RealGM

Who would you pick if your life depended on it?

A classic matchup that deserves to be revisited from time to time. Just go for it.

I know 2003 isn’t peak Kobe but I don’t see how he’s far enough away from his peak impact wise that he’s that comparable to Tmac. Like I’d still have Kobe clear of Tmac

I feel like it’s fashionable to take Tmac in 03 here on RealGM. Give me Kobe though, especially because it was just such an outlier shooting year for mcgrady that I’m not sure I buy it.

Im Your Father wrote:I feel like it’s fashionable to take Tmac in 03 here on RealGM. Give me Kobe though, especially because it was just such an outlier shooting year for mcgrady that I’m not sure I buy it.

03 was an outlier for Kobe in terms of his physique tho, it was the year he came to camp beefed up and a total specimen. By his own admission he would later shed the weight for the sake of longevity. Kobe made that career decision and its hard to complain with the results, by the end of 03 Kobe was banged up and he attributed it to his playing weight.

03 Tmac was basically the final year in which he could go full bore every night physically. Dude was playing center for the Magic in certain zone schemes throughout his tenure, he truly gave it all for that franchise.

I know T-Mac's got the statistical edge here, but Kobe to me is just so far ahead in terms of intangibles. Simply a much more reliable big game/big-moment player.

IG2 wrote:I know T-Mac's got the statistical edge here, but Kobe to me is just so far ahead in terms of intangibles. Simply a much more reliable big game/big-moment player.

So basically being coached by Phil Jackson instead of Doc Rivers?

RCM88x wrote:So basically being coached by Phil Jackson instead of Doc Rivers?

How do you infer that from what I said?

T-Mac's lack of intangibles didn't get any better under JVG and Adelman. He simply wasn't a reliable player under pressure.

IG2 wrote:

RCM88x wrote:So basically being coached by Phil Jackson instead of Doc Rivers?

How do you infer that from what I said?

T-Mac's lack of intangibles didn't get any better under JVG and Adelman. He simply wasn't a reliable player under pressure.

Not sure JVG or Adelman are much better.

Clearly Kobe's "intangibles" were learned from PJ. Unfortunately TMac didn't have that privilege.

RCM88x wrote:Clearly Kobe's "intangibles" were learned from PJ. Unfortunately TMac didn't have that privilege.

Kobe was flat out a better competitor and played harder than T-Mac. Much more reliable big-game player too. Don't know what any of that has to do with Phil Jackson.

Stats and Highlights. You know whom I Pick.

Sent from my Nokia 5.1 Plus using RealGM mobile app

00 and 01 Kobe
02 and 03 TMac

Can't see how 03 TMac (full season) is more of a shooting outlier than Kobe's 01 playoffs.

Im Your Father wrote:I feel like it’s fashionable to take Tmac in 03 here on RealGM. Give me Kobe though, especially because it was just such an outlier shooting year for mcgrady that I’m not sure I buy it.

This doesn't actually matter in a single-year comparison.

tsherkin wrote:

Im Your Father wrote:I feel like it’s fashionable to take Tmac in 03 here on RealGM. Give me Kobe though, especially because it was just such an outlier shooting year for mcgrady that I’m not sure I buy it.

This doesn't actually matter in a single-year comparison.

I suppose I guess it depends on what you mean by single year comparison.

Someone like Shaq has a clear single year peak because it’s the only year in his true prime where he was motivated on defense from beginning to end.

Someone like Walton (extreme example) or Grant Hill was cut down by injuries and would never be able to reach their single year peak again.

McGrady though, while he did suffer early injuries and had some terrible rosters, seems to me, more than anything, to have just had an outlier year shooting the ball. Was Mcgrady truly a better shooter that year, or can it just be attributed to noise?

T-Mac consistently improving his game, than have back injury in 2004, return in 2005, check playoffs shooting, in 2006 have career changing back injurys (vs Denver, than again vs Portland), losing his athleticism.

Sent from my Nokia 5.1 Plus using RealGM mobile app

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

Im Your Father wrote:
I suppose I guess it depends on what you mean by single year comparison.

Not really. It's pretty clear. They're comparing inside of a very specific season, not beyond the bounds of that season.

McGrady though, while he did suffer early injuries and had some terrible rosters, seems to me, more than anything, to have just had an outlier year shooting the ball. Was Mcgrady truly a better shooter that year, or can it just be attributed to noise?

Wholly irrelevant to the conversation, though.

I think McGrady was slightly better than Kobe in '03. You put Kobe on that Magic team, while it's likely they do, I don't think it's a guarantee he leads them to the playoffs. He went 5-10 without Shaq on a roster similar to Orlando that year, and if they were to make the playoffs, I don't think he takes the Pistons to 7 games. If you pair up McGrady and Shaq, I'd like to think they do better than 50 wins, and I'd give them a pretty good shot at beating the Spurs.

tsherkin wrote:

Im Your Father wrote:
I suppose I guess it depends on what you mean by single year comparison.

Not really. It's pretty clear. They're comparing inside of a very specific season, not beyond the bounds of that season.

McGrady though, while he did suffer early injuries and had some terrible rosters, seems to me, more than anything, to have just had an outlier year shooting the ball. Was Mcgrady truly a better shooter that year, or can it just be attributed to noise?

Wholly irrelevant to the conversation, though.

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

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

Stan wrote:I think McGrady was slightly better than Kobe in '03. You put Kobe on that Magic team, while it's likely they do, I don't think it's a guarantee he leads them to the playoffs. He went 5-10 without Shaq on a roster similar to Orlando that year, and if they were to make the playoffs, I don't think he takes the Pistons to 7 games. If you pair up McGrady and Shaq, I'd like to think they do better than 50 wins, and I'd give them a pretty good shot at beating the Spurs.

Pretty much this. Based on stats and pure level of play, it’s hard to say Kobe was better that season. We saw what he was able to do without Shaq eventually, but don’t think it’s a given at all that version is capable of the floor lift Tmac did.

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

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

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