Where would Peak Kevin McHale rank today?

[Matt15]

Where would peak McHale rank overall in todays league?

[penbeast0]

He would most likely be used as a center with excellent mobility, switchability, and good rim protection. His relatively weak rebounding skills would be less important however his relatively limited passing skills would be magnified in today's offenses. Still, probably a top 3-5 big in the NBA.

If the poll is overall players in the NBA, however, bigs are relatively less important than in McHale's era so probably not top 10 in the NBA.

[Colbinii]

I voted Top 15 with a realistic shot at Top 10.

[kcktiny]

Kevin McHale had a long peak, a 6-7 year stretch at least.

But looking at just his best single season, statistically it was 1986-87 as not only was it his best offensive season but he was also named to the all-defensive 1st team that year. It was also his only season named all-NBA 1st team, and his only season playing 3000+ minutes (40 min/g).

That year he was as good as any PF this season, like Giannis Antetokounmpo, Jaren Jackson Jr., Jayson Tatum, Evan Mobley, whomever.

[penbeast0]

Even in his best year, he isn't Giannis. He wasn't as quick and had less range, though a truly outstanding basic post game. And, the biggest differential, Giannis's ability to create for others was not a strength of the man Larry Bird called "the black hole," (though take that with a grain of salt because Bird loved to rag on both teammates and foes).

[kcktiny]

Even in his best year, he isn't Giannis... Giannis's ability to create for others was not a strength of the man Larry Bird called "the black hole,"

Not everyone on a team has to pass for assists at a high rate. With Larry Bird and a PG, Boston did not need another passer.

On the contrary what winning teams do need are players that can score efficiently - high overall shooting with as few turnovers as possible - at a high rate and often on as few touches as possible.

McHale's rate of pts/turnovers was higher in 1986-87 than in any season of Antetokounmpo. He also shot better overall that season than Giannis ever has - a higher eFG% and he also shot 84% on FTs that season. The past 3+ seasons Giannis shot between a 63%-72% FT%. McHale committed 2.6 TO/g, Antetokounmpo the past 3+ seasons 3.3-3.9 TO/g.

For Giannis that's more missed shots/FTs, more turnovers, less offensive efficiency.

McHale had far fewer possessions where he did not score (in relation to his scoring) than Antetokounmpo ever has. On a team with a HOF passing SF and a PG the last thing that Celtics team needed was another passer in the frontcourt.

Winning basketball is about shooting as best as you can with as few turnovers as possible on offense, and holding your opponent to the lowest shooting possible while forcing as many turnovers on defense as possible.

By your logic Antetokounmpo would be a better player than Karl Malone. Malone played 11 seasons of 3000+ minutes, never had as many as even 380 assists in a season. From the ages of 22-27 Malone average only 2.9 ast/40min, Antetokounmpo 6.7 ast/40min. But on a team with a PG getting 1000+ ast/season the last thing that Jazz team needed was a frontcourt passer. What it needed was a high scorer that was efficient on offense on as few touches as possible (no extra missed shots/FTs, not a lot of turnovers).

And that's a key reason why Utah averaged 55 wins a season over more than a decade.

[70sFan]

I think peak McHale would be a top 10 player now. He's extremely skilled offensive player and his defense should be fine enough.

I don't think he'd reach top 5, although I could be surprised.

[penbeast0]

Even in his best year, he isn't Giannis... Giannis's ability to create for others was not a strength of the man Larry Bird called "the black hole,"

Not everyone on a team has to pass for assists at a high rate. With Larry Bird and a PG, Boston did not need another passer.

On the contrary what winning teams do need are players that can score efficiently - high overall shooting with as few turnovers as possible - at a high rate and often on as few touches as possible.

McHale's rate of pts/turnovers was higher in 1986-87 than in any season of Antetokounmpo. He also shot better overall that season than Giannis ever has - a higher eFG% and he also shot 84% on FTs that season. The past 3+ seasons Giannis shot between a 63%-72% FT%. McHale committed 2.6 TO/g, Antetokounmpo the past 3+ seasons 3.3-3.9 TO/g.

For Giannis that's more missed shots/FTs, more turnovers, less offensive efficiency.

McHale had far fewer possessions where he did not score (in relation to his scoring) than Antetokounmpo ever has. On a team with a HOF passing SF and a PG the last thing that Celtics team needed was another passer in the frontcourt.

Winning basketball is about shooting as best as you can with as few turnovers as possible on offense, and holding your opponent to the lowest shooting possible while forcing as many turnovers on defense as possible.

By your logic Antetokounmpo would be a better player than Karl Malone. Malone played 11 seasons of 3000+ minutes, never had as many as even 380 assists in a season. From the ages of 22-27 Malone average only 2.9 ast/40min, Antetokounmpo 6.7 ast/40min. But on a team with a PG getting 1000+ ast/season the last thing that Jazz team needed was a frontcourt passer. What it needed was a high scorer that was efficient on offense on as few touches as possible (no extra missed shots/FTs, not a lot of turnovers).

And that's a key reason why Utah averaged 55 wins a season over more than a decade.

Interesting idea. I've always thought that more players who are good and willing passers is a good thing. It seemed like Boston was at it's best with not just Bird, DJ, and Henderson passing, but when Bill Walton was out there too. But there is a benefit to having a good finisher as well, especially if they move well off ball like a Shawn Marion or have post-up gravity like Karl Malone or McHale. And, of course, McHale's post game and defense still make him a Hall of Famer.

[cupcakesnake]

I like what kcktiny is saying, but we also have to imagine what McHale is like as an offensive hub without that elite passer/playmaker on the roster.

I can't think of much track record of strong team offense built around a negative ast/to scorer without that elite playmaker. Even with an outlier like Embiid, Phili has been a super-average offensive team in the seasons without healthy Harden or Jimmy Butler. Helio-Embiid in the playoffs has amounted to not much. And while McHale is awesome, he's no Embiid in terms of pressuring the defense. Amar'e without Nash, Carmelo whenever he didn't have an awesome floor general next to him. Current examples: Markannen (non-Conley minutes), Jaylen Brown, Porzingis. Really helpful scorers but not generating great team offense as the engine.

But assuming McHale is in a healthy environment for him (playing with a good playmaker like Harden, Haliburton, Garland etc.), we're getting an auto-bucket in the paint who can switch and protect the rim. Kind of a less fluid Anthony Davis with more resilient scoring?

[AEnigma]

By your logic Antetokounmpo would be a better player than Karl Malone.

He was, yes. Perhaps not offensively, but funny note on that…

Malone played 11 seasons of 3000+ minutes, never had as many as even 380 assists in a season. From the ages of 22-27 Malone average only 2.9 ast/40min, Antetokounmpo 6.7 ast/40min. But on a team with a PG getting 1000+ ast/season the last thing that Jazz team needed was a frontcourt passer. What it needed was a high scorer that was efficient on offense on as few touches as possible (no extra missed shots/FTs, not a lot of turnovers).

And that's a key reason why Utah averaged 55 wins a season over more than a decade.

And yet the Jazz were at their best when Malone improved as a passer and as he stopped being a pure finisher the way he was in 1990-92, all as Stockton’s passing volume declined. Makes you think…

[euroleague]

And while McHale is awesome, he's no Embiid in terms of pressuring the defense. Amar'e without Nash, Carmelo whenever he didn't have an awesome floor general next to him.

Amare was actually quite good without Nash. It was Carmelo who tanked the Knicks.

It's hard to do rankings like this, because obviously McHale in a time machine wouldn't stack up that greatly in today's NBA due to different rules. Defense and Offense are both played completely differently.

If we took his relative impact from 87, and brought it into today's game, I'd have him top 5. His durability/availability far better than any current player, although it hurt his longevity, and he was elite on both ends. Giannis may be better, but he plays far less games and less minutes. McHale would definitely be a top 5 MVP candidate.

[DQuinn1575]

By your logic Antetokounmpo would be a better player than Karl Malone.

He was, yes. Perhaps not offensively, but funny note on that…

Malone played 11 seasons of 3000+ minutes, never had as many as even 380 assists in a season. From the ages of 22-27 Malone average only 2.9 ast/40min, Antetokounmpo 6.7 ast/40min. But on a team with a PG getting 1000+ ast/season the last thing that Jazz team needed was a frontcourt passer. What it needed was a high scorer that was efficient on offense on as few touches as possible (no extra missed shots/FTs, not a lot of turnovers).

And that's a key reason why Utah averaged 55 wins a season over more than a decade.

And yet the Jazz were at their best when Malone improved as a passer and as he stopped being a pure finisher the way he was in 1990-92, all as Stockton’s passing volume declined. Makes you think…

THe Jazz's best seasons was when they had Hornacek. Between 88-99 he had the 5 best non Malone/Stockton seasons by B-Ref VORP.
In those 12 years, M/S have 24 of the top 28 VORP seasons, Hornacek has the other 4.

[DQuinn1575]

Voted top 10, towards the end of it - he had a good outside shot & FT, fairly certain he would shoot 3's today. A good shot blocker & somewhat mobile. Not a great passer, but has the ability to score.

[penbeast0]

And while McHale is awesome, he's no Embiid in terms of pressuring the defense. Amar'e without Nash, Carmelo whenever he didn't have an awesome floor general next to him.

Amare was actually quite good without Nash. It was Carmelo who tanked the Knicks.

It's hard to do rankings like this, because obviously McHale in a time machine wouldn't stack up that greatly in today's NBA due to different rules. Defense and Offense are both played completely differently.

If we took his relative impact from 87, and brought it into today's game, I'd have him top 5. His durability/availability far better than any current player, although it hurt his longevity, and he was elite on both ends. Giannis may be better, but he plays far less games and less minutes. McHale would definitely be a top 5 MVP candidate.

If you are doing relative impact, wouldn't you have to do relative health and minutes too?

[tsherkin]

Amare was actually quite good without Nash. It was Carmelo who tanked the Knicks.

He was not particularly good on D and he wasn't a high-impact player on offense. He finished well, for sure, but because he wasn't any kind of creator and he wasn't a dominant offensive rebounder (particularly after 2011), he really didn't move the needle as much as the scoring he did in 2011 suggested. And of course his health was never that great post-Phoenix.

He was, however, a good PnR/PnP big, so he could fit in well with even halfway competent PGs, like Raymond Felton, or the ambulatory corpse of Jason Kidd, old Billups, etc. Particularly a PG who could use his 3ball to pull the D away from the peeling big.

McHale had a jumper and he was a clever player. I can't imagine a situation where he didn't adapt well to using more and more PnR/PnP sets. But like anyone who just finishes (Stoudemire, McHale, Dantley, etc), there's going to be a fairly noteworthy cap on how much they can really influence total team offensive success.

[TT8198]

McHale would be a top 5 big today easily. Don't know where that ranks him amongst the whole league but if I had to guess maybe a top 15 player. Undoubtedly perennial all star

Sent from my SM-G975U using RealGM mobile app

[euroleague]

And while McHale is awesome, he's no Embiid in terms of pressuring the defense. Amar'e without Nash, Carmelo whenever he didn't have an awesome floor general next to him.

Amare was actually quite good without Nash. It was Carmelo who tanked the Knicks.

It's hard to do rankings like this, because obviously McHale in a time machine wouldn't stack up that greatly in today's NBA due to different rules. Defense and Offense are both played completely differently.

If we took his relative impact from 87, and brought it into today's game, I'd have him top 5. His durability/availability far better than any current player, although it hurt his longevity, and he was elite on both ends. Giannis may be better, but he plays far less games and less minutes. McHale would definitely be a top 5 MVP candidate.

If you are doing relative impact, wouldn't you have to do relative health and minutes too?

If we are doing relative minutes, then his relative health would improve... and, so would his impact. I don't think that's necessary, as that's creating an entirely hypothetical career.

[penbeast0]

Relative health and minutes wouldn't improve, they would be nerfed since many more player miss significant amounts of games today plus players play less minutes. If you are looking at his relative impact (say 3rd best big in his day), then you would also logically assume that he doesn't just play the same minute but plays the minutes that the a star would play today. Generally he was not a big minutes guy; 87 is clearly his peak both in minutes and impact. He was 8th in the league in minutes with 3060 but no one played that kind of minutes last year. 8th in the league was Trae Young with 2652 so If you are looking at relative impact, those would be approximately the minutes rather than assuming he plays more than anyone else in the league.