His totals were good, but his efficiency was bad, and the team didn't show up. Like 2003, his overall stats were good, but the narrative wasn't, and neither was his performance in the crucial games.

I guess I'm not a fan of narratives in general. I especially am not fond of the "great players elevate those around them" narrative. Meh......how many stars win series's they weren't EXPECTED to win? Even Michael Jordan rarely won except when it was expected. Houston was not expected to win.

TMac's statline in G7 is kinda whatev (they got blown out; it's not like TMac having a better game turns a 40-pt loss into a win). Just by way of counterpoint, I'd point out that----with Yao wetting the bed in G6---they perhaps never see a G7 if TMac didn't have a marvelous game to compensate: 37 pts @ 63.1% TS, 8 reb, 7 ast, 1 stl, 1 blk, 2 tov.

2007 - Houston (52-20, 5 seed) vs Utah (51-31, 4 seed). Even though Utah was the higher seed, Houston had home court advantage due to their better record. Another seven-game series, another 4-3 loss. Houston again got out to a 2-0 lead, Utah won the next two, Houston won game 5 at home, then Utah won games 6 and 7. Utah had Carlos Boozer, Deron Williams, Mehmet Okur, and Matt Harpring. Houston had McGrady, Yao, Rafer Alston, and Shane Battier. On balance, Houston had the better roster and home court advantage. Yao matched TMac's scoring (both averaged 25 per game), so he wasn't a one-man show. TMac's stats: 25.3 pts, 5.9 reb, 7.3 ast, 39.4 FG%, 25.0 3PT%, 47.8 TS%. Good overall stats, poor efficiency.....

Again ignoring turnovers. He did all that with just 3.0 topg (Yao, by comparison, avg 4.7 topg in the series). Is Yao +7.9% TS not mostly off-set by turning the ball over nearly two extra times per game? I think so.

I'd also note McGrady had a good G7 (which was a 4-pt loss): 29 pts @ 50.1% TS, 5 reb, 13 ast, 3 blk, just 2 tov. It just wasn't quite enough.


If the major selling point is basically "never got his team out of the first round", well......you got me there. Only thing I would note is that really that '07 series is the only one in which they were [barely] expected to. A loss was expected in all the other series's, and there was at least one or two G7's that no one expected to see them in, too.

[Outside]

How is Harden a poor playoff player? I get that his stats drop more than some peers, but since you mention worthy who I've never thought of as a defensive guy I'll use him. Harden's career PER in the playoffs is roughly Worthy's peak PER in the playoffs. Harden's career BPM is a bit higher than Worthy's best playoff series. Harden has not imo had too many bad losses per say either. I feel like modern players, especially unlikable ones get just insane amounts of scrutiny and people don't sit back and ask if it's fair or justified.

I found my prior post with info about Harden's PS performances.

Harden is an excellent offensive player whose skills on that side of the ball should be enough to get him in. However, I can't vote for him for three reasons: defense, playoff performance, and the way he's drawn fouls.

I can forgive players who conserve energy on the defensive end because they expend so much on offense, but Harden's defense is beyond atrocious.

Harden's postseason numbers look good as raw numbers, but he has repeatedly underperformed at crucial points in the playoffs:

-- He was bad in the 2012 finals -- 12.4 pts, 4.8 reb, 3.6 ast, 37.5 FG%, 31.8 3PT%.
-- 2015, game 6 of the semifinals against the Clippers, with the Rockets down 3-2 and facing elimination, and down 19 points with 2:46 left in the 3rd, the Rockets staged a miracle comeback to stay alive and turn the series. It was the pivotal moment for the Rockets, and Harden was on the bench for almost all of it. He was -20 for the game.
-- 2015, game 2 of the conference finals versus the Warriors, with 7 seconds left and Houston down by a point, Harden dribbles into the frontcourt and inexplicably passes the ball to a trailing Dwight Howard, who hot-potatoes it back to Harden, who stumbles and loses the ball.
-- 2015, game 3 versus the Warriors, with his team down 0-2, he was a no-show at home in game 3, shooting 3-16 with 3 rebounds and 4 assists.
-- 2015, game 5 versus the Warriors, he shot 2-11 with 12 turnovers, breaking the record for turnovers in a playoff game.
-- 2017, conference semifinals versus the Spurs, he performed well below his RS averages with 24.5 pts, 9.7 ast, 4.7 reb, 41.4 FG%, and 30.8 3PT%.
-- 2017, game 6 versus the Spurs, with Kawhi out, Harden was an inexplicable no-show -- 10 points, 2-11 FG, 7 ast, 3 reb, 6 tov.

Then there's the way he's drawn fouls. Getting to the line is an important skill, and little tricks and "gamesmanship" has been part of the game forever, but what Harden has done is take advantage of the rules to draw fouls while not making a basketball play. Play the game and make basketball plays, don't pull this kind of cheap stunt and make it a central part of your game. Other players felt compelled to do the same because the referees were rewarding it, and the league in turn if forced to adjust the rules and the interpretation of the rules to get rid of this play. Others may not see this as a negative like I do, but it's not a basketball play.

As I pointed out in that prior thread (no. 59), I realize that others may not hold the foul-drawing criticism against Harden at all, or may even give him credit for exploiting an available flaw in the rules. In my case, I do hold it against him, but it's easily the least of the three negatives I hold against him.

Anyway, the above lays out my reasoning for characterizing him as a poor playoff performer.

[dhsilv2]

How is Harden a poor playoff player? I get that his stats drop more than some peers, but since you mention worthy who I've never thought of as a defensive guy I'll use him. Harden's career PER in the playoffs is roughly Worthy's peak PER in the playoffs. Harden's career BPM is a bit higher than Worthy's best playoff series. Harden has not imo had too many bad losses per say either. I feel like modern players, especially unlikable ones get just insane amounts of scrutiny and people don't sit back and ask if it's fair or justified.

I found my prior post with info about Harden's PS performances.

Harden is an excellent offensive player whose skills on that side of the ball should be enough to get him in. However, I can't vote for him for three reasons: defense, playoff performance, and the way he's drawn fouls.

I can forgive players who conserve energy on the defensive end because they expend so much on offense, but Harden's defense is beyond atrocious.

Harden's postseason numbers look good as raw numbers, but he has repeatedly underperformed at crucial points in the playoffs:

-- He was bad in the 2012 finals -- 12.4 pts, 4.8 reb, 3.6 ast, 37.5 FG%, 31.8 3PT%.
-- 2015, game 6 of the semifinals against the Clippers, with the Rockets down 3-2 and facing elimination, and down 19 points with 2:46 left in the 3rd, the Rockets staged a miracle comeback to stay alive and turn the series. It was the pivotal moment for the Rockets, and Harden was on the bench for almost all of it. He was -20 for the game.
-- 2015, game 2 of the conference finals versus the Warriors, with 7 seconds left and Houston down by a point, Harden dribbles into the frontcourt and inexplicably passes the ball to a trailing Dwight Howard, who hot-potatoes it back to Harden, who stumbles and loses the ball.
-- 2015, game 3 versus the Warriors, with his team down 0-2, he was a no-show at home in game 3, shooting 3-16 with 3 rebounds and 4 assists.
-- 2015, game 5 versus the Warriors, he shot 2-11 with 12 turnovers, breaking the record for turnovers in a playoff game.
-- 2017, conference semifinals versus the Spurs, he performed well below his RS averages with 24.5 pts, 9.7 ast, 4.7 reb, 41.4 FG%, and 30.8 3PT%.
-- 2017, game 6 versus the Spurs, with Kawhi out, Harden was an inexplicable no-show -- 10 points, 2-11 FG, 7 ast, 3 reb, 6 tov.

Then there's the way he's drawn fouls. Getting to the line is an important skill, and little tricks and "gamesmanship" has been part of the game forever, but what Harden has done is take advantage of the rules to draw fouls while not making a basketball play. Play the game and make basketball plays, don't pull this kind of cheap stunt and make it a central part of your game. Other players felt compelled to do the same because the referees were rewarding it, and the league in turn if forced to adjust the rules and the interpretation of the rules to get rid of this play. Others may not see this as a negative like I do, but it's not a basketball play.

As I pointed out in that prior thread (no. 59), I realize that others may not hold the foul-drawing criticism against Harden at all, or may even give him credit for exploiting an available flaw in the rules. In my case, I do hold it against him, but it's easily the least of the three negatives I hold against him.

Anyway, the above lays out my reasoning for characterizing him as a poor playoff performer.

1. I mean this not to be disrespectful but I just feel it had to be said. If you're talking about a specific area, switching to other topics is really unbecoming and not to get into politics but such tactics are being used in ways that truly are disgusting elsewhere. Please don't turn these message boards into that. Harden's foul drawing is a whole other topic and I'd gladly discuss it, but it's completely out of line as you presented it as a reply to me.

2. As for the meat here which you did provide a nice answer to. I think you're digging into minutiae. You'd digging into single games as your basis. Now maybe Harden has worse games than Dumars and Worthy (2 of your comps), but to be honest I'm not sure why I'd care. Why should I focus on a player who's far far far better in the playoffs than those you listed having a few bad games? You literally listed 6 comments for his entire playoff resume. Most from 2015. Is that a big enough sample to be critical of? And for someone we're discussing in the 60's of the all time ranks?

3. You brought up defense, but do you have examples of it being a huge issue in specifically the playoffs? Where did poor defense lead to poor performance over the court of a series, not a game?

I want to add this as I have really enjoyed some of your comments over the court of this project, even the early rounds I wasn't a part of, but I have read. So by all means I don't mean any disrespect but I'm just kinda confused by the granularity here. A bad game? A bad few games? How is that grounds for calling a player an under performer in the playoffs? And to do so so emphatically? Now I know this kind of analysis is done on say Lebron who while I still think it is poor, he is considered a GOAT level guy so I get the micro analysis. But Harden here is in a debate with Tmac and Carter two hugely flawed guy. English a guy who played on a team that didn't play defense by rule and similar flawed guys. If you're holding Harden to the Lebron/ MJ standard I get your issues, but are Worthy and Dumars without their faults? Neither were ever once counted on to be Harden good, so how do I even judge them at that level?

Sorry for the ending ramble but I'm just at a loss for so much work on so many minor events given the context here.

[Outside]

I disagree somewhat with how you've elected to view some of these series performances. It mostly relates to a less-than-complete view of offensive efficiency, and also what occasionally appears to be preferential focus on the lesser games within a given series (and relatively skimming the best games)......
.
.
.

Good point about the turnovers. I didn't give him his proper credit for that.

He put up lots of stats on usually less than great teams. There are very few players who can put up the combination of points, rebounds, and assists like he did.

We may disagree on the quality of his PS resume, but none of the teams he lost to were great teams. Of the seven postseasons I listed, four of the teams that beat them won in the semis and then lost in the conference finals, and the other three teams lost in the conference semis. None of the teams they lost to went on to win a title or even make the finals. At least Harden's teams have lost to champions and finalists.

My original question was how to balance a player like TMac or Harden, who have a superior RS resume but underwhelming PS resume, with players like Jones, Worthy, and Dumars, who don't have as good a RS resume but were leaders on title teams and turned in excellent performances in crucial games in the conference finals and NBA finals against the best competition. Those PS achievements are clearly more valuable than putting up numbers in a losing first-round effort (in 'TMac's case) or performing poorly in crucial games at various points in the playoffs (in Harden's case).

There is more to assessing an individual player's contribution to winning a team game than applying metrics to stats. Great players on lesser teams usually produce greater stats than equally great players on great teams, so a great player on a great team can be deserving of a higher ranking than another player with better stats, particularly when the player with the lesser stats has proven himself to be a central part of a championship team and has performed exceptionally well on that highest stage.

TMac wasn't able to prove himself to be that player. Harden may prove himself to be that player someday, but he hasn't yet.

[pandrade83]

Taking a different approach. Let's put Worthy in Tmac's spot & Dumars in Harden's spot. There's nothing to get disappointed about because there's a lot of non-playoff seasons. Worthy isn't getting to the playoffs with McGrady's Orlando teams.

Then in Houston,

'05 is only a disappointing result because McGrady got them to a Game 7 & played great vs. Dirk averaging 31-7-7.
'06 sees McGrady & Yao both suffer injuries.
'07 Yao gets hurt - that's why they have to play Game 7 in Utah - all the missed games hurt their seeding. This was the one series where McGrady was a little disappointing (relatively) getting 25-7-6 and just 48% TS. Could he have done better? Sure, but this is the one series where I didn't hink he played well.
'08 - the long winning streak - significant portions without Yao - they win 55 games anyway - but no Yao for the playoffs & Utah beats them down. McGrady still gets 27-8-7.

Bottom line: Worthy isn't having a ton of success there either.

If Dumars is on Houston, they're a first round exit team every year AT BEST.

English in Orlando, Tmac probably does better. In Houston, when Yao is injured and Tmac turns into Superman (And he did!), Houston may not continue that win streak. But when Yao is healthy, English will not disappear for long stretches, and he will be healthy when Yao is healthy and they will probably win more playoff series. English was not as spectacular as Tmac but he was a lot more reliable and he was something of an ironman as well. More efficient scorer, more consistent (but not as high a peak) on defense, equivalent or slighly inferior playmaker, inferior rebounder, but the health issue is pretty serious. And, English was very coachable where Tmac apparently was known for dogging it in practice (don't have a quote but relying on memory, if you find contrary evidence, let me know). So, if you wanted to win playoff series and get more out of your lesser personnel, English would be a much better bet in Houston than Tmac was.

If you're making an argument for English in Houston, I think '07 is where you're hanging your hat.

'05 - I thought his defensive performance vs. Nowitzki was one of (if not the) best I've ever seen someone guard Dirk in a series. I thought McGrady was quite decisively the best player in this series.
'06 - injuries killed the season.
'07 - McGrady's weakest in prime playoff performance. Awful efficiency metrics - strong closeout game (29/13/15/3 blocks - only 2 TOV - which considering how much he had the ball is nothing; had HCA and Utah wasn't that great.
'08 - as you mentioned - he was superman & no Yao. They weren't winning that series under any circumstances.

So, you have the possibility of winning a series or two in '07 - but you probably give back making the playoffs at all in Orlando. And is that legacy any better? I feel like a lot of the other guys being talked about here wouldn't be talked about at all if they were thrust into Tmac's situation - and in my own mind - seeing the discrepancy in RS performance between Tmac & English & keeping in mind how the pace inflated English's raw #'s - can't help but wonder if English is in that bucket.

[pandrade83]

I disagree somewhat with how you've elected to view some of these series performances. It mostly relates to a less-than-complete view of offensive efficiency, and also what occasionally appears to be preferential focus on the lesser games within a given series (and relatively skimming the best games)......
.
.
.

Good point about the turnovers. I didn't give him his proper credit for that.

He put up lots of stats on usually less than great teams. There are very few players who can put up the combination of points, rebounds, and assists like he did.

We may disagree on the quality of his PS resume, but none of the teams he lost to were great teams. Of the seven postseasons I listed, four of the teams that beat them won in the semis and then lost in the conference finals, and the other three teams lost in the conference semis. None of the teams they lost to went on to win a title or even make the finals. At least Harden's teams have lost to champions and finalists.

My original question was how to balance a player like TMac or Harden, who have a superior RS resume but underwhelming PS resume, with players like Jones, Worthy, and Dumars, who don't have as good a RS resume but were leaders on title teams and turned in excellent performances in crucial games in the conference finals and NBA finals against the best competition. Those PS achievements are clearly more valuable than putting up numbers in a losing first-round effort (in 'TMac's case) or performing poorly in crucial games at various points in the playoffs (in Harden's case).

There is more to assessing an individual player's contribution to winning a team game than applying metrics to stats. Great players on lesser teams usually produce greater stats than equally great players on great teams, so a great player on a great team can be deserving of a higher ranking than another player with better stats, particularly when the player with the lesser stats has proven himself to be a central part of a championship team and has performed exceptionally well on that highest stage.

TMac wasn't able to prove himself to be that player. Harden may prove himself to be that player someday, but he hasn't yet.

My issue with putting guys like Jones, Dumars & Worthy in over Tmac/Harden is that if they played in the team environments as those players, there's a material non-zero chance they wouldn't get discussion at all.

Specifics:

Jones "anchored" some pretty awful offenses in the 60's but for the grace of playing with the Defensive GOAT, is remembered fondly. This is troubling for someone who's calling card is leading title teams in scoring & being strong in the clutch.

Dumars has the opportunity to be "the guy" on teams while in his prime and things didn't go great. I realize he was quite superior defensively to McGradyHarden on the defensive end but Detroit was not strong offensively with Dumars as it's "anchor".

Worthy was one of the very best transition players we have ever seen. But he had the benefit of playing with the GOAT PG who routinely put him in the best possible situations to succeed. I realize there was more to Worthy's game than just that. But that's what made him SPECIAL. Now imagine a situation where Rafer Alston is his point guard. A lot of those opportunities are going to go away and he's going to look like "just another guy".

These are players who should go in our list for sure - and in the not too far off future. But it's possible that none would make our Top 100 if they were faced with the environmental adversity of McGrady and never got to experience the playoff moments that made them special - and that is damning to their cause.

[Outside]

How is Harden a poor playoff player? I get that his stats drop more than some peers, but since you mention worthy who I've never thought of as a defensive guy I'll use him. Harden's career PER in the playoffs is roughly Worthy's peak PER in the playoffs. Harden's career BPM is a bit higher than Worthy's best playoff series. Harden has not imo had too many bad losses per say either. I feel like modern players, especially unlikable ones get just insane amounts of scrutiny and people don't sit back and ask if it's fair or justified.

I found my prior post with info about Harden's PS performances.

Harden is an excellent offensive player whose skills on that side of the ball should be enough to get him in. However, I can't vote for him for three reasons: defense, playoff performance, and the way he's drawn fouls.

I can forgive players who conserve energy on the defensive end because they expend so much on offense, but Harden's defense is beyond atrocious.

Harden's postseason numbers look good as raw numbers, but he has repeatedly underperformed at crucial points in the playoffs:

-- He was bad in the 2012 finals -- 12.4 pts, 4.8 reb, 3.6 ast, 37.5 FG%, 31.8 3PT%.
-- 2015, game 6 of the semifinals against the Clippers, with the Rockets down 3-2 and facing elimination, and down 19 points with 2:46 left in the 3rd, the Rockets staged a miracle comeback to stay alive and turn the series. It was the pivotal moment for the Rockets, and Harden was on the bench for almost all of it. He was -20 for the game.
-- 2015, game 2 of the conference finals versus the Warriors, with 7 seconds left and Houston down by a point, Harden dribbles into the frontcourt and inexplicably passes the ball to a trailing Dwight Howard, who hot-potatoes it back to Harden, who stumbles and loses the ball.
-- 2015, game 3 versus the Warriors, with his team down 0-2, he was a no-show at home in game 3, shooting 3-16 with 3 rebounds and 4 assists.
-- 2015, game 5 versus the Warriors, he shot 2-11 with 12 turnovers, breaking the record for turnovers in a playoff game.
-- 2017, conference semifinals versus the Spurs, he performed well below his RS averages with 24.5 pts, 9.7 ast, 4.7 reb, 41.4 FG%, and 30.8 3PT%.
-- 2017, game 6 versus the Spurs, with Kawhi out, Harden was an inexplicable no-show -- 10 points, 2-11 FG, 7 ast, 3 reb, 6 tov.

Then there's the way he's drawn fouls. Getting to the line is an important skill, and little tricks and "gamesmanship" has been part of the game forever, but what Harden has done is take advantage of the rules to draw fouls while not making a basketball play. Play the game and make basketball plays, don't pull this kind of cheap stunt and make it a central part of your game. Other players felt compelled to do the same because the referees were rewarding it, and the league in turn if forced to adjust the rules and the interpretation of the rules to get rid of this play. Others may not see this as a negative like I do, but it's not a basketball play.

As I pointed out in that prior thread (no. 59), I realize that others may not hold the foul-drawing criticism against Harden at all, or may even give him credit for exploiting an available flaw in the rules. In my case, I do hold it against him, but it's easily the least of the three negatives I hold against him.

Anyway, the above lays out my reasoning for characterizing him as a poor playoff performer.

1. I mean this not to be disrespectful but I just feel it had to be said. If you're talking about a specific area, switching to other topics is really unbecoming and not to get into politics but such tactics are being used in ways that truly are disgusting elsewhere. Please don't turn these message boards into that. Harden's foul drawing is a whole other topic and I'd gladly discuss it, but it's completely out of line as you presented it as a reply to me.

Perhaps the issue is that I copied the entirety of my post from a prior thread which addressed Harden overall, not just in the PS. Didn't mean for that to be a distraction.

2. As for the meat here which you did provide a nice answer to. I think you're digging into minutiae. You'd digging into single games as your basis. Now maybe Harden has worse games than Dumars and Worthy (2 of your comps), but to be honest I'm not sure why I'd care. Why should I focus on a player who's far far far better in the playoffs than those you listed having a few bad games? You literally listed 6 comments for his entire playoff resume. Most from 2015. Is that a big enough sample to be critical of? And for someone we're discussing in the 60's of the all time ranks?

The issue for me is that Harden's "few bad games" that I listed come at such crucial points in those series. It would be equally fair to point to Worthy's bad pass in the 1984 finals against Boston as a terrible error that led to Boston winning game 2 and tying the series (Bird said that if they'd lost both games 1 and 2 in Boston, the series would've been over). But Worthy has numerous excellent counterbalancing games, particularly in the finals, such as a 36 pt, 16 reb, 10 ast triple-double in game 7 against the Pistons and was finals MVP. Although I'm sure he had poor games sometimes, Worthy's notably poor playoff performance is mainly confined to that one bad pass. Harden has numerous notable bad games, and he doesn't have counterbalancing great performances in crucial situations like Worthy does.

Here's a comparison of their basic stats overall.

Worthy RS stats
926 games, 17.6 pts, 5.1 reb, 3.0 ast, 1.1 stl, 0.7 blk, 2.0 tov, 55.9 TS%
Worthy PS stats
143 games, 21.1 pts, 5.2 reb, 3.2 ast, 1.2 stl, 0.7 blk, 2.1 tov, 57.8 TS%

Harden RS stats
632 games, 22.4 pts, 5.0 reb, 5.8 ast, 1.5 stl, 0.4 blk, 3.4 tov, 60.7 TS%
Harden PS stats
88 games, 20.7 pts, 5.2 reb, 5.2 ast, 1.6 stl, 0.4 blk, 3.2 tov, 59.0 TS%

For RS, Harden has better scoring, assists, and excellent TS%. But it's not a shutout -- Worthy doesn't have great longevity, but it's significantly better than Harden, and his TS% was excellent for his day (I don't have rTS%, maybe someone else does).

For PS, Worthy has a much larger sample size, elevated his game significantly in the PS in general, and was a great performer in the finals in particular. Harden's stats, on the other hand, go down in the PS, to the point that Worthy has better PPG and almost matches him in TS%, which is remarkable considering the advantage that Harden has in threes and FTs.

People value RS and PS differently, but given Harden's poor longevity to date and his lack of PS accomplishments compared to Worthy, it's easy for me to put Worthy above Harden.

3. You brought up defense, but do you have examples of it being a huge issue in specifically the playoffs? Where did poor defense lead to poor performance over the court of a series, not a game?

That's a fair point. I don't have stats to back up an argument that Worthy was better defensively than Harden (which I think he clearly was). I have work to do that I should've started hours ago, so I'll have to let this point go for now; I just don't have the time to go into it. I don't know how you guys get the information together that you do without spending all day preparing these posts (or maybe you do spend that much time; whatever, it's impressive).

I want to add this as I have really enjoyed some of your comments over the court of this project, even the early rounds I wasn't a part of, but I have read. So by all means I don't mean any disrespect but I'm just kinda confused by the granularity here. A bad game? A bad few games? How is that grounds for calling a player an under performer in the playoffs? And to do so so emphatically? Now I know this kind of analysis is done on say Lebron who while I still think it is poor, he is considered a GOAT level guy so I get the micro analysis. But Harden here is in a debate with Tmac and Carter two hugely flawed guy. English a guy who played on a team that didn't play defense by rule and similar flawed guys. If you're holding Harden to the Lebron/ MJ standard I get your issues, but are Worthy and Dumars without their faults? Neither were ever once counted on to be Harden good, so how do I even judge them at that level?

Sorry for the ending ramble but I'm just at a loss for so much work on so many minor events given the context here.

Not about to add LeBron to this discussion. Consider the 10-foot pole applied.

I think I've addressed why I call out Harden on specific games -- they were at crucial points in those series, where he, as the clear leading player on his team, could've made the difference in how a series played out, but he came up short. The point is that it's not just once or twice -- I point out five games in particular, plus two bad series (2012 finals and 2017 semis). Series have points that have particular importance -- game 7 being the most obvious, but also others such as game 5 in a series tied 2-2 and closeout games when you can put the opponent away. That's when the best PS performers rise to the occasion and make their mark, especially in later rounds against the toughest competition. Jones, Worthy, and Dumars have done that. Harden doesn't have those games on the positive side of his resume and in fact has numerous ones on the wrong side.

[Outside]

Worthy was one of the very best transition players we have ever seen. But he had the benefit of playing with the GOAT PG who routinely put him in the best possible situations to succeed. I realize there was more to Worthy's game than just that. But that's what made him SPECIAL. Now imagine a situation where Rafer Alston is his point guard. A lot of those opportunities are going to go away and he's going to look like "just another guy".

These are players who should go in our list for sure - and in the not too far off future. But it's possible that none would make our Top 100 if they were faced with the environmental adversity of McGrady and never got to experience the playoff moments that made them special - and that is damning to their cause.

I think that's underselling Jones, Worthy, and Dumars severely. For Worthy in particular, there's every reason to believe that he could've put up huge RS numbers if he was "the guy" on a TMac-level team. The guy was flat-out spectacular with excellent skills combined with superior length and athleticism. The guy could jump out of the building, was really quick, could shoot out to 20 feet, could drive in either direction, and had spin moves in either direction that left defenders behind.

As for this statement: "it's possible that none would make our Top 100 if they were faced with the environmental adversity of McGrady and never got to experience the playoff moments that made them special - and that is damning to their cause." Them doing well in the PS, winning titles and finals MVPs, while McGrady never played on that stage -- how is that damning to their cause? I don't follow that at all. It sounds to me like you're penalizing them for doing well on the highest stage while giving McGrady credit despite never playing there. I think I'm missing something.

In the end, those arguments are beside the point. What we should be judging them on is their actual accomplishments, not how we think they would've performed in a some hypothetical situation.

[Dr Positivity]

I'll go Vince Carter. Better longevity and his peak was pretty impressive as well. Prefer his character, even in their primes I think something was slightly more off with Tmac. I thought him and Yao were less than the sum of their parts.

Vote: Vince Carter

[Morb]

T-Mac is Top 5 SG of All Time by career and Top 3 SG Peak ever. #63, wooh, so disrespectful.)

[Dr Positivity]

I'm interested in KJ discussion if you're ready for it. He seems pretty early given he didn't have a super long career and was well thought of but was never seen as a super star either. He's a top 100 for sure, but I was thinking we were a long way away from him.

.

KJ was, imo, a remarkable offensive talent who didn't get credit for such in many years of his career. I'll throw some stuff at you for why I think so.....

I know these kind of arbitrary thresholds are kinda, well.....arbitrary; but try this on:
If you search for all seasons in NBA history in which a player averaged at least 20 pts, 9 ast, and >59% TS....you get just 8 seasons: one of Chris Paul ('09--->his peak rs to most), '17 James Harden, three seasons of Magic ('87, '89, '90), and THREE seasons of Kevin Johnson.

Can correct for era discrepancies in shooting efficiency and---instead of 59% TS---make the threshold >+5.0% rTS.....that adds a whole bunch of Oscar Robertson ('61-'69), one season of Jerry West ('71), and peak Tiny Archibald ('73); and fwiw, KJ comes just 0.2% rTS away from having a fourth season that qualifies by these specs.
Either way, it's a relatively short list of seasons (and fairly rarefied company). You can tweak the requirements slightly in different ways, and you continuously get a relatively short list of [great] players.


And the offensive results were generally stellar. Granted, he typically had a pretty nice offensive supporting cast, but no better than Alex English had during his prime in Denver (except probably in the years Barkley was on board). Here are the team rORTG results during KJ's prime (with some notations):

'89: +5.3
'90: +5.0
'91: +4.7
'92: +3.9
'93: +5.3 (Barkley arrives, though KJ misses 33 games: Suns were a +3.6 rORTG and +4.40 SRS in the games he missed; but were a +6.4 rORTG and +7.53 SRS in the games he played).
'94: +5.4 (KJ missed 15 games: they were a +2.4 rORTG and -0.70 SRS in the games he missed; were a +6.1 rORTG and +5.88 SRS in the games he played)
'95: +6.2 (KJ missed 35 games: this season was somewhat an outlier in that they did marginally better without him; but important to note that Barkley missed 14 games this year, too, mostly when KJ was around (but was around for vast majority of the games KJ missed); and Danny Manning missed 36 games, the majority over a stretch where KJ was active)
'96: +2.7 (KJ missed 26 games: Suns were a +1.5 rORTG and -3.81 SRS in the games he missed, +3.3 rORTG and +2.18 SRS in the games he played. DISCLAIMER: Manning again missed a bunch of games, and I haven't investigated to see where they fall).
'97: +2.6 (Barkley is now gone. KJ missed 12 games: Suns were a -7.3 rORTG and -8.18 SRS in the 12 games he missed; were a +4.3 rORTG and +1.65 SRS in the 70 games he played.


AVERAGE effect of having Kevin Johnson vs. not having him.
NOT weighted for # of games played or missed per season
+7.1 ppg.
+3.0% TS%.
+4.7 ORtg.
+4.01 SRS.
Weighted for # of games played
+7.8 ppg
+3.3% TS%
+5.2 ORtg
+4.02 SRS
Weighted for # of games MISSED
+4.1 ppg
+1.9% TS%
+2.7 ORtg
+3.98 SRS
79-60 (.568) record w/o, 396-203 (.661) record with: +7.6 wins per 82-game season.

^^^^That's generally how much lift he can provide to teams that are already good (more difficult to add on to teams that are already good--->redundancy and realistic ceilings, etc), though '97 perhaps gives a glimpse of just how much he could lift less stellar casts.


Can try to present some more arguments later. But the above at least partly illustrates why I think that if he'd been a little less injury-prone in his prime, and maybe had a couple additional non-prime years, he'd very possibly be a top 50 player for me.

Good points about KJ and I would also point out that he actually got in at #55 in the 2014 project, it's not a big leap for him to get consideration here

[Dr Positivity]

I think we might have done Hal Greer wrong by not considering him earlier. His longevity is pretty impressive compared to other candidates.

[penbeast0]

If you're making an argument for English in Houston, I think '07 is where you're hanging your hat.

'05 - I thought his defensive performance vs. Nowitzki was one of (if not the) best I've ever seen someone guard Dirk in a series. I thought McGrady was quite decisively the best player in this series.
'06 - injuries killed the season.
'07 - McGrady's weakest in prime playoff performance. Awful efficiency metrics - strong closeout game (29/13/15/3 blocks - only 2 TOV - which considering how much he had the ball is nothing; had HCA and Utah wasn't that great.
'08 - as you mentioned - he was superman & no Yao. They weren't winning that series under any circumstances.

So, you have the possibility of winning a series or two in '07 - but you probably give back making the playoffs at all in Orlando. And is that legacy any better? I feel like a lot of the other guys being talked about here wouldn't be talked about at all if they were thrust into Tmac's situation - and in my own mind - seeing the discrepancy in RS performance between Tmac & English & keeping in mind how the pace inflated English's raw #'s - can't help but wonder if English is in that bucket.

In terms of 06, part of what makes English attractive is that he was almost never injured. Every year he played big minutes, improved his game in the playoffs generally, and could be relied to be out there every night.

In terms of pace, as pace has decreased, the featuring of star scorers has increased so the top stars haven't grossly decreased their scoring. Especially in English's case, he scored all those points in a read and react offense which virtually never did the standard isolation and clear out the side game that players like TMac relied on. Instead he would either get free immediately for a good shot or pass the ball and other players would shoot (Denver never had a shortage of players willing to shoot). If he was in a featured role, he had great isolation moves with an outstanding midrange game, good handles, and a good -- if non-spectacular-- finish at the rim. So, the odds are that if you put him in a TMac situation where you had one or two featured stars and everyone else clearing space or spotting up, his raw numbers would go up, not down, despite the lowered pace.

Remember also two arguments that different posters made about (a) the 60s Celtics, and (b) Adrian Dantley. For the Celtics, there was some discussion about how the extreme pace led to the notorious inefficiency of so many of the scorers on the team. English was on the highest pace team of his era but both is individual and his team efficiency over that period were consistently good. For Dantley, people talked about how his holding the ball and working his man hurt his team despite his ridiculous individual efficiency; English is the anti-Dantley in terms of superquick read and react play. Compared to guys like TMac, he moved the ball much quicker and did a lot less individual working his man.

Sorry if I'm derailing but just a quick note about a player I have supported for awhile and why.

[pandrade83]

For '06, it looks like the injury problem went beyond just Tmac & Yao. The only guys who didn't miss a substantial amount of time were washed up Juwan Howard & never made it Luther Head.

But anyway - with a healthy English in for the games McGrady missed, it's plausible they get to the bottom rung - but there's not much of a case for a playoff run there from that starting spot in the West.

WRT English overall, the big selling points to me are the ironman durability coupled with the robust playoff performance. The Carter/Tmac/English thing I did a couple threads earlier has me convinced he's a step below in terms of RS output.

[pandrade83]

Worthy was one of the very best transition players we have ever seen. But he had the benefit of playing with the GOAT PG who routinely put him in the best possible situations to succeed. I realize there was more to Worthy's game than just that. But that's what made him SPECIAL. Now imagine a situation where Rafer Alston is his point guard. A lot of those opportunities are going to go away and he's going to look like "just another guy".

These are players who should go in our list for sure - and in the not too far off future. But it's possible that none would make our Top 100 if they were faced with the environmental adversity of McGrady and never got to experience the playoff moments that made them special - and that is damning to their cause.

I think that's underselling Jones, Worthy, and Dumars severely. For Worthy in particular, there's every reason to believe that he could've put up huge RS numbers if he was "the guy" on a TMac-level team. The guy was flat-out spectacular with excellent skills combined with superior length and athleticism. The guy could jump out of the building, was really quick, could shoot out to 20 feet, could drive in either direction, and had spin moves in either direction that left defenders behind.

As for this statement: "it's possible that none would make our Top 100 if they were faced with the environmental adversity of McGrady and never got to experience the playoff moments that made them special - and that is damning to their cause." Them doing well in the PS, winning titles and finals MVPs, while McGrady never played on that stage -- how is that damning to their cause? I don't follow that at all. It sounds to me like you're penalizing them for doing well on the highest stage while giving McGrady credit despite never playing there. I think I'm missing something.

In the end, those arguments are beside the point. What we should be judging them on is their actual accomplishments, not how we think they would've performed in a some hypothetical situation.

I'm judging these guys based on their abilities and what they accomplished with those abilities - I made it quite clear that I'll be supporting those players in the near future based on what they actually accomplished - not some hypothetical.

But for all the hype about the playoff performance of that group, their playoff PER & playoff BPM PEAKS falls short of what McGady accomplished and only Worthy's peak hits Harden's average. Even in the playoffs - which is the crux of your argument - McGrady & Harden were objectively better players.

Now, Dumars, Worthy & Jones all have more memorable playoff moments and moments that impact things from a historical perspective & that's part of their legacy & its a part of their argument. But they aren't the same caliber of player as Harden or McGrady regardless of what context. Those are players who accomplished what they did because of a favorable team environment - and it is pretty clear that their team environment makes them higher than they would be otherwise; whereas the opposite holds true for McGrady/Harden. And I'd rather take the players who are clearly the better more impactful players. We're talking guys who were amongst the very best when they played against guys who just weren't.

[dhsilv2]

The issue for me is that Harden's "few bad games" that I listed come at such crucial points in those series. It would be equally fair to point to Worthy's bad pass in the 1984 finals against Boston as a terrible error that led to Boston winning game 2 and tying the series (Bird said that if they'd lost both games 1 and 2 in Boston, the series would've been over). But Worthy has numerous excellent counterbalancing games, particularly in the finals, such as a 36 pt, 16 reb, 10 ast triple-double in game 7 against the Pistons and was finals MVP. Although I'm sure he had poor games sometimes, Worthy's notably poor playoff performance is mainly confined to that one bad pass. Harden has numerous notable bad games, and he doesn't have counterbalancing great performances in crucial situations like Worthy does.

Here's a comparison of their basic stats overall.

Worthy RS stats
926 games, 17.6 pts, 5.1 reb, 3.0 ast, 1.1 stl, 0.7 blk, 2.0 tov, 55.9 TS%
Worthy PS stats
143 games, 21.1 pts, 5.2 reb, 3.2 ast, 1.2 stl, 0.7 blk, 2.1 tov, 57.8 TS%

Harden RS stats
632 games, 22.4 pts, 5.0 reb, 5.8 ast, 1.5 stl, 0.4 blk, 3.4 tov, 60.7 TS%
Harden PS stats
88 games, 20.7 pts, 5.2 reb, 5.2 ast, 1.6 stl, 0.4 blk, 3.2 tov, 59.0 TS%

For RS, Harden has better scoring, assists, and excellent TS%. But it's not a shutout -- Worthy doesn't have great longevity, but it's significantly better than Harden, and his TS% was excellent for his day (I don't have rTS%, maybe someone else does).

For PS, Worthy has a much larger sample size, elevated his game significantly in the PS in general, and was a great performer in the finals in particular. Harden's stats, on the other hand, go down in the PS, to the point that Worthy has better PPG and almost matches him in TS%, which is remarkable considering the advantage that Harden has in threes and FTs.

People value RS and PS differently, but given Harden's poor longevity to date and his lack of PS accomplishments compared to Worthy, it's easy for me to put Worthy above Harden.

I’m struggling with the Harden playoff woes. So I’m trying to refresh my memory (fyi I run a lot of long queries at work….so I do these kinds of posts sometimes between loads…I’m sure at some point IT or my boss is going to ask about this lol). 2015 is especially difficult as Harden had 3 of the best game I can remember by someone who isn’t lebron james against the warriors. His team just lost 2 of the 3. All 3 games clearly in my mind better than your example of a great Worthy game. I just can’t get my head around being critical of his two admittedly poor games given those circumstances. I also didn’t think the rockets would beat the clippers that year. Game 7 against the Clippers 31 8 assists 7 rebounds, 3 steals, and a block. Yes 7 turnovers, 1 personal foul (actually that’s impressive given 3 steals and a block), and 35% from the field, 18 free throws. He was also critical in game 5 with a triple double in a must win game, which was needed to then have the game 6 that you’re critical of. Overall I’d give that playoff run no worse than a B+. He was simply outstanding in my view. I just can’t get more granular that this when judging a player, I just can’t get into the level of so and so made a bad pass so we should consider it a poor playoff series, I just can’t or maybe I just won’t.

Against the Warriors in 15.
Points assists rebounds steals
28-9-11-4
38-9-10-3
45-5-9-2 (only game with a win in this)

James worthy in contrast had 12 playoff games of 25-5-5 in his career. Joe Dumars had 1 such game (though he was known for defense which is why I haven’t discussed him, harder to compare).

2012 is a bit of a struggle for me. He was certainly a key player, but he wasn’t an allstar. He was a 16 a game reserve, poor man’s Manu if you will. I don’t see stats that jump out, but I recall him being critical in their win over, imo, a better Spurs team. Now his stats are good in that series, game by game, key games, etc. So again I have to ask why playing well against the spurs is not placed against a poor performance in the finals?