RealGM Top 100 #37

[Doctor MJ]

Are we ending this tonight or tomorrow? If tonight I'll go ahead and vote now, otherwise I would let the discussion continue before I weigh in.

Hehe, I was actually all set to call it tonight until I saw that in your OP you said tomorrow. So I was thinking we'd wait a day.

[ronnymac2]

^^^Jeff Van Gundy is a great coach, but he puts a lot of focus on defense. His teams are never elite offensively.

[ElGee]

The one thing you want in a star more than anything else is for it to be the case that if you surround him with decent talent he'll lift them to contender status. TMac has shown that it's far from a given that such good things will happen when you build around him.

Can you expound on this? It seems that's *exactly* what he did in Houston...

Turned them into a contender? No he didn't. They were never a contender despite the fact that essentially everyone was certain they would be if they just got healthy because he had Yao and good supporting talent around him.

Guessing you're talking about them showing clear improvement with him, and yes, the team did do better with TMac healthy. He was always a good player, but that lift with McGrady always seemed to come taking a team from weak to solid and disappear win a lift would mean joining the elite.

To hammer this in further: Everyone would agree that TMac in Orlando was fully in that "take crap and lift it to mediocrity" mode right?

Anyone else think it's kind of mindblowing that Houston just had it's first really great offensive season in forever LAST year with their Martin/Scola/Lowry crew? I mean, the team had prime TMac & Yao, they lose them for nothing because of injuries, and by acquiring scraps the offense actually gets better. WTF?

Obviously the team isn't what it was before, because of the defense, but is that really the McGrady defense we want to see? Dude's an offensive superstar never played on an offense that was really elite.

Now, I'm not saying TMac was incapable of playing on an elite offensive team. But what I am saying is that when I have a low efficiency volume scorer, and his team seems to have trouble going from good to great on offense, this is not exactly a shock. Pierce is a more efficient player, with better longevity, who has more success at fitting in with talent, has never had a team give up on him in his prime, and who actually beats TMac on our long term +/- metrics.

I just don't see how TMac clearly beats out Pierce in anyone's mind here unless:

1) They are super-focused on peak, even if it's only a short peak

2) They are just going by accolades

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't your assertion about T-Mac being able to fit/lift better teams?

-The last 41 games of the 2005 season, post Wesley trade (and with a healthy Yao) they were a +6.9 MOV team. (Ming - PF - McGrady - Sura - Wesley lineup)
-In 2006 they weren't good without him...
-In 2007, with McGrady Houston was a +6.1 MOV team.
-2008 is really the only year that supports your categorization.

6+ SRS teams are often considers legit contenders. Now, you might say "but Yao Ming had serious mobility issues and someone like Carlos Boozer could bbq him," and to that I say "but yeah, what does that have go do with Tracy McGrady?"

Now you mention oRtg... Second half of 2005 they were likely near 112 (assuming constant pace). They had few offensive weapons and McGrady still had them in offensive mediocrity (or better), and of course Van Gundy was clearly a defensively oriented coach (and Adelman needs some props for his offensive schemes lately). In 2007 82games has them at a 110 ORtg with McGrady on court. (2008 a small shift to 109 when on court.)

If you are knocking McGrady for 2004...well the coach was fired and it was of the worst teams in NBA history IMO outside of T-Mac. And to say Pierce never had anything like that when the 2007 Celtics happened is a bit unreasonable IMO.

[Fencer reregistered]

Doc Rivers has presided over two legendary losing streaks.

The first one, which got him fired, occurred when his star TMac was healthy.
The second one, which he survived, occurred when his star Pierce was out with an injury.

It's not really relevant to a Pierce/TMac comparison to equate the two situations, given that Pierce wasn't around for EITHER one of them.

[ElGee]

^^^Did Pierce quit the team during the losing streak and then return right after? Seems like an awfully selective way to view intangibles, no?

[Doctor MJ]

^^^Jeff Van Gundy is a great coach, but he puts a lot of focus on defense. His teams are never elite offensively.

Well okay but again I'm not saying McGrady hurts offense, just that there's good reason to believe that building an elite offense around him isn't as obvious as you might think...just as is the case for all inefficient volume scorers.

Let's also note that Adelman has now been the Rockets coach for 4 years, and no great change happened in the first year he took over. Now that can be explained I suppose by Adelman sticking with the Van Gundy model while he had the Van Gundy roster and only switching things up as the team makeup change. But it does strike me as odd that now that he has a team full of guys who've never been all-stars, let alone offensive superstars like McGrady, he thinks he has what it takes to actually try to be good on offense.

[TMACFORMVP]

And, the Rockets supporting cast was THAT bad. Luther Head was our third/fourth option in 2007, and stunk it up in the playoffs. In G3 or 4 of that series, we only had four players score in the ENTIRE game. In G7, McGrady scored or assisted/indirectly on every Rockets possession except four. Chuck Hayes, Rafter Alston and Shane Battier were our other three starters, two of whom can't dribble or create at all. The other, you don't WANT to dribble or create. The only play JVG seemingly had in his play-book was a McGrady screen and roll with the center, where the defense would come with help, in which McGrady would either go around to a.) free himself for the jumpshot, or b.) find the open man in the corner. This is why the Rockets barely missed a beat without Yao, the offense was run almost the same with/without him, and Mutombo was just as good defensively, so we rarely missed a beat. Though, I will agree that Rockets despite this should have still advanced - their only season I'd consider to be an underachieving year (without considering injuries as underachieving); because in '05, and '08 (without Yao), we just didn't have a team that could beat those Jazz/Mavericks teams. McGrady wasn't particularly efficient in that series shooting the ball, and Yao was extremely turnover prone, and exposed defensively by Boozer.

In '05, we were pretty good offensively after the trades, and it's worth noting that Sura and Wesley were hobbled by the time the playoffs rolled around, Juwan was out for the season, so we relied on an aging/injured backcourt, and PF's in the mold of Ryan Bowen, Scott Padgett or Clearance Weatherspoon. Then consider '05 Yao was seemingly always in foul trouble, and very inconsistent with his play, I'm still not sure it's fair to expect these Rockets teams to be among the best offensively.

A Jeff Van Gundy coached team has never finished better than 19th in ORTG (and that was almost an outlier) -- they finished 15th in McGrady's two best seasons w/ Houston. And Orlando being in the Top 10 in ORTG in 01-02 and 02-03 is pretty impressive considering the crap of a supporting cast he had.

So, when you consider that Adelman's offense was finally implemented these past couple of seasons, and the fact that Martin, Scola, and Lowry are pretty good offensive players, I'm frankly not too surprised to see us finish top 5 in ORTG, and similarly not surprised to see us finish below average defensively.

Pierce on the other hand has shown at the very least that he can play on an absolutely spectacular team if you put talent around him, and thus he has shown more than TMac on that front.

Isn't that a kind of funny statement? That we give props to Pierce b/c he can play with an absolutely spectacular team? I don't know if McGrady fits as well as Pierce on those Celtics teams because of what everyone alludes to in efficiency (and that's a legitimate argument against him), but Allen would still do his thing off the ball with McGrady, Garnett's effectiveness would not have reduced, and guys like Perkins, Posey, and the shooters would be able to do what they did. Perhaps Rondo might not be as effective, but he wasn't ridiculously that good in '08 anyways.

And I don't know if I buy the different view on the narrative of McGrady carrying those teams without Yao. Those Rocket teams were considerably better w/ McGrady in the lineup, Yao or not. And that served vice versa, with Yao and without McGrady. I definitely wouldn't call it "the team didn't really get better or worse without TMac as long as they had Yao." And definitely not TOO much worse without either of them. Look at '06, an even less efficient hobbled McGrady by his standards were 27-20 w/him in the lineup, and 7-28 w/out him. Similarly, I'm not sure why the lack of drop off when Yao went out of the lineup hurts McGrady's case, in fact, that should help it, IMO.

Overall, I agree that Pierce has his advantages in efficiency, and longevity, however, I'm not completely sold there is much more to that argument (and that might be enough an argument since they're not too far off in their peak).

[Doctor MJ]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't your assertion about T-Mac being able to fit/lift better teams?

-The last 41 games of the 2005 season, post Wesley trade (and with a healthy Yao) they were a +6.9 MOV team. (Ming - PF - McGrady - Sura - Wesley lineup)
-In 2006 they weren't good without him...
-In 2007, with McGrady Houston was a +6.1 MOV team.
-2008 is really the only year that supports your categorization.

6+ SRS teams are often considers legit contenders. Now, you might say "but Yao Ming had serious mobility issues and someone like Carlos Boozer could bbq him," and to that I say "but yeah, what does that have go do with Tracy McGrady?"

Now you mention oRtg... Second half of 2005 they were likely near 112 (assuming constant pace). They had few offensive weapons and McGrady still had them in offensive mediocrity (or better), and of course Van Gundy was clearly a defensively oriented coach (and Adelman needs some props for his offensive schemes lately). In 2007 82games has them at a 110 ORtg with McGrady on court. (2008 a small shift to 109 when on court.)

If you are knocking McGrady for 2004...well the coach was fired and it was of the worst teams in NBA history IMO outside of T-Mac. And to say Pierce never had anything like that when the 2007 Celtics happened is a bit unreasonable IMO.

You make good points as per usual LG.

I'll admit to some degree of essentially knocking McGrady based on skepticism, i.e. "Well it didn't happen, so it's less likely to happen". This is something I do tend rail against, but on the other hand Houston's inability to emerge as a contender in his time there is rather astounding, and for the post-McGrady/Yao era to be filled with a team that's essentially doing just fine, it bothers me.

-"last 41 games", a good thing to bring up, and I'll admit that I tend to be very cautious about such runs. I remember when Denver had a similar run when Karl arrived, and people had huge expectations for upcoming seasons, but get over the hump for the long haul often times proves to be very elusive.

-In '05-06 they weren't good without him (and Yao)...and what that meant was the offense went from mediocre to terrible. Again, I've got zero doubts about the ability of volume scorers to make offenses mediocre.

-In '06-07 he returns the offense to mediocrity and they win 50. Good on them. McGrady incidentally get ranked at #32 on APM. Solid, but not exactly KG territory.

Re: "2004...coach fired...worst team in history without him". Arguments that I'm being unfair here are reasonable.

But look, when a team really falls off the map in a season on an epic level, it's really hard for me not to point some blame at the star.

First off, TMac's stats fell off back to around what normal prime TMac was. It's '02-03 that was the anomaly, not '03-04. That fall off was part of what led to the offensive fall off, and so while that's not exactly worth crucifying the guy, I don't think it makes sense to act like it had nothing to do with him.

Second, the big falloff was on defense...which is exactly the kind of thing you fear happening when your team starts off slow, they fire the coach, and your star isn't big on inspiration. I think people are too harsh on McGrady's dislike of practice and leading effort generally...but when a player with those issues is on a team that falls apart defensively, am I supposed to think it's a coincidence?

How about if you take the above the scenario and say add the fact that said star responded to this situation by essentially demanding a trade?

Shall we also note that said fired coach was Doc Rivers who is now pretty well established as a guy who can do great things when you give him talent to work with? I want my superstars to be actively involved with the coach in planning and leadership. I want them to have a definite opinion of the coaches involved, and to not let the organization fire a superior coach to promote his inferior underling. That TMac was either on board with the mid-season de-talenting of the coach, or totally disengaged, seems like it has to be a part of the story.

[Fencer reregistered]

^^^Did Pierce quit the team during the losing streak and then return right after?

No. Why? Did TMac ever do something like that?

Seems like an awfully selective way to view intangibles, no?

Huh?

[drza]

It's interesting that this has become TMac vs Pierce. I thought for sure this would be Howard, and that's the direction my vote would have been leaning. But now, even Howard supporters have started moving to either Pierce or TMac. Pierce vs TMac is an interesting comp, and I'm still taking my time and reading before voting. Still kind of hoping for a Howard surge of voters tomorrow, as I'm really not ready to vote for either Pierce or TMac yet.

One thing I will say, though...the "Pierce is a winner, TMac is a loser" narrative kind of blows. It's one thing if you believe Pierce's style of play/production is better suited to fitting in on a talented roster than TMac's...not sure I agree, but I can be convinced. But pre-Big 3 era there were definite questions about Pierce's leadership, practice effort and maturity. That he has since earned more Celtics gravitas by dint of his long tenure there and being a big part of them returning to glory is great. But it's a serious re-write of history to act like '07 Pierce was this inherent leader/winner that '07 TMac wasn't. And unlike with the accolades, which some have been arguing don't accurately reflect who Pierce was, in this case the leadership questions were from those that should have had great insight to the Celtics organization.

[Fencer reregistered]

But pre-Big 3 era there were definite questions about Pierce's leadership, practice effort and maturity. That he has since earned more Celtics gravitas by dint of his long tenure there and being a big part of them returning to glory is great. But it's a serious re-write of history to act like '07 Pierce was this inherent leader/winner that '07 TMac wasn't. And unlike with the accolades, which some have been arguing don't accurately reflect who Pierce was, in this case the leadership questions were from those that should have had great insight to the Celtics organization.

I think you overstate that. The stories about Pierce practicing/working out hard, and hence leading-by-example, seemed to run over a much longer time period than any doubts to the contrary.

I agree his actual vocal leadership skills were weak; perhaps not coincidentally, I believe he was the youngest of a set of half-brothers. But hey, he tried, even reading books on leadership on the airplane and so on.

His comment to the effect that he was tired of being his whole team's older brother didn't show the greatest leadership -- but hey, he tried to give them what they needed.

But Pierce did have the character-intangibles plus of fitting into the role he's needed in. The best teams he's played on have been the ones with the best teammates; great, that meant he didn't have to be unquestioned alpha dog. It's actually pretty cool to have a guy who doesn't insist on being the cock of the walk offcourt, yet takes over oncourt as needed. Wade is like that; Kareem probably was as well. But not that many other examples rush to mind.

[therealbig3]

My count so far:

Vote:

McGrady-5 (ronnymac2, ElGee, Snakebites, TMACFORMVP, colts18)

Pierce-5 (Dr Mufasa, Fencer reregistered, Doctor MJ, therealbig3, DavidStern)

Dominique-2 (JordansBulls, SDChargers#1)

D12-1 (penbeast0)



Nominate:

McAdoo-4 (Dr Mufasa, ronnymac2, Snakebites, TMACFORMVP)

Cousy-3 (Fencer reregistered, JordansBulls, SDChargers#1)

Miller-3 (ElGee, Doctor MJ, therealbig3)

Moncrief-1 (penbeast0)

Mourning-1 (DavidStern)


Looks like a tie between Pierce and T-Mac, while McAdoo is leading the nomination.

[therealbig3]

KJ is getting no love right now, so I'll switch to Miller...I haven't heard that convincing of an argument at all for McAdoo or Cousy. Edited the vote count to include my switch.

BTW, how exactly is Cousy getting more love than KJ? How was Cousy a better player? KJ was better on both sides of the ball, especially offensively.

Cousy reminds me of Rondo to be honest. A guy whose offensive value is greatly overrated by the impressive assists numbers...in the end, neither Rondo nor Cousy are all that great offensively, and have/did consistently run mediocre/bad offensive teams, that still remained contenders on the back of their defense, which neither Rondo nor Cousy contribute that much value to, due to their position.

[therealbig3]

Also, doesn't mysticbb's list still nominate Miller?

[lorak]

Also, doesn't mysticbb's list still nominate Miller?

I think situation with Barry created precedent, so now we can't count mysticbb's vote. Who knows, maybe he changed his mind.... (that was argument used in Barry's case...).

[lukekarts]

I'm a bit late to the party here as I've been away all weekend, but I'll add my 2 cents.

Willis Reed would be my vote.

Maybe I'm biased but the 1970 Finals series was one of the first old school era basketball series I watched. To put forward a case for Reed, I'm going to consider all arguments.

+ Peak season was incredible in terms of accolades. MVP. Finals MVP. All Star, All NBA 1st, All Defensive 1st, best defensive team, Champions...
+ 5 year peak of consecutive seasons at 20+ points 13+ rebounds.
+ Won at a time when Chamberlain and KAJ were tearing up the league
+ Great leadership skills and workrate
- upped his scoring in the playoffs (24.5 ppg pre-injury over 4 years)

- Peak shortened by injury - 'limited to 6 All Star appearances.
- not the flashiest stats

In contrast to the guys picking up votes at this level, Reed has them beaten in terms of prime season accolades, and individual accomplishments. Yes he was never a flat out dominat scorer, but his impact was reflected in his MVP shares at the time (1968-69 NBA 0.266 (2), 1969-70 NBA 0.664 (1), 1970-71 NBA 0.142 (4)) and the aforementioned accolades.

If we are to weigh in more heavily on longevity, then I still question why TMac would be in the running. And I am absolutely certain that Reed had more impact in his prime, than Dwight does now, and that we can't apply longevity to Dwight yet with any certainty.

Would be interested to know from other what Reed does/did or doesn't/didn't do to get more consideration at this stage. At the time, he was regarded as a better player than Frazier.

Nominate: Reggie Miller.

[Fencer reregistered]

http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1 ... 05,2671217

A contemporaneous article on the Celtics after Cousy's retirement. Doesn't prove much either way, because it shows both that they were all convinced he was a hugely important player and that they kept right on winning without him.

And here's a short article on a Ewing-effect 1957 streak when Cousy had the flu: http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=2 ... 06,2815390

[Fencer reregistered]

Besides all the other reasons not to nominate the oft-traded druggie, I'm dreading a McAdoo nomination just because we have so many bigs right now.

Would anybody really vote him on over Hayes or McHale?

[Laimbeer]

Also, doesn't mysticbb's list still nominate Miller?

I think situation with Barry created precedent, so now we can't count mysticbb's vote. Who knows, maybe he changed his mind.... (that was argument used in Barry's case...).

If someone leaves a list, I'm pretty sure it's honored. In the Barry case, people were trying to speak for others based solely on how they voted in prior threads.

[penbeast0]

Hi, back (though starting work).

From a list mysticbb has left no more votes but does nominate Reggie Miller