Pau Gasol v. Kevin McHale

Moderators: Doctor MJ, penbeast0, PaulieWal, Quotatious, Clyde Frazier, trex_8063

penbeast0
Senior Mod - NBA Player Comparisons
Senior Mod - NBA Player Comparisons
Posts: 22,820
And1: 4,989
Joined: Aug 14, 2004
Location: South Florida
 

Pau Gasol v. Kevin McHale 

Post#1 » by penbeast0 » Tue Jan 12, 2021 12:57 am

Who had the greater career value?
Statistics are like bikinis. What they reveal is suggestive, but what they conceal is vital.
Cavsfansince84
General Manager
Posts: 7,682
And1: 5,850
Joined: Jun 13, 2017
   

Re: Pau Gasol v. Kevin McHale 

Post#2 » by Cavsfansince84 » Tue Jan 12, 2021 1:49 am

I see it as clearly Pau. McHale only had 8 seasons where he played over 30 mpg and wasn't a very good rebounder statistically speaking. Also a poor playmaker though he obviously sort of makes up for it with his efficiency and his defense. I think he likely peaked higher than Pau did in 87 but that season is sort of an outlier in relation to the rest of his prime and then he got the foot injuries. Playoff wise they were both really good #2's on two title teams(McHale playing a much smaller role on the 81 title team). I just think longevity is overwhelmly on the side of Pau here and even comparing primes Pau had 5 seasons with a vorp of 4.0 or higher to 1 for McHale and 10 of 3.0+ to 6 for Kevin. I think Pau's passing is a big difference between them with a career ast % over twice what McHale had. In my top 100 rankings I'll have Pau at 46 I think and McHale probably more at around 55-60.
Odinn21
Starter
Posts: 2,391
And1: 1,759
Joined: May 19, 2019
   

Re: Pau Gasol v. Kevin McHale 

Post#3 » by Odinn21 » Tue Jan 12, 2021 1:52 am

McHale peaked higher. His average prime quality was better.
Gasol's prime duration and overall longevity are better.

I think if Gasol did slightly better in playoffs after 2010, I'd probably pick him but his scoring volume and efficiency took a huge dive after 2010 and never got back up from that. McHale OTOH, kept being an efficient 20 ppg scorer in postseason on a constant basis even after his prime.

So, it's McHale for me.
The issue with per75 numbers;
36pts on 27 fga/9 fta in 36 mins, does this mean he'd keep up the efficiency to get 48pts on 36fga/12fta in 48 mins?
The answer; NO. He's human, not a linearly working machine.
Per75 is efficiency rate, not actual production.
sansterre
Junior
Posts: 368
And1: 586
Joined: Oct 22, 2020

Re: Pau Gasol v. Kevin McHale 

Post#4 » by sansterre » Tue Jan 12, 2021 3:13 pm

McHale's peak was probably higher, but Gasol's definitely got the longevity advantage. Given that McHale's a fairly high-turnover, low-pass big, I'm leery. Those sets of weaknesses often correlate badly to team success, so as much as I love his scoring, I favor Gasol by a decent margin.
"If you wish to see the truth, hold no opinions."
Jordan Syndrome
Sixth Man
Posts: 1,814
And1: 1,409
Joined: Jun 29, 2020
 

Re: Pau Gasol v. Kevin McHale 

Post#5 » by Jordan Syndrome » Tue Jan 12, 2021 4:11 pm

Gasol for me. Similar sustained-peak and prime levels but much longer prime.
Hal14
Senior
Posts: 690
And1: 283
Joined: Apr 05, 2019

Re: Pau Gasol v. Kevin McHale 

Post#6 » by Hal14 » Tue Jan 12, 2021 5:09 pm

sansterre wrote:McHale's peak was probably higher, but Gasol's definitely got the longevity advantage. Given that McHale's a fairly high-turnover, low-pass big, I'm leery. Those sets of weaknesses often correlate badly to team success, so as much as I love his scoring, I favor Gasol by a decent margin.

This bolded statement would make sense if McHale had bad team success - but he didn't. He had outstanding team success - much greater than Gasol..
sansterre
Junior
Posts: 368
And1: 586
Joined: Oct 22, 2020

Re: Pau Gasol v. Kevin McHale 

Post#7 » by sansterre » Tue Jan 12, 2021 5:42 pm

Hal14 wrote:
sansterre wrote:McHale's peak was probably higher, but Gasol's definitely got the longevity advantage. Given that McHale's a fairly high-turnover, low-pass big, I'm leery. Those sets of weaknesses often correlate badly to team success, so as much as I love his scoring, I favor Gasol by a decent margin.

This bolded statement would make sense if McHale had bad team success - but he didn't. He had outstanding team success - much greater than Gasol..

Please forgive me, but that isn't a reasonable argument.

If I say "McHale had high turnovers with weak passing which is bad" the appropriate counter is *not* "but McHale was on good teams". That reasoning could be used on anything: "Wasn't JR Smith hurt his team by being kind of a bonehead sometimes?" - "Nope, he was on good teams." "While Klay Thompson was a really good floor-spacer and strong finisher, his relative lack of passing did hurt his team some." - "Nope, he was on good teams."

Don't you think that McHale playing on a team with Bird for most of his career *may* have helped his case?

McHale was an extremely efficient scorer on decent usage. He was a strong defender (from what I've read and box score stats) and he was a solid rebounder. But his weak passing and high turnovers (comparatively) are undeniable weaknesses. Leaving them out does a disservice to the discussion.

All of the things that show up in the stats as bad (inefficient shooting, low passing, high turnovers, etc) do so because they're strongly correlated with teams doing worse when players with those traits are on the floor. This isn't really a debatable point. You must have meant something a little more subtle, because your position appears to be "players on good teams don't have weaknesses" which is . . . a hard sell.
"If you wish to see the truth, hold no opinions."
Hal14
Senior
Posts: 690
And1: 283
Joined: Apr 05, 2019

Re: Pau Gasol v. Kevin McHale 

Post#8 » by Hal14 » Tue Jan 12, 2021 6:33 pm

sansterre wrote:
Hal14 wrote:
sansterre wrote:McHale's peak was probably higher, but Gasol's definitely got the longevity advantage. Given that McHale's a fairly high-turnover, low-pass big, I'm leery. Those sets of weaknesses often correlate badly to team success, so as much as I love his scoring, I favor Gasol by a decent margin.

This bolded statement would make sense if McHale had bad team success - but he didn't. He had outstanding team success - much greater than Gasol..

Please forgive me, but that isn't a reasonable argument.

If I say "McHale had high turnovers with weak passing which is bad" the appropriate counter is *not* "but McHale was on good teams". That reasoning could be used on anything: "Wasn't JR Smith hurt his team by being kind of a bonehead sometimes?" - "Nope, he was on good teams." "While Klay Thompson was a really good floor-spacer and strong finisher, his relative lack of passing did hurt his team some." - "Nope, he was on good teams."

Don't you think that McHale playing on a team with Bird for most of his career *may* have helped his case?

McHale was an extremely efficient scorer on decent usage. He was a strong defender (from what I've read and box score stats) and he was a solid rebounder. But his weak passing and high turnovers (comparatively) are undeniable weaknesses. Leaving them out does a disservice to the discussion.

All of the things that show up in the stats as bad (inefficient shooting, low passing, high turnovers, etc) do so because they're strongly correlated with teams doing worse when players with those traits are on the floor. This isn't really a debatable point. You must have meant something a little more subtle, because your position appears to be "players on good teams don't have weaknesses" which is . . . a hard sell.

That's not what I'm saying at all.

You listed a couple of weaknesses of McHale and said those weaknesses often correlate badly to team success.

All I'm saying is that in McHale's case, that doesn't seem to be true, given his outstanding level of team success.

Just saying that if he was on a bad teams the bolded part of your post would have held a lot more water.

Oh, and McHale averaged about 2.2 turnovers a game for most of his career. Which, given how tenacious and physical the defense was back then, how defenses clogged up the middle (Gasol had much more room to operate during his career than McHale did, it's not even close) and how many more possessions per game there was in McHale's era, 2.2 is not bad at all. Gasol was actually higher, around 2.4 turnovers per game in his prime - so higher turnover rate than McHale while facing less intense, less physical defense, with more room to operate in the post and with less possessions per game. If we look at guys who actually played during McHale's era, Moses (around 3.4 turnovers a game during the years he overlapped with Mchale), Karl Malone (around 3.5 turnovers a game when he overlapped with Mchale's prime) and Olajuwon (around 4 turnovers a game when he overlapped with McHale's prime). All of these guys (Moses, Karl Malone and Olajuwon) all got voted in a long time ago in this poll, so seems like a reach to vote against McHale for this reason.
HeartBreakKid
RealGM
Posts: 17,799
And1: 13,700
Joined: Mar 08, 2012
     

Re: Pau Gasol v. Kevin McHale 

Post#9 » by HeartBreakKid » Tue Jan 12, 2021 6:35 pm

Hal14 wrote:
sansterre wrote:
Hal14 wrote:This bolded statement would make sense if McHale had bad team success - but he didn't. He had outstanding team success - much greater than Gasol..

Please forgive me, but that isn't a reasonable argument.

If I say "McHale had high turnovers with weak passing which is bad" the appropriate counter is *not* "but McHale was on good teams". That reasoning could be used on anything: "Wasn't JR Smith hurt his team by being kind of a bonehead sometimes?" - "Nope, he was on good teams." "While Klay Thompson was a really good floor-spacer and strong finisher, his relative lack of passing did hurt his team some." - "Nope, he was on good teams."

Don't you think that McHale playing on a team with Bird for most of his career *may* have helped his case?

McHale was an extremely efficient scorer on decent usage. He was a strong defender (from what I've read and box score stats) and he was a solid rebounder. But his weak passing and high turnovers (comparatively) are undeniable weaknesses. Leaving them out does a disservice to the discussion.

All of the things that show up in the stats as bad (inefficient shooting, low passing, high turnovers, etc) do so because they're strongly correlated with teams doing worse when players with those traits are on the floor. This isn't really a debatable point. You must have meant something a little more subtle, because your position appears to be "players on good teams don't have weaknesses" which is . . . a hard sell.

That's not what I'm saying at all.

You listed a couple of weaknesses of McHale and said those weaknesses often correlate badly to team success.

All I'm saying is that in McHale's case, that doesn't seem to be true, given his outstanding level of team success.

Just saying that if he was on a bad teams the bolded part of your post would have held a lot more water.

Oh, and McHale averaged about 2.2 turnovers a game for most of his career. Which, given how tenacious and physical the defense was back then, how defenses clogged up the middle (Gasol had much more room to operate during his career than McHale did, it's not even close) and how many more possessions per game there was in McHale's era, 2.2 is not bad at all. Gasol was actually higher, around 2.4 turnovers per game in his prime - so higher turnover rate than McHale while facing less intense, less physical defense, with more room to operate in the post and with less possessions per game. If we look at guys who actually played during McHale's era, Moses (around 3.4 turnovers a game during the years he overlapped with Mchale), Karl Malone (around 3.5 turnovers a game when he overlapped with Mchale's prime) and Olajuwon (around 4 turnovers a game when he overlapped with McHale's prime). All of these guys (Moses, Karl Malone and Olajuwon) all got voted in a long time ago in this poll, so seems like not picking to ding McHale for this..


McHale played in a more offensive friendly era though? His prime was in the 80s, Pau's prime was in the 00s.

Defense was plenty physical for a lot of Pau's career.
Hal14
Senior
Posts: 690
And1: 283
Joined: Apr 05, 2019

Re: Pau Gasol v. Kevin McHale 

Post#10 » by Hal14 » Tue Jan 12, 2021 7:18 pm

HeartBreakKid wrote:
Hal14 wrote:
sansterre wrote:Please forgive me, but that isn't a reasonable argument.

If I say "McHale had high turnovers with weak passing which is bad" the appropriate counter is *not* "but McHale was on good teams". That reasoning could be used on anything: "Wasn't JR Smith hurt his team by being kind of a bonehead sometimes?" - "Nope, he was on good teams." "While Klay Thompson was a really good floor-spacer and strong finisher, his relative lack of passing did hurt his team some." - "Nope, he was on good teams."

Don't you think that McHale playing on a team with Bird for most of his career *may* have helped his case?

McHale was an extremely efficient scorer on decent usage. He was a strong defender (from what I've read and box score stats) and he was a solid rebounder. But his weak passing and high turnovers (comparatively) are undeniable weaknesses. Leaving them out does a disservice to the discussion.

All of the things that show up in the stats as bad (inefficient shooting, low passing, high turnovers, etc) do so because they're strongly correlated with teams doing worse when players with those traits are on the floor. This isn't really a debatable point. You must have meant something a little more subtle, because your position appears to be "players on good teams don't have weaknesses" which is . . . a hard sell.

That's not what I'm saying at all.

You listed a couple of weaknesses of McHale and said those weaknesses often correlate badly to team success.

All I'm saying is that in McHale's case, that doesn't seem to be true, given his outstanding level of team success.

Just saying that if he was on a bad teams the bolded part of your post would have held a lot more water.

Oh, and McHale averaged about 2.2 turnovers a game for most of his career. Which, given how tenacious and physical the defense was back then, how defenses clogged up the middle (Gasol had much more room to operate during his career than McHale did, it's not even close) and how many more possessions per game there was in McHale's era, 2.2 is not bad at all. Gasol was actually higher, around 2.4 turnovers per game in his prime - so higher turnover rate than McHale while facing less intense, less physical defense, with more room to operate in the post and with less possessions per game. If we look at guys who actually played during McHale's era, Moses (around 3.4 turnovers a game during the years he overlapped with Mchale), Karl Malone (around 3.5 turnovers a game when he overlapped with Mchale's prime) and Olajuwon (around 4 turnovers a game when he overlapped with McHale's prime). All of these guys (Moses, Karl Malone and Olajuwon) all got voted in a long time ago in this poll, so seems like not picking to ding McHale for this..


McHale played in a more offensive friendly era though? His prime was in the 80s, Pau's prime was in the 00s.

Defense was plenty physical for a lot of Pau's career.

Eh, depends on how you define "offensive friendly".

Players who were more fundamentally sound on offense, better ball movement, teams who pushed the pace more because it's smart basketball to get easy buckets in transition as much as possible? Sure.

But higher scoring games (in the 80s) does NOT necessarily mean inferior defense was played
Lower scoring games in Gasol's era does NOT necessarily mean good defense was played

Defense was very good in the 80s. It's just that offense was also very good. It was a great era (probably the best ever) for the NBA. McHale contributed heavily to that, so he should be recognized for it.

In early 2000s, defense was good, but the low scoring had much more to do with "hero ball", too much isolation offense, too many guys shooting 3's who weren't that great at shooting 3's, worse offensive fundamentals, worse ball movement on offense, etc. So let's not reward Gasol for playing in a worse era.

McHale was the better scorer by a decent margin and the better defender by a decent margin. Best post moves of any PF ever. More team success than Gasol, despite playing less seasons. And even though Gasol has a longevity edge, that edge isn't as significant when you consider his era was less physical, more days off in between games to recover, more advancements in nutrition, sports science, weight training, strength and conditioning, had better facilities, better equipment and even though he played more seasons, he did miss a ton of games during his career. In his 18 year career, Gasol played in 70+ games and 24+ MPG in the same season just 8 times. McHale did it 7 times.
penbeast0
Senior Mod - NBA Player Comparisons
Senior Mod - NBA Player Comparisons
Posts: 22,820
And1: 4,989
Joined: Aug 14, 2004
Location: South Florida
 

Re: Pau Gasol v. Kevin McHale 

Post#11 » by penbeast0 » Tue Jan 12, 2021 7:53 pm

Guys, when you are answering each other in the subsequent post, you don't have to quote the full page of text. Just write your answer. If you are answering a specific point, just quote that portion of the argument (use ... to show you cut some).
Statistics are like bikinis. What they reveal is suggestive, but what they conceal is vital.
Cavsfansince84
General Manager
Posts: 7,682
And1: 5,850
Joined: Jun 13, 2017
   

Re: Pau Gasol v. Kevin McHale 

Post#12 » by Cavsfansince84 » Tue Jan 12, 2021 10:53 pm

Hal14 wrote:
sansterre wrote:McHale's peak was probably higher, but Gasol's definitely got the longevity advantage. Given that McHale's a fairly high-turnover, low-pass big, I'm leery. Those sets of weaknesses often correlate badly to team success, so as much as I love his scoring, I favor Gasol by a decent margin.

This bolded statement would make sense if McHale had bad team success - but he didn't. He had outstanding team success - much greater than Gasol..


Don't really agree with the bolded. Not counting 81 when McHale was a rookie and 5th in that team's rs and ps win shares he played in 4 finals and won 2. Pau played in 3 and also won 2. Pau also was actually leading those teams in rs and sometimes ps win shares which McHale never did outside of the 85 playoffs. I agree though that his style was overall a big plus given his combo of great efficiency and very good defense.
Odinn21
Starter
Posts: 2,391
And1: 1,759
Joined: May 19, 2019
   

Re: Pau Gasol v. Kevin McHale 

Post#13 » by Odinn21 » Tue Jan 12, 2021 11:03 pm

Cavsfansince84 wrote:
Hal14 wrote:
sansterre wrote:McHale's peak was probably higher, but Gasol's definitely got the longevity advantage. Given that McHale's a fairly high-turnover, low-pass big, I'm leery. Those sets of weaknesses often correlate badly to team success, so as much as I love his scoring, I favor Gasol by a decent margin.

This bolded statement would make sense if McHale had bad team success - but he didn't. He had outstanding team success - much greater than Gasol..


Don't really agree with the bolded. Not counting 81 when McHale was a rookie and 5th in that team's rs and ps win shares he played in 4 finals and won 2. Pau played in 3 and also won 2. Pau also was actually leading those teams in rs and sometimes ps win shares which McHale never did outside of the 85 playoffs.

I think the main issue here is that even though Gasol had better prime duration and overall longevity, his track record in postseason can't match McHale's.
Almost washed up McHale was still a 16.5 ppg scorer in playoffs at his 34 and 19.0 ppg at his 35. Gasol never averaged more than 15 after 2010 when he was almost 30.
When you look at 1985-87 McHale and 2008-10 Gasol and what they have more than those 3 playoffs, McHale has far more to show.

We can discuss McHale having the luxury to play in one of the greatest teams ever. But the Lakers from 2011 to 2013 weren't bad. Gasol's (and the Lakers' in general) performance in 2011 playoffs was just abysmal.
The issue with per75 numbers;
36pts on 27 fga/9 fta in 36 mins, does this mean he'd keep up the efficiency to get 48pts on 36fga/12fta in 48 mins?
The answer; NO. He's human, not a linearly working machine.
Per75 is efficiency rate, not actual production.
User avatar
Jaivl
Lead Assistant
Posts: 4,828
And1: 4,181
Joined: Jan 28, 2014
Location: A Coruña, Spain
Contact:
   

Re: Pau Gasol v. Kevin McHale 

Post#14 » by Jaivl » Tue Jan 12, 2021 11:24 pm

Odinn21 wrote:
Cavsfansince84 wrote:
Hal14 wrote:This bolded statement would make sense if McHale had bad team success - but he didn't. He had outstanding team success - much greater than Gasol..


Don't really agree with the bolded. Not counting 81 when McHale was a rookie and 5th in that team's rs and ps win shares he played in 4 finals and won 2. Pau played in 3 and also won 2. Pau also was actually leading those teams in rs and sometimes ps win shares which McHale never did outside of the 85 playoffs.

I think the main issue here is that even though Gasol had better prime duration and overall longevity, his track record in postseason can't match McHale's.
Almost washed up McHale was still a 16.5 ppg scorer in playoffs at his 34 and 19.0 ppg at his 35. Gasol never averaged more than 15 after 2010 when he was almost 30.

Well, we should expect a career 19 ppg guy to average more points than a career 15 ppg one, even late in his career. And, of course, one could flip that argument if using rebounds (McHale only >9 on 85-87, Gasol multiple years after 2010) or assists. There's not really a substantial argument there.

Re: 2011, he played like absolute crap on the playoffs after a great RS, but considering the circumstances (IIRC he had relationship problems, and that included some pretty wild locker room rumors) I... I kinda see 2012 as even worse? - a 1/10 game and a whole bunch of nothing against OKC, while still being dominant on the international stage (so not really washed up yet) and not really having an out-of-court excuse.
Maf wrote:I'd undestand if anyone had KG outside top ten PF's. Having him top five all-time? Often I jokingly rank Kyle Korver as the GOAT but I never try to fake serious discussion about it.

ShawnKemp96 wrote:Infact he made a lot more steals than the statisticians think.
Odinn21
Starter
Posts: 2,391
And1: 1,759
Joined: May 19, 2019
   

Re: Pau Gasol v. Kevin McHale 

Post#15 » by Odinn21 » Tue Jan 12, 2021 11:50 pm

Jaivl wrote:
Odinn21 wrote:
Cavsfansince84 wrote:
Don't really agree with the bolded. Not counting 81 when McHale was a rookie and 5th in that team's rs and ps win shares he played in 4 finals and won 2. Pau played in 3 and also won 2. Pau also was actually leading those teams in rs and sometimes ps win shares which McHale never did outside of the 85 playoffs.

I think the main issue here is that even though Gasol had better prime duration and overall longevity, his track record in postseason can't match McHale's.
Almost washed up McHale was still a 16.5 ppg scorer in playoffs at his 34 and 19.0 ppg at his 35. Gasol never averaged more than 15 after 2010 when he was almost 30.

Well, we should expect a career 19 ppg guy to average more points than a career 15 ppg one, even late in his career. And, of course, one could flip that argument if using rebounds (McHale only >9 on 85-87, Gasol multiple years after 2010) or assists. There's not really a substantial argument there.

Re: 2011, he played like absolute crap on the playoffs after a great RS, but considering the circumstances (IIRC he had relationship problems, and that included some pretty wild locker room rumors) I... I kinda see 2012 as even worse? - a 1/10 game and a whole bunch of nothing against OKC, while still being dominant on the international stage (so not really washed up yet) and not really having an out-of-court excuse.

The point was Gasol's scoring going bad fast, so fast and not getting back up again.

Gasol
From 2004 to 2010; 19.0 ppg scorer in regular seasons and 18.5 ppg scorer in playoffs.
From 2011 to 2015; 17.5 ppg scorer in regular seasons and 13.4 ppg scorer in playoffs.

McHale
From 1982 to 1984; 15.4 ppg scorer in regular seasons and 14.6 ppg scorer in playoffs.
From 1985 to 1991; 21.7 ppg scorer in regular seasons and 22.8 ppg scorer in playoffs.
From 1992 to 1993; 12.1 ppg scorer in regular seasons and 17.2 ppg scorer in playoffs.

McHale's postseason rebounding was much more consistent than Gasol's postseason scoring and McHale's assist numbers gradually became worse, not like what happened to Gasol's scoring.

Yeah, 2012 was also bad for Gasol. Postseasons alone, they were equally bad I think. Though the drop off from regular season makes 2011 slightly worse for me. Even all the sh.t was going on, he was better in 2010-11 regular season than 2011-12 regular season.
The issue with per75 numbers;
36pts on 27 fga/9 fta in 36 mins, does this mean he'd keep up the efficiency to get 48pts on 36fga/12fta in 48 mins?
The answer; NO. He's human, not a linearly working machine.
Per75 is efficiency rate, not actual production.
sansterre
Junior
Posts: 368
And1: 586
Joined: Oct 22, 2020

Re: Pau Gasol v. Kevin McHale 

Post#16 » by sansterre » Wed Jan 13, 2021 1:41 am

Odinn21 wrote:Gasol
From 2004 to 2010; 19.0 ppg scorer in regular seasons and 18.5 ppg scorer in playoffs.
From 2011 to 2015; 17.5 ppg scorer in regular seasons and 13.4 ppg scorer in playoffs.

McHale
From 1982 to 1984; 15.4 ppg scorer in regular seasons and 14.6 ppg scorer in playoffs.
From 1985 to 1991; 21.7 ppg scorer in regular seasons and 22.8 ppg scorer in playoffs.
From 1992 to 1993; 12.1 ppg scorer in regular seasons and 17.2 ppg scorer in playoffs.

The above aren't adjusted for pace, so I thought I'd do that (I adjusted to a pace of 100). To be clear, I don't put a lot of value in ppg as a metric, but since that's the discussion . . .

I'm arbitrarily dividing their careers up as pre-peak (02-04 for Gasol, 81-83 for McHale), Peak (05-10 for Gasol, 84-87 for McHale) and Post-Peak (11-16 for Gasol, 88-93 for McHale)

Pre-Peak Regular Season (3 seasons each):
McHale 12.3 ppg & 5.8 rpg vs Gasol 19.7 ppg & 9.2 rpg (clear win Gasol)

Peak Regular Season (4 seasons McHale vs 6 seasons Gasol):
McHale 21.4 ppg & 8.6 rpg vs Gasol 20.9 ppg & 10.0 rpg (seems pretty even, but Gasol had 2 more seasons here, so I'm saying another Gasol win)

Post-Peak Regular Season (6 seasons each):
McHale 18.6 ppg & 7.3 rpg vs Gasol 18.2 ppg & 11.0 rpg (looks like another win for Gasol, though it's close)

Based on the above (and using pace-adjusted ppg and rpg as our standards) I think it's clear that Gasol was the considerably more valuable regular season player.

Pre-Peak Playoffs (3 seasons each):
McHale 11.7 ppg & 5.4 rpg vs Gasol 20.2 ppg & 5.5 rpg (big Gasol win)

Peak Playoffs (4 seasons McHale vs 6 seasons Gasol):
McHale 20.7 ppg & 8.4 rpg vs Gasol 21.2 ppg & 9.9 rpg (Gasol wins both per game and in volume of seasons)

Post-Peak Playoffs (6 seasons each):
McHale 21.0 ppg & 7.6 rpg vs Gasol 14.7 ppg & 10.4 rpg (McHale wins here)

If PPG and RPG are your standards, I think McHale is probably better post-peak (even if Gasol is better in the regular season), but Gasol is *way* better in the pre-peak and Gasol seems convincingly better during the peak, and his peak was longer.

Just throwing it out there.
"If you wish to see the truth, hold no opinions."
Odinn21
Starter
Posts: 2,391
And1: 1,759
Joined: May 19, 2019
   

Re: Pau Gasol v. Kevin McHale 

Post#17 » by Odinn21 » Wed Jan 13, 2021 2:38 am

sansterre wrote:.

This is one of your worst posts I've ever seen.

I'd like to see a good reason to leave 1988 outside of McHale's peak but include 2005 and 2006 for Gasol's peak...
That arbitrary division even is not consistent. But peak is a win for Gasol?
Really, I'm all ears about what makes 2005 and 2006 Gasol peak Gasol but also doesn't make 1988 McHale peak McHale?..

Gasol wins both per game and in volume of seasons

I just hope that one day it'll finally be understood that linear adjustment is not the way to go for pace adjustments. Per game numbers are indicator of volume. Anything adjusted linearly is a matter of efficiency, not volume. The things you presented as per game numbers are per possession numbers. They are not the same.
The issue with per75 numbers;
36pts on 27 fga/9 fta in 36 mins, does this mean he'd keep up the efficiency to get 48pts on 36fga/12fta in 48 mins?
The answer; NO. He's human, not a linearly working machine.
Per75 is efficiency rate, not actual production.
JordansBulls
RealGM
Posts: 59,255
And1: 4,667
Joined: Jul 12, 2006
Location: HCA (Homecourt Advantage)

Re: Pau Gasol v. Kevin McHale 

Post#18 » by JordansBulls » Wed Jan 13, 2021 5:51 am

Mchale. No one judges someone by how long they played. Otherwise you might as well judge by how long a country was in a war.
Image
"Talent wins games, but teamwork and intelligence wins championships."
- Michael Jordan
sansterre
Junior
Posts: 368
And1: 586
Joined: Oct 22, 2020

Re: Pau Gasol v. Kevin McHale 

Post#19 » by sansterre » Wed Jan 13, 2021 11:59 am

Odinn21 wrote:
sansterre wrote:.

This is one of your worst posts I've ever seen.

I'd like to see a good reason to leave 1988 outside of McHale's peak but include 2005 and 2006 for Gasol's peak...
That arbitrary division even is not consistent. But peak is a win for Gasol?
Really, I'm all ears about what makes 2005 and 2006 Gasol peak Gasol but also doesn't make 1988 McHale peak McHale?..

Gasol wins both per game and in volume of seasons

I just hope that one day it'll finally be understood that linear adjustment is not the way to go for pace adjustments. Per game numbers are indicator of volume. Anything adjusted linearly is a matter of efficiency, not volume. The things you presented as per game numbers are per possession numbers. They are not the same.

I haven't been on this forum that long; I don't know that the word "ever" is really needed in your declaration :)

Let's say I did put '88 in his peak. The new comparisons are:

Regular Season Peak (5 seasons for McHale, 6 for Gasol):
McHale 21.7 ppg & 8.6 ppg vs. Gasol 20.9 ppg & 10.0 rpg (I still give the edge to Gasol for length)

Regular Season Post-Peak (5 seasons for McHale, 6 for Gasol):
McHale 17.7 ppg & 7.1 rpg vs Gasol 18.2 ppg & 11.0 rpg (Gasol wins)

Postseason Peak (McHale 5, Gasol 6):
McHale 21.7 ppg & 8.4 rpg vs Gasol 21.2 ppg & 9.9 rpg (I still feel like Gasol wins this for length)

Postseason Post-Peak (McHale 5, Gasol 6):
McHale 20.2 ppg & 7.3 rpg vs Gasol 14.7 ppg & 10.4 rpg (still McHale here)

Moving '88 around really didn't change much.

I don't understand your problem per per game pace adjustments. I'm not doing per 100, or per 75; you have long since made clear that you don't find those persuasive. But McHale played for faster paced teams which means that he got more opportunities to score, and Gasol played for slower teams (especially in Memphis). So I adjusted their per game numbers to the same pace, so we could see an apples to apples comparison.

I'll grant that this isn't perfect, but it sure beats favoring players on fast-pace teams because their ppg are higher, and dismissing players that played on slow teams for having lower ppg. At the bare minimum, post the ppg numbers but then add "That said, Gasol played on slower teams (especially early in his career) so his numbers are artificially depressed from that, so keep that in mind."
"If you wish to see the truth, hold no opinions."
70sFan
RealGM
Posts: 15,497
And1: 11,019
Joined: Aug 11, 2015
 

Re: Pau Gasol v. Kevin McHale 

Post#20 » by 70sFan » Wed Jan 13, 2021 12:14 pm

sansterre wrote:Peak (05-10 for Gasol, 84-87 for McHale) and Post-Peak (11-16 for Gasol, 88-93 for McHale)


Is there any reason why you included 1984, but not 1988 (or even 1989) for McHale's peak? I believe that late 80s McHale was clearly superior player, at least offensively (and boxscore stats measure only offense basically).

It's also important to note that McHale was much more efficient.

Return to Player Comparisons