RealGM 2023 Top 100 Project - #69 (Tracy McGrady)

[Doctor MJ]

Our system is now as follows:

1. We have a pool of Nominees you are to choose from for your Induction (main) vote to decide who next gets on the List. Choose your top vote, and if you'd like to, a second vote which will be used for runoff purposes if needed.

2. Nomination vote now works the same way.

3. You must include reasoning for each of your votes, though you may re-use your old words in a new post.

4. Post as much as they want, but when you do your official Vote make it really clear to me at the top of that post that that post is your Vote. And if you decide to change your vote before the votes are tallied, please edit that same Vote post.

5. Anyone may post thoughts, but please only make a Vote post if you're on the Voter list. If you'd like to be added to the project, please ask in the General Thread for the project. Note that you will not be added immediately to the project now. If you express an interest during the #2 thread, for example, the earliest you'll be added to the Voter list is for the #3.

5. I'll tally the votes when I wake up the morning after the Deadline (I don't care if you change things after the official Deadline, but once I tally, it's over). For this specific Vote, if people ask before the Deadline, I'll extend it.

Here's the list of the Voter Pool as it stands right now (and if I forgot anyone I approved, do let me know):

Spoiler:

AEnigma
Ambrose
ceilng raiser
ceoofkobefans
Clyde Frazier
Colbinii
cupcakesnake
Doctor MJ
Dooley
DQuinn1575
Dr Positivity
DraymondGold
Dutchball97
f4p
falcolombardi
Fundamentals21
Gibson22
HeartBreakKid
homecourtloss
iggymcfrack
LA Bird
JimmyFromNz
Joao Saraiva
lessthanjake
Lou Fan
Moonbeam
Narigo
OhayoKD
OldSchoolNoBull
penbeast0
Rishkar
rk2023
Samurai
ShaqAttac
Taj FTW
Tim Lehrbach
trelos6
trex_8063
ty 4191
WintaSoldier1
ZeppelinPage

Alright, the Nominees for you to choose among for the next slot on the list (in alphabetical order):

Vince Carter


Cliff Hagan


Bobby Jones


Tracy McGrady


Wes Unseld


As requested, here's the current list so far along with the historical spreadsheet of previous projects:

Current List
Historical Spreadsheet

[trex_8063]

Induction Vote: Tracy McGrady
Save probably Bill Walton, this is the highest peak still on the table, imo.
And I want to highlight his peak in particular, simply because some have said Cliff Hagan may be the highest era-relative peak left......

TMac's '03 campaign was insane:
*32.1 ppg (*league-best; bear in mind that's in a slower-paced defensive grind era: teams average 20.5 fewer ppg than in today's league [seriously]; the guy in 5th in ppg in '03 was averaging 25.9......today 10th place is averaging 27.0. 32.1 in '03 is sort of like averaging something like 37 ppg today).

That was on +4.5% rTS, while maintaining a mTOV% of just 5.90% (to give an idea: peak ['91] Jordan had an mTOV% of 5.91%), and averaging 5.5 apg.

He did this while anchored the 10th-best offense, and a 42-win team with the following cast (descending order of minutes):
1) Pat Garrity-->11.2 PER, .091 WS/48, -1.0 BPM. Not only was this player a starter, but he played more minutes than anyone on the team save McGrady himself.
2) Darrell Armstrong-->34 years old that year
3) Mike Miller
4) Jacque Vaughn
5) Shawn Kemp--->on his last legs [final season], overweight, also playing away from his natural position of PF
6) Andrew DeClercq
7) Jeryl Sasser--->never heard of him? Thats because he played just 1,061 CAREER minutes, 1025 of them happening in this season [with a wicked 8.3 PER and -2.3 BPM]; he was waived before the next season.
8) Gordan Giricek
9) Grant Hill--->injury-hampered, just 843 total minutes [in 29 games]
10) Pat Burke--->this is a guy who only received 1293 career minutes in the NBA; 783 of them happened right here.

^^^This is everyone [aside from TMac himself] who played >750 minutes for Orlando that year.
It's an awful cast. Remove McGrady and I'm comfortable saying they don't win 25 [maybe not even 20]. Even replacing him with someone of say.....prime Klay Thompson level, and they likely struggle to top 30 wins.

I know someone will mention how they went 3-4 in seven games without him, but the devil is in the details:
*They only played ONE team with a positive SRS in those seven games (a +1.56 SRS, 44-win team......and they lost that one). Their wins were against a 25-win [-5.13 SRS] team (won by 2 pts), a 37-win [-1.61 SRS] team (again won by just 2), and a 17-win [tied for worst in league], -7.41 SRS [28th of 29 teams] Denver squad.

**He was a team-best +13.0 on/off (next-best on the team was +4.6): they were a +3.3 net rating [would have tied for 7th in the league] when he was on the court, but a -9.7 net rating [would have been worst in the league] when he was off.
His offensive on/off was a staggering +17.5.

They sucked without him, plain and simple. They made the playoffs for one reason and one reason only: because Tracy McGrady played out of his mind that year.

In the playoffs, they faced the 4th-rated defense, the one anchored by one of his fellow candidates here: Ben Wallace. Specifically guarding him were a young Tayshaun Prince and Michael Curry (the latter who only had a career at all because he was good defensively).
Still the Magic took them to 7 games with Tracy McGrady averaging 31.7 ppg and only -0.3% lesser shooting efficiency than his rs standard (that is: still +4.2% rTS).


Number of other pretty impressive years in both Orlando and Houston, too. His longevity overall isn't bad.
So he's my pick here.


Alternate vote: Vince Carter
As I've expounded upon elsewhere [prior thread], his longevity of quality is not near as awesome as his # of seasons suggests, but nonetheless still very good. Sort of similar player as McGrady (freakishly athletic scoring wing), lesser playmaker, but better defender. His peak is lower [imo]. Longevity maybe slightly better, but not by much. Very close; I very nearly have these two adjacent on my ATL.


FOR PURPOSES OF ANY RUN-OFF:
I rank them McGrady > Carter > Unseld (top 3 all very very close: literally occupy three consecutive places on my ATL [so I'm not 100% married to this order among them]) > Jones >> Hagan.


Nomination: Damian Lillard
This is another pretty substantial offensive peak, whose longevity isn't too bad at this point. I'll admit I've been somewhat critical of him in the past because [at least early] I thought he was one of the absolute worse defensive guards in the league.
otoh, recently posted on the forum was an updated [vanilla version, lacking some binding controls] career (1997-2024) RAPM from J.E........and Damian Lillard sits #15! A whopping +7.0, just ahead of guys like Dirk Nowitzki, Kevin Durant, James Harden, and Kawhi Leonard.
Offensively he's tied for 2nd [with Steph Curry] at +7.3!

That merits serious consideration fellas.


Alt nomination: Paul George (switched from Bob Cousy, since Houdini doesn't have traction yet)

[eminence]

A note on Carter that I think gets forgotten with the high flying. That man was a very very good shooter.

[AEnigma]

Nomination: Damian Lillard
This is another pretty substantial offensive peak, whose longevity isn't too bad at this point. I'll admit I've been somewhat critical of him in the past because [at least early] I thought he was one of the absolute worse defensive guards in the league.
otoh, recently posted on the forum was an updated [vanilla version, lacking some binding controls] career (1997-2024) RAPM from J.E........and Damian Lillard sits #15! A whopping +7.0, just ahead of guys like Dirk Nowitzki, Kevin Durant, James Harden, and Kawhi Leonard.
Offensively he's tied for 2nd [with Steph Curry] at +7.3!

That merits serious consideration fellas.

Paul George sits higher in that dataset (and really any dataset) with higher games played and combined minutes played. His positional versatility, defence, and adeptness off-ball all give him a much easier time fitting with other players as well, and I think it is difficult to argue Lillard peaked higher to make up for it in that McGrady/Carter way.

[Dr Positivity]

Vote: Wes Unseld - Has always been a confusing player to rate, Unseld's impact just seems to be bigger than his numbers helping lead very successful 70s Bullets. I don't like the non 03 Tmac seasons enough here.

Nominate: Damian Lillard - He has decent enough longevity as a star at this point (9-10 all star level seasons) and has been #1 guy on decent teams. Poor man's Curry skillset has value on offense. I definitely think he's had a better career than Vince Carter. George is close but his recent health has hurt.

[trex_8063]

Nomination: Damian Lillard
This is another pretty substantial offensive peak, whose longevity isn't too bad at this point. I'll admit I've been somewhat critical of him in the past because [at least early] I thought he was one of the absolute worse defensive guards in the league.
otoh, recently posted on the forum was an updated [vanilla version, lacking some binding controls] career (1997-2024) RAPM from J.E........and Damian Lillard sits #15! A whopping +7.0, just ahead of guys like Dirk Nowitzki, Kevin Durant, James Harden, and Kawhi Leonard.
Offensively he's tied for 2nd [with Steph Curry] at +7.3!

That merits serious consideration fellas.

Paul George sits higher in that dataset (and really any dataset) with higher games played and combined minutes played. His positional versatility, defence, and adeptness off-ball all give him a much easier time fitting with other players as well, and I think it is difficult to argue Lillard peaked higher to make up for it in that McGrady/Carter way.

Good point. I haven't had PG13 on my radar as much as he merits. I could easily be swayed to push an alternate nom his way. He deserves to be in the conversation at this point.

[AEnigma]

VOTE: Tracy McGrady
Alternate: Wes Unseld
NOMINATE: Paul George
AltNom: Rasheed Wallace
With Hayes inducted, I am open to Unseld. Had a nice (albeit not MVP-level) start to his career, and then fell off to more of a general all-star level. One title (Finals MVP was questionable but fine) and three more appearances. Strong leader and culture builder. I have never been too impressed with him by my eye-test, but he had the second longest prime of any player here and the most success while doing so across two distinct roster iterations.

Carter is second on my list, and I am resistant to using McGrady’s peak to elevate him ahead; remember, for his career we are essentially talking about six (relevant) first round playoff series — three with scoring efficiency below 49%, two with a positive on/off, and zero with a positive plus/minus (in other words, never a situation where you could at least say his bench cost him a series win). Great peak, yes, but that is why he is a constant presence in the peaks project while Carter has never made it. However, I have him a lot higher than Bobby and Cliff, so if he has more support, I will vote for him.

Paul George’s lack of support has officially perplexed me. I penalise postseason absence more than most, and I was prioritising Hayes as a fringe top fifty (definite top sixty) name, but now that we are approaching the seventies, I do not see how Jimmy Butler is going to end up at least twenty spots ahead. Ten, yeah, sure, Butler has been a more memorable figure in the postseason, with a nice collection of upsets and two Finals runs while George has been capped at the conference finals and been the victim of several upsets himself. Paul Pierce is maybe more directly comparable for general expected value — not able to elevate teams the way you might say Butler has, but still an elite piece who can be built around as either a weak primary or an elite secondary — so then with him, are we saying his added longevity and title equity (playing next to Garnett and Ray…) merits ~25 spots of separation?

Paul George is one of the best wing defenders ever. He fits naturally in that group of Roberson, TAllen, Iguodala, Artest, Battier, Deng, Lebron, Odom, young Kawhi, etc., while being the clear best shooter of the bunch and a dramatically better scorer than all of them save Lebron. That type of archetype is always going to be valuable.

I would probably characterise him as an improved Paul Pierce, who similarly has always fared well in long-term impact samples which if taken at face value could lead people to conclude he was better than a guy like Kobe. Both of them are functional #1s who are ideal #2s — with Paul George especially coming across as a lab-designed #2.

I think he was clutch outside of a string of four consecutive playoff series where he very much was not. And four series is going to stick in people’s minds, so that killed the claim, but 2014/16/17/[no Kawhi 2021] pretty much offsets that “not clutch” stretch.

For me he is the clear-cut top option yet to be nominated.

[trex_8063]

Paul George’s lack of support has officially perplexed me. I penalise postseason absence more than most, and I was prioritising Hayes as a fringe top fifty (definite top sixty) name, but now that we are approaching the seventies, I do not see how Jimmy Butler is going to end up at least twenty spots ahead. Ten, yeah, sure, Butler has been a more memorable figure in the postseason, with a nice collection of upsets and two Finals runs while George has been capped at the conference finals and been the victim of several upsets himself. Paul Pierce is maybe more directly comparable for general expected value — not able to elevate teams the way you might say Butler has, but still an elite piece who can be built around as either a weak primary or an elite secondary — so then with him, are we saying his added longevity and title equity (playing next to Garnett and Ray…) merits ~25 spots of separation?

Paul George is one of the best wing defenders ever. He fits naturally in that group of Roberson, TAllen, Iguodala, Artest, Battier, Deng, Lebron, Odom, young Kawhi, etc., while being the clear best shooter of the bunch and a dramatically better scorer than all of them save Lebron. That type of archetype is always going to be valuable.

I would probably characterise him as an improved Paul Pierce, who similarly has always fared well in long-term impact samples which if taken at face value could lead people to conclude he was better than a guy like Kobe. Both of them are functional #1s who are ideal #2s — with Paul George especially coming across as a lab-designed #2.

I think he was clutch outside of a string of four consecutive playoff series where he very much was not. And four series is going to stick in people’s minds, so that killed the claim, but 2014/16/17/[no Kawhi 2021] pretty much offsets that “not clutch” stretch.

For me he is the clear-cut top option yet to be nominated.

I'm going to offer just a few points of criticism potentially related to why some people may not yet be supporting him (bear in mind I say this as someone who thinks he'd be a worthy addition to the candidate pool).....


One small nit to pick first: in your self-quoted portion you state he's a "dramatically better scorer than all of them save Lebron". Ahem......Kawhi.

Additionally, where scoring is concerned, I'm reluctant to get TOO bullish in praise for him. For instance, he's mostly (outside of I guess maybe 1-2 seasons) hovered just a little above league average in shooting efficiency (a few years not even that).


Some other critiques [about his offense] which may be relevant when comparing him to some of the other names you mention above:
Butler and Iguodala (and obviously Lebron) are far better passer/playmakers.

Vs. Butler again, though also Kawhi (and to lesser degrees against most other SF's [even Kevin Durant]):
His turnover economy leaves A LOT to be desired. His career mTOV% of 9.17% hedges a little toward poor among wings/SF's (especially in the modern era).


His availability is bit of a concern to some:
Even pro-rating shortened seasons to full-length, he'd have played something like 823 games in 13 seasons. That's missing 19 games per year on average. With the new rule, that would make him ineligible to even receive an MVP vote in his average season Mind you, I don't fully agree with the new rule, at least not as tight as it is; but jsia......his missed time has been significant. In '19 (his single-best year, imo), he PLAYED, but wasn't himself in the playoffs, and certainly his health late in the year is always a concern.
This sort of ties right into effective longevity in the way I assess things, fwiw.


None of this disqualifies him from consideration. Just trying to explain away your perplexity.

[AEnigma]

Paul George’s lack of support has officially perplexed me. I penalise postseason absence more than most, and I was prioritising Hayes as a fringe top fifty (definite top sixty) name, but now that we are approaching the seventies, I do not see how Jimmy Butler is going to end up at least twenty spots ahead. Ten, yeah, sure, Butler has been a more memorable figure in the postseason, with a nice collection of upsets and two Finals runs while George has been capped at the conference finals and been the victim of several upsets himself. Paul Pierce is maybe more directly comparable for general expected value — not able to elevate teams the way you might say Butler has, but still an elite piece who can be built around as either a weak primary or an elite secondary — so then with him, are we saying his added longevity and title equity (playing next to Garnett and Ray…) merits ~25 spots of separation?

Paul George is one of the best wing defenders ever. He fits naturally in that group of Roberson, TAllen, Iguodala, Artest, Battier, Deng, Lebron, Odom, young Kawhi, etc., while being the clear best shooter of the bunch and a dramatically better scorer than all of them save Lebron. That type of archetype is always going to be valuable.

I would probably characterise him as an improved Paul Pierce, who similarly has always fared well in long-term impact samples which if taken at face value could lead people to conclude he was better than a guy like Kobe. Both of them are functional #1s who are ideal #2s — with Paul George especially coming across as a lab-designed #2.

I think he was clutch outside of a string of four consecutive playoff series where he very much was not. And four series is going to stick in people’s minds, so that killed the claim, but 2014/16/17/[no Kawhi 2021] pretty much offsets that “not clutch” stretch.

For me he is the clear-cut top option yet to be nominated.

I'm going to offer just a few points of criticism potentially related to why some people may not yet be supporting him (bear in mind I say this as someone who thinks he'd be a worthy addition to the candidate pool).....

One small nit to pick first: in your self-quoted portion you state he's a "dramatically better scorer than all of them save Lebron". Ahem......Kawhi.

I specified young Kawhi. Now, Kawhi has maintained some of that Kobe/Jordan effect where he still has isolation value in key matchups, but if we are just looking at the data, he has not been on that level as an overall defender since 2016. And maybe you want to say 2016 Kawhi is a comparable or even better scorer, but that is just one year in the time frame I selected.

Additionally, where scoring is concerned, I'm reluctant to get TOO bullish in praise for him. For instance, he's mostly (outside of I guess maybe 1-2 seasons) hovered just a little above league average in shooting efficiency (a few years not even that).

??? The only years below are 2013, 2015 (91 minutes played), and 2022 (1000 minutes played). “Just a little” is pretty soft for a player whose adjusted efficiency (prime or otherwise) is better than or comparable to, oh, Vince Carter’s, Tracy McGrady’s, Allen Iverson’s… Clyde Drexler will end up going ~30 spots ahead…

His availability is bit of a concern to some:
Even pro-rating shortened seasons to full-length, he'd have played something like 823 games in 13 seasons. That's missing 19 games per year on average. With the new rule, that would make him ineligible to even receive an MVP vote in his average season Mind you, I don't fully agree with the new rule, at least not as tight as it is; but jsia......his missed time has been significant. In '19 (his single-best year, imo), he PLAYED, but wasn't himself in the playoffs, and certainly his health late in the year is always a concern.
This sort of ties right into effective longevity in the way I assess things, fwiw.

None of this disqualifies him from consideration. Just trying to explain away your perplexity.

But the thing is that you and I have been some of the most critical of that type of longevity. For people who are relatively indifferent to those issues, a ~ten year prime as an all-NBA calibre player with a weak MVP peak in 2019 should be hard to criticise — but for the fact he has never made the Finals, which is why he understandably trails guys like Drexler and Pierce and Butler in any “legacy” considerations. I think getting toward the seventies, that is not much of an issue anymore — as evidenced by the inclusion of Vince and McGrady.

[trelos6]

Vote: T-Mac



Alt: Vince Carter



The cousins are close, coming in at #63 and #66 in my CORP. Ultimately, with this project, I’m giving peak a bit more weight. Which gave McGrady a very narrow edge over Vince.

For the purpose of tiebreaker, Bobby Jones.

Nomination: Rasheed Wallace

Amazing ceiling raiser. I recently heard, teams play is often based off the limitations of their 4. Can they spread the floor? Can they facilitate? Can they play high level D? I think Sheed lets you play any way you like. Quite versatile, not many weaknesses, and played hard.


Alt. nomination: Damian Lillard

Tremendous offensive player, especially once he extended his range ~2019. Prob won’t see him get any more all nba level seasons, but I expect a few more all star level seasons. I realistically don’t see how he can get into the top 60 in future projects.

[trex_8063]

I specified young Kawhi. Now, Kawhi has maintained some of that Kobe/Jordan effect where he still has isolation value in key matchups, but if we are just looking at the data, he has not been on that level as an overall defender since 2016. And maybe you want to say 2016 Kawhi is a comparable or even better scorer, but that is just one year in the time frame I selected.

Ah, I missed the "young" (at least when thinking about the scoring). However, now that I look at it....

While it's true George scored at a higher volume [in his prime, at least] than "young" Kawhi [except for '16] and at higher mpg, he also did so at lesser shooting efficiency (sometimes by a lot)......such much so, in fact, that '12-'16 Kawhi already accumulated slightly more TS Add [at 438.4] than the FULL CAREER [not counting current season] of Paul George [427.5].

That's before any consideration of ball-control (where even young Kawhi is way better).

So I'm actually still not sure it's a slam-dunk to say George is actually a better scorer; and I DEFINITELY do not think the descriptor of "far better" is accurate.

Additionally, where scoring is concerned, I'm reluctant to get TOO bullish in praise for him. For instance, he's mostly (outside of I guess maybe 1-2 seasons) hovered just a little above league average in shooting efficiency (a few years not even that).

??? The only years below are 2013, 2015 (91 minutes played), and 2022 (1000 minutes played). “Just a little” is pretty soft for a player whose adjusted efficiency (prime or otherwise) is better than or comparable to, oh, Vince Carter’s, Tracy McGrady’s, Allen Iverson’s… Clyde Drexler will end up going ~30 spots ahead…

Hey, what can I say? Throw as many question-marks in a row at me, but I don't think I've said anything inaccurate or untrue here (pending semantic agreement on what "a little above average" means). I'll take it year-by-year [rTS%, rounded to nearest tenth] to state how I semantically view it:

'11: +0.1% (that's "a little above", if even that)
'12: +2.8% (marginally more than "a little above")
'13: -0.4% (less than "a little above")
'14: +1.4% (that's almost exactly what I would [semantically] call "a little above")
'15 [only 6 games]: -4.2% (whatev; it's six games)
'16: +1.6% (again: almost exactly)
'17: +3.5% (more than "just a little above average", but definitively below anything that could be called "elite" or even "excellent")
'18: +1.4% (exactly)
'19: +2.3% (maybe marginally more than)
'20: +2.4% (marginally more)
'21: +2.6% (marginally more)
'22: -2.8% (kinda poor, though only played 31 games)
'23: +0.7% (barely even "a little above")

Career avg: +1.6%


So yeah, I don't think I've been false with that statement.
wrt these other names you've mentioned, a few things to note by way of counterpoint (fwiw).....

I assume the raw scoring volume/rate matters to you (likely what prompted saying that George was a "far" better scorer than young Kawhi, right?). As such, it's worth noting that [in their respective primes] ALL of the guys you mentioned except Drexler scored at at least slightly higher rates (McGrady's full prime avg pts/100 is higher than PG13's single-season best, for example; and did so while playing higher mpg).

I'd also rate every one of those guys better playmaker's than George, though in Vince's case it's not a significant margin (for the other guys it IS, though [imo]).

I'd also note [again] that every one of them has a superior turnover economy to George (ball-control/turnovers being the oft-forgotten aspect of offensive efficiency); and in McGrady's case it's by a BIG margin.

Drexler is a better offensive rebounder, too, even with era adjustment.


None of these things is an "I rest my case" argument, but these things matter quite a bit when comparing offense.
He's better defensively than any of them, probably even comfortably so, it's true. But he might be lesser offensively than all too (Carter and Iverson are the only ones close, imo), and his longevity is lesser than all except McGrady.

And if you want to rank him ahead of some/many of these guys, that's fine by me. I can see it.
I just don't quite understand being perplexed that someone might rank TMac a little higher, for example.

His availability is bit of a concern to some:
Even pro-rating shortened seasons to full-length, he'd have played something like 823 games in 13 seasons. That's missing 19 games per year on average. With the new rule, that would make him ineligible to even receive an MVP vote in his average season Mind you, I don't fully agree with the new rule, at least not as tight as it is; but jsia......his missed time has been significant. In '19 (his single-best year, imo), he PLAYED, but wasn't himself in the playoffs, and certainly his health late in the year is always a concern.
This sort of ties right into effective longevity in the way I assess things, fwiw.

None of this disqualifies him from consideration. Just trying to explain away your perplexity.

But the thing is that you and I have been some of the most critical of that type of longevity. For people who are relatively indifferent to those issues, a ~ten year prime as an all-NBA calibre player with a weak MVP peak in 2019 should be hard to criticise — but for the fact he has never made the Finals, which is why he understandably trails guys like Drexler and Pierce and Butler in any “legacy” considerations. I think getting toward the seventies, that is not much of an issue anymore — as evidenced by the inclusion of Vince and McGrady.

Oh, I totally agree. Understand this is not me saying "we shouldn't really be considering Paul George" or "Paul George doesn't belong before these other 5-10+ guys get in". This is just me softly proposing why SOME posters might rank a guy like Tracy McGrady, or Wes Unseld, or whoever, just a little higher.

And those little legacy considerations do matter to people, whether they admit it or not. I freely admit that they do for me, though I try to temper that with context and performance.
But I've no doubt that if the Clippers make it to the Finals this year, George's stock is going to sky-rocket next year.

[AEnigma]

I specified young Kawhi. Now, Kawhi has maintained some of that Kobe/Jordan effect where he still has isolation value in key matchups, but if we are just looking at the data, he has not been on that level as an overall defender since 2016. And maybe you want to say 2016 Kawhi is a comparable or even better scorer, but that is just one year in the time frame I selected.

Ah, I missed the "young" (at least when thinking about the scoring). However, now that I look at it....

While it's true George scored at a higher volume [in his prime, at least] than "young" Kawhi [except for '16] and at higher mpg, he also did so at lesser shooting efficiency (sometimes by a lot)......such much so, in fact, that '12-'16 Kawhi already accumulated slightly more TS Add [at 438.4] than the FULL CAREER [not counting current season] of Paul George [427.5].

That's before any consideration of ball-control (where even young Kawhi is way better).

So I'm actually still not sure it's a slam-dunk to say George is actually a better scorer; and I DEFINITELY do not think the descriptor of "far better" is accurate.

Additionally, where scoring is concerned, I'm reluctant to get TOO bullish in praise for him. For instance, he's mostly (outside of I guess maybe 1-2 seasons) hovered just a little above league average in shooting efficiency (a few years not even that).

??? The only years below are 2013, 2015 (91 minutes played), and 2022 (1000 minutes played). “Just a little” is pretty soft for a player whose adjusted efficiency (prime or otherwise) is better than or comparable to, oh, Vince Carter’s, Tracy McGrady’s, Allen Iverson’s… Clyde Drexler will end up going ~30 spots ahead…

Hey, what can I say? Throw as many question-marks in a row at me, but I don't think I've said anything inaccurate or untrue here (pending semantic agreement on what "a little above average" means). I'll take it year-by-year [rTS%, rounded to nearest tenth] to state how I semantically view it:

'11: +0.1% (that's "a little above", if even that)
'12: +2.8% (marginally more than "a little above")
'13: -0.4% (less than "a little above")
'14: +1.4% (that's almost exactly what I would [semantically] call "a little above")
'15 [only 6 games]: -4.2% (whatev; it's six games)
'16: +1.6% (again: almost exactly)
'17: +3.5% (more than "just a little above average", but definitively below anything that could be called "elite" or even "excellent")
'18: +1.4% (exactly)
'19: +2.3% (maybe marginally more than)
'20: +2.4% (marginally more)
'21: +2.6% (marginally more)
'22: -2.8% (kinda poor, though only played 31 games)
'23: +0.7% (barely even "a little above")

Career avg: +1.6%

So yeah, I don't think I've been false with that statement.
wrt these other names you've mentioned, a few things to note by way of counterpoint (fwiw).....

I assume the raw scoring volume/rate matters to you (likely what prompted saying that George was a "far" better scorer than young Kawhi, right?). As such, it's worth noting that [in their respective primes] ALL of the guys you mentioned except Drexler scored at at least slightly higher rates (McGrady's full prime avg pts/100 is higher than PG13's single-season best, for example; and did so while playing higher mpg).

Yep, I would call them all better scorers, because volume does matter, and efficiency is tougher to maintain as you increase your volume. George has never been an outstanding scorer, but he has been a clear and consistent positive on a scoring load befitting that of a typical first option.

I'd also rate every one of those guys better playmaker's than George, though in Vince's case it's not a significant margin (for the other guys it IS, though [imo]).

I'd also note [again] that every one of them has a superior turnover economy to George (ball-control/turnovers being the oft-forgotten aspect of offensive efficiency); and in McGrady's case it's by a BIG margin.

Drexler is a better offensive rebounder, too, even with era adjustment.

None of these things is an "I rest my case" argument, but these things matter quite a bit when comparing offense.
He's better defensively than any of them, probably even comfortably so, it's true. But he might be lesser offensively than all too (Carter and Iverson are the only ones close, imo), and his longevity is lesser than all except McGrady.

And if you want to rank him ahead of some/many of these guys, that's fine by me. I can see it.
I just don't quite understand being perplexed that someone might rank TMac a little higher, for example.

All those names (save Iverson) have been nominated and all but two were inducted quite a while ago. That is my point. He does not need to be a better offensive engine than any of them (he is not) for his defence to let him be comparably good and easier to add to teams that do not need a high volume scorer/playmaker.

His availability is bit of a concern to some:
Even pro-rating shortened seasons to full-length, he'd have played something like 823 games in 13 seasons. That's missing 19 games per year on average. With the new rule, that would make him ineligible to even receive an MVP vote in his average season Mind you, I don't fully agree with the new rule, at least not as tight as it is; but jsia......his missed time has been significant. In '19 (his single-best year, imo), he PLAYED, but wasn't himself in the playoffs, and certainly his health late in the year is always a concern.
This sort of ties right into effective longevity in the way I assess things, fwiw.

None of this disqualifies him from consideration. Just trying to explain away your perplexity.

But the thing is that you and I have been some of the most critical of that type of longevity. For people who are relatively indifferent to those issues, a ~ten year prime as an all-NBA calibre player with a weak MVP peak in 2019 should be hard to criticise — but for the fact he has never made the Finals, which is why he understandably trails guys like Drexler and Pierce and Butler in any “legacy” considerations. I think getting toward the seventies, that is not much of an issue anymore — as evidenced by the inclusion of Vince and McGrady.

Oh, I totally agree. Understand this is not me saying "we shouldn't really be considering Paul George" or "Paul George doesn't belong before these other 5-10+ guys get in". This is just me softly proposing why SOME posters might rank a guy like Tracy McGrady, or Wes Unseld, or whoever, just a little higher.

And those little legacy considerations do matter to people, whether they admit it or not. I freely admit that they do for me, though I try to temper that with context and performance.
But I've no doubt that if the Clippers make it to the Finals this year, George's stock is going to sky-rocket next year.

So again, I am more elevating George above everyone not nominated than I am saying he should go ahead of Carter or McGrady or Unseld.

And in terms of success, I think by now he has become one of the top options, in addition to having one of the best primes, in addition to having one of the best skillsets, in addition to playing in the best league… The argument just feels extremely intuitive to me, so it has been weird to see only Iggy and me promote him as a serious candidate.

[iggymcfrack]

Quoting from previous thread for discussion:

.

.

.

.

Would any of Hagan's supporters care to reply to the relative lack of positive impact indicators which I brought forth previously (in comparison to Billups [have augmented]):

Spoiler:

So maybe he's got some indication of massive impact (which exceeds what you view to be lacking in Billups' case).

Well let's look at some with/without; I'll colour-code red when the team had a higher win% without him, green when better with him.....

'57: 30-37 with, 4-1 without
'58: 39-31 with, 2-0 without
'59: did not miss games (49-23 record)
'60: did not miss games (46-29 record)
'61: 50-27 with, 1-1 without
'62: 27-50 with, 2-1 without
'63: 47-32 with, 1-0 without
'64: 44-33 with, 2-1 without
'65: 43-34 with, 2-1 without
'66: 33-41 with, 3-3 without
'68 [ABA]: 32-24 with, 14-8 without
'69: 16-19 with, 25-18 without
'70: 2-1 with, 43-38 without

That's a lot of red.
Overall, his NBA teams were 408-337 [.548] with him, 17-8 [.680] without him.
His ABA teams were 50-44 [.532] with him, 81-64 [.559] without him.

NBA and ABA combined, his teams were 458-381 [.546] with him, 99-72 [.579] without him: looking at it cumulatively in this fashion, they averaged a +.033 win% edge without him (translates to a little over 2 additional wins in 82-game season). Looking at it in terms of season-by-season pro-rated wins [with and without], and then taking the average, the gap gets marginally larger (with his team still averaging better records without him).

EDIT: Could also add in a peek at what happened in the year before he arrived and the year after he left, but neither of those things reflect positively either.

Looking at Ben Taylor's WOWYR, his prime WOWYR is a fairly underwhelming +1.4 (+1.3 for career). And fwiw, comparing him to the other candidates [present and recent] here by prime/career WOWYR:

McGrady: +4.4/+2.4
Wallace: +3.6/+4.4
Carter: +3.5/+2.7
Unseld: +1.8/+1.8
Jones: +3.4/+4.6
Billups: +5.7/+4.2
Hayes: +3.2/+2.8
Gasol: +2.4/+1.9
Parish: +4.3/+2.6


For several threads now, Hagan has consistently been the guy sitting dead-last in terms of what impact indicators we actually have for him (and this in the weakest era among all candidates as well, fwiw).

jsia....

Not a case for him here particularly but thoughts, especially wrt to W-L WoWY.

W-L is a somewhat noisy measure of team goodness. Binary W-L loses a lot of nuance.
Here it is taken for small samples across uneven opposition (including home, road).
Aggregating across years will depend on where the smaller (typically "out") sample happened but it won't likely be even with the in.
Short term absences would tend to be ones where no replacement in acquired but rather the team makes do with what they have. Present roster construction will matter here. Specialists may be harder to replace. "Middle" positions, especially SF, could be easier to plug a gap for having two adjacent positions as well as deeper depth chart options, where replacing at C and PG may offer less optionality (assuming a preference for reasonably conventional positional lineups).

All of which is to say there's significant noise in there.

I guess to Hagan in particular:
- His case probably rests somewhat on the playoffs - now a bad RS impact signal doesn't help but if playoff box is better maybe one assumes playoff impact is too, depending on personal process.
- Rookie year was played significantly out of position at guard.
- Above points regarding small samples, and possible one regarding position apply. Hagan also not really (otoh) a specialist so perhaps easier to cobble together replacements and continue with existing system than some players may be.
- Very limited out sample within his "strong prime" (subjective but I'd say 58-61 though that is itself a short spell so one could argue this as a weakness).

As far as consistency ... I'd say tighter impact data suggests B Jones had a better NBA/76ers career than Erving so without diving to deep to individual voters it's not like impact stuff has been taken as gospel.

Not saying it's not a negative. Just offering some pro-Hagan perspectives, mitigations or cases for internal consistency.

OK.

I’ve looked further at specific games missed, year-by-year, to calculate SRS based on opponent faced and location of games (HCA counted as worth 3 pts). Below are the games he missed (location, opponent, result).....

‘57: at home vs 34-38 (-0.89 SRS) Lakers (win by 22 pts)
At home vs 31-41 (-2.08 SRS) Royals (win by 13 pts)
Neutral location vs 34-38 (-2.17 SRS) Pistons (win by 11 pts)
On road vs 34-38 (-0.89 SRS) Lakers (win by 3 pts)
Neutral location [though far closer to opponent’s home city (NY, NY)] vs 37-35 (+1.54 SRS) Warriors (lose by 1 pt)
SRS Without Hagan: +8.10; SRS With Hagan: -0.89

‘58: at home vs 33-39 (-2.32 SRS) Pistons (win by 2 pts)
At home vs 33-39 (-1.47 SRS) Royals (win by 18 pts)
SRS Without Hagan: +5.11; SRS With Hagan: +0.70

‘61: on road vs 38-41 (+1.93 SRS) Nationals (lose by 28 pts)
On road vs 21-58 (-5.43 SRS) Knicks (win by 3 pts)
SRS Without Hagan: -11.25; SRS With Hagan: +3.36

‘62: on road vs 49-31 (+2.63 SRS) Warriors (win by 5 pts)
At home vs 18-62 (-7.54 SRS) Packers (win by 9 pts)
on road vs 49-31 (+2.63 SRS) Warriors (lose by 18 pts)
SRS Without Hagan: -1.09; SRS With Hagan: -3.03

‘63: Neutral location vs 21-59 (-6.20 SRS) Knicks (won by 15 pts)
SRS Without Hagan: +8.8; SRS With Hagan: +1.29

‘64: Neutral location [closer to opponent (NY,NY) vs 34-46 (-3.75 SRS) Warriors (won by 10 pts)
On road vs 59-21 (+6.93 SRS) Celtics (lost by 9 pts)
On road vs 48-32 (+4.41 SRS) Warriors (won by 9 pts)
SRS Without Hagan: +7.86; SRS With Hagan: +1.14

‘65: on road vs 40-40 (-0.13 SRS) 76’ers (lost by 4 pts)
On road vs 31-49 (-3.26 SRS) Knicks (won by 1 pt)
At home vs 40-40 (-0.13 SRS) 76’ers (won by 14 pts)
SRS Without Hagan: +3.49; SRS With Hagan: +2.65

‘66: On road vs 45-35 (+1.03 SRS) Royals (lost by 4 pts)
At home vs 45-35 (+1.03 SRS) Royals (won by 2 pts)
Neutral location (though far closer to opponent [Pittsburgh]) vs 55-25 (+4.16 SRS) 76’ers (lost by 12 pts)
Neutral location [though in Rhode Island] vs 54-26 (+4.34 SRS) Celtics (won by 20 pts)
On road vs 55-25 (+4.16 SRS) 76’ers (lost by 8 pts)
On road vs 22-58 (-6.07 SRS) Pistons (won by 4 pts)
SRS Without Hagan: +2.78; SRS With Hagan: -0.77


That's his ENTIRE NBA career.
Year after year, every year except ONE [where the without sample is two games] they had a better SRS in the games he missed (sometimes substantially so). Haven't done the math, weighted for games in each year, but it looks like an average of somewhere around +4 better in the games he missed.
And that's despite them ALL being short absences (no time to find suitable replacement, as you noted: should if anything make it worse in the without).
And that's also counting all the "neutral locations" as neutral, even though [in some instances] it was basically an hour drive away from the opponent's home town.

Somewhat more granular, still reflects very poorly on Hagan.


I haven't [at least yet] looked at the ABA sample, because even the first year (perhaps only truly relevant one) is 28 missed games I'll have to find and calculate for.

Though that sample (which I suspect also reflects poorly) won't matter to OldSchoolNoBull anyway, as he's just declared it mostly irrelevant (because *post-prime).
*fwiw, This flies a little bit in the face of things Doctor MJ has said (about how he was still so effective even in his mid-30s after making an ABA comeback).

This is absolutely disgusting. There’s no way this dude belongs in the top 100. I’d rather vote for a role player with good impact numbers in the modern league like Jrue Holiday or Jeff Hornacek. Hagan looks like he might have been barely positive against like D-2 level competition. He’s like the Kyrie of the era when they only allowed 2 black players on a team.

[70sFan]

This is absolutely disgusting. There’s no way this dude belongs in the top 100. I’d rather vote for a role player with good impact numbers in the modern league like Jrue Holiday or Jeff Hornacek. Hagan looks like he might have been barely positive against like D-2 level competition. He’s like the Kyrie of the era when they only allowed 2 black players on a team.

Is this allowed to trash others choices like that without any substantial criticism?

[iggymcfrack]

This is absolutely disgusting. There’s no way this dude belongs in the top 100. I’d rather vote for a role player with good impact numbers in the modern league like Jrue Holiday or Jeff Hornacek. Hagan looks like he might have been barely positive against like D-2 level competition. He’s like the Kyrie of the era when they only allowed 2 black players on a team.

Is this allowed to trash others choices like that without any substantial criticism?

I was quoting trex's post because it came at the very end of the last thread where I thought people might have missed it. I feel like the numbers he has explain everything perfectly. The team was better without Hagan than with him in 7 out of 8 NBA seasons where he missed games, often by a large amount. I mean I know there are sample size issues, but the negative impact signal is still very alarming.

[70sFan]

This is absolutely disgusting. There’s no way this dude belongs in the top 100. I’d rather vote for a role player with good impact numbers in the modern league like Jrue Holiday or Jeff Hornacek. Hagan looks like he might have been barely positive against like D-2 level competition. He’s like the Kyrie of the era when they only allowed 2 black players on a team.

Is this allowed to trash others choices like that without any substantial criticism?

I was quoting trex's post because it came at the very end of the last thread where I thought people might have missed it. I feel like the numbers he has explain everything perfectly. The team was better without Hagan than with him in 7 out of 8 NBA seasons where he missed games, often by a large amount. I mean I know there are sample size issues, but the negative impact signal is still very alarming.

You didn't just quote trex, you also added this:

"This is absolutely disgusting. There’s no way this dude belongs in the top 100."

The quote above suggest that people voting for Hagan are dumb and can't understand that Hagan doesn't really belong in top 100. Do you maintain this opinion?

About trex's post (thanks for the new data provided by the way), it is an alarming signal indeed but we have to take into account a few things:

1. NBA sample has 25 games across 10 years span. "Small sample issues" is an understatement, Hagan missed 2.5 games per year on average.

2. Two biggest samples comes from his first and last year in the league, being unrepresentative for his prime years.

3. The biggest outlier we see is his rookie season, when Hagan famously played out of position during the RS and was a bench player until the playoffs. This 4-1 and +9 SRS swing using against Hagan would be comparable to judging Nash prime by his 1997 season. Hagan was misused and didn't play much in 1957 RS, so I doubt his pressence had a huge factor on the record.

4. For the rest of his NBA career, Hawks went 13-7 without him (in 9 years) and I don't find this sample useful at all. Thanks to trex work we know that St Louis won only 4 games with positive SRS in that span. Do you seriously want to conclude anything from such a tiny sample?

[LA Bird]

Not completely opposed to voting Unseld but here are some of my concerns:

• Unseld's MVP argument is almost entirely based on the Bullets improving from -0.2 to +4.1 SRS in his rookie season. But people don't talk about the team regressing to the same -0.2 SRS average during his 3rd and 4th year combined.

• Unseld is one of the shortest centers in NBA history at under 6'6 barefoot and he had neither the wingspan nor the hops to make up for the lack of height - for his (recorded) career, he blocked less than 1 out of every 100 opponent shot attempts. Unseld also does not have the quickness to switch onto guards out on the perimeter and despite his reputation for tough physical man defense, there is to my knowledge no strong statistical evidence of him shutting down opponent centers on a consistent basis like Thurmond did. All in all, very little rim protection, not great out on the perimeter, good but not historic post defense... does that really sound like a top defender overall?

• The "impact beyond box score" trope gets overused for Unseld IMO because people saw him as the next Russell. As outlined above, he was not really bringing much non-box defensive impact. His rebounding shows up well enough in box scores already and he gets far more credit for his passing than contemporaries like Boerwinkle, Lacey, and Alvan Adams who were equal if not better passing centers. I will give Unseld screening but Gobert is the best screener in the NBA today, in a 3pt heavy era where (illegal) screens are more valuable than ever, and yet nobody is talking about nominating him because of his screens.

• Much of the Bullets' playoffs success came in the mid to late 70s with post-injury Unseld being the 2nd or 3rd best player behind Hayes and Dandridge. If Milwaukee hadn't been moved from the East to the Western conference in 1971, Unseld's Bullets would have been eliminated in the first round of the playoffs in 6 of his first 6 seasons - which is not itself a problem (TMac says hi) but I think it's worth noting if people are rewarding Unseld as an inherent "winner" because of his later team success. FWIW, during their title run in 1978, Unseld missed 3 games in the ECF against Dr J's Sixers and the Bullets went 13+ SRS without him to take a commanding 3-1 lead.

[Owly]

Not completely opposed to voting Unseld but here are some of my concerns:

• Unseld's MVP argument is almost entirely based on the Bullets improving from -0.2 to +4.1 SRS in his rookie season. But people don't talk about the team regressing to the same -0.2 SRS average during his 3rd and 4th year combined.

Also his MVP case as it was at the time would have been more about the 36 win to 57 win jump, but as those SRSes imply the real jump was probably smaller as (a) they underachieved their pythag wins in '68 then overachieved in '69 in both cases (and especially cumulatively) to a significant degree and (b) expansion (12 to 14, not including any ABA influence) reduced the standard of the average team.

[Dr Positivity]

This is absolutely disgusting. There’s no way this dude belongs in the top 100. I’d rather vote for a role player with good impact numbers in the modern league like Jrue Holiday or Jeff Hornacek. Hagan looks like he might have been barely positive against like D-2 level competition. He’s like the Kyrie of the era when they only allowed 2 black players on a team.

Is this allowed to trash others choices like that without any substantial criticism?

I was quoting trex's post because it came at the very end of the last thread where I thought people might have missed it. I feel like the numbers he has explain everything perfectly. The team was better without Hagan than with him in 7 out of 8 NBA seasons where he missed games, often by a large amount. I mean I know there are sample size issues, but the negative impact signal is still very alarming.

Not really. As I said in the last thread from 63-65 his team averages 45-33 with him and goes 5-2 in games without him, which is both a tiny sample and not a huge difference from the previous rate. eg. the Kings could lose Sabonis for 7 games and go 5-2 and it wouldn't change my opinion of his value to them, over 7 games they could have just got hot or the other teams don't know how to play mega spacing and Fox non Sabonis lineups, etc. Plus these are the seasons where Hagan is under 20ppg and 30mpg and no longer expected to be playing at top 100 level. In 57 he's a 5ppg player and in 66 he's a <.100 WS/48 player. He misses like 4 total games in his actual 5 year prime.

I guess I shouldn't be surprised people are obsessed with raw +/- with the overall ElGee-ification of this place, the guy I once saw try to use how the Jazz played in Karl Malone's missed games in a top 100 project.

[eminence]

How impressed are folks really with ‘62 Hagan?

To me we’re looking at a guy who was only playing at an all-star/all-nba level for 4 years. I’m not an era guy, but his longevity just looks really bad for a top 100 guy (assuming no MVP level peak).