Why is Tracy McGrady one of purest scorers despite low efficiency (TS 51.9%)

[Kawaii Leonard]

“T-Mac was the toughest guy I ever had to guard. He was just a nightmare.” — Kobe

[bkkrh]

Stop using advance stats all the time, and watch the game. If you sit down and watch his peak (2000-07) and tell me he wasn't one of the most easiest fluid scores you have ever seen them im not sure what to tell you. Just watch some highlights and it should tell you everything you need to know.

This is basically a whine. The numbers actually speak to McGrady's peak being quite strong, so stop using threads like this as a platform to piss and moan about numbers which undercut the subjective reality you prefer.

==

With respect to McGrady... his aesthetics were awesome, as were his box score averages. And he was bootstrapping some truly wretched rosters in Orlando. Then he dorked his back, and he went to a relatively thin Houston team where he and Yao were both routinely plagued with injuries.

But that single-season peak in the 02-03 season was very impressive by basically any measure, basic or advanced, out there. He was killing it. It was a little atypical for him to be able to shoot the three that well, but he'd always been deadly in transition, had handles, had some post game, had a really nice mid-range game, etc. And his prime was also the slowest era of basketball we've seen. He's also an underrated playmaker.

McGrady's career average is also influenced a lot by his post-injury years and decline phase. He struggled to get his legs into his shot a lot after his back started to go, which is common enough, and that really hurt him, but he was still able to do quite well at getting to the rim for his era.

Yeah some people really don't understand that this is an evolving sport. I can look up George Mikan's stats and say that he was a horrible scorer since he just averaged .404 from the field as a Center, when he was in actually in 3 of 7 seasons in the top 5 in Field Goal Percentage. Same goes for Bill Russell.

At the same time I could also say "All modern bigs suck at rebounding", since nobody from the 90s onwards besides Rodman, Ben Wallace and Andre Drummond had a seasonal rebound average that made it in the top 100 and neither of them ever averaged at least 20 for a season, which was a common thing in the 60s.

[LakerLegend]

Because he was playing with g league talent in a league that wasn’t designed to make perimeter players look good?

[Blame Rasho]

Stop using advance stats all the time, and watch the game. If you sit down and watch his peak (2000-07) and tell me he wasn't one of the most easiest fluid scores you have ever seen them im not sure what to tell you. Just watch some highlights and it should tell you everything you need to know.

This is basically a whine. The numbers actually speak to McGrady's peak being quite strong, so stop using threads like this as a platform to piss and moan about numbers which undercut the subjective reality you prefer.

==

With respect to McGrady... his aesthetics were awesome, as were his box score averages. And he was bootstrapping some truly wretched rosters in Orlando. Then he dorked his back, and he went to a relatively thin Houston team where he and Yao were both routinely plagued with injuries.

But that single-season peak in the 02-03 season was very impressive by basically any measure, basic or advanced, out there. He was killing it. It was a little atypical for him to be able to shoot the three that well, but he'd always been deadly in transition, had handles, had some post game, had a really nice mid-range game, etc. And his prime was also the slowest era of basketball we've seen. He's also an underrated playmaker.

McGrady's career average is also influenced a lot by his post-injury years and decline phase. He struggled to get his legs into his shot a lot after his back started to go, which is common enough, and that really hurt him, but he was still able to do quite well at getting to the rim for his era.

At his absolute apex in 03, he was more efficient and better than Kobe, and remember this was when Shaq was an all nba 1st teamer. T-Mac sadly had absolute crud with the magic as teammates. Kobe fans don’t like to admit this, there was a very brief moment in time that Kobe wasn’t this demigod that fans had in their minds. The biggest thing is that he(T-Mac)wasn’t heathy.

His Houston years were very blah and in all honestly a disappointment given his talent improvement in Houston compared to the magic. It is also unfortunate that in 03, the first round series format changed to make it a best of 7 series. He would have been out of the first rounds if changes hadn’t been made.

[tsherkin]

Yeah some people really don't understand that this is an evolving sport. I can look up George Mikan's stats and say that he was a horrible scorer since he just averaged .404 from the field as a Center, when he was in actually in 3 of 7 seasons in the top 5 in Field Goal Percentage. Same goes for Bill Russell.

At the same time I could also say "All modern bigs suck at rebounding", since nobody from the 90s onwards besides Rodman, Ben Wallace and Andre Drummond had a seasonal rebound average that made it in the top 100 and neither of them ever averaged at least 20 for a season, which was a common thing in the 60s.

This is all true, but even still, McGrady had a 4-year peak where he was north of league-average efficiency, and his 03 season was WELL north of it. He was a 109 TS+ guy in 02-03, and most stats of any sort that I've looked at tend to favor him well as an offensive powerhouse that year.

At his absolute apex in 03, he was more efficient and better than Kobe, and remember this was when Shaq was an all nba 1st teamer. T-Mac sadly had absolute crud with the magic as teammates. Kobe fans don’t like to admit this, there was a very brief moment in time that Kobe wasn’t this demigod that fans had in their minds. The biggest thing is that he(T-Mac)wasn’t heathy.

Yep. 02-03 was a fascinating peak. He never really regained it, never really exhibited that proficiency from 3 otherwise, but for a hot minute, that was very interesting debate. And really, Orlando T-Mac was always a problem for Kobe to guard, as he himself was quick to admit.

[Effigy]

Because of moments like this:

Watch on YouTube

And that guy somehow isn't a top 75 player in league history. OK NBA, whatever.

[tsherkin]

Because of moments like this:

Watch on YouTube

And that guy somehow isn't a top 75 player in league history. OK NBA, whatever.

To be fair, this isn't a legitimate defense of anything. It's a brilliant 13 seconds, but in no way authors an argument for the player against anyone else.

[Yank3525]

That career TS 51.9% is awful (shooting percentages 43.5%/33.8%/74.6%).

Even during his peak in Orlando, he had a poor TS of 53.7%

53.7% wasn't that poor compared to league average at the time.

Peak T-Mac's efficiency was fine. His problem is his body broke down and he became strictly and outside shooter during his Houston years.

[MrGoat]

Going by TS% in 2000s ball and comparing it to now is just not understanding the difference between that era's offenses and now. High efficiency back then for perimeter players especially was usually a sign that you weren't aggressive enough and were just protecting your percentages, being able to get the tough buckets when you needed them was at a premium. Scoring 32+ points in 2003 was bonkers no matter what the percentages were (and the percentages were actually relatively pretty good)

[Max Headrom]

Post like this have really driven me to hate TS%

First the Hakeem thread and now this?? Lol

[Optms]

Post like this have really driven me to hate TS%

First the Hakeem thread and now this?? Lol

Waiting for the Curry is an overrated 3 point shooter thread. You already know its coming with some cherry picked stats and what not.

[Tim_Hardawayy]

03 T-Mac was incredible, I think a big part of him never regaining form in Houston was back problems, that can have a huge impact, and the biggest difference was his slashing. 03 T-Mac was prime Wade slashing ability with unlimited range and 5-6 inches taller, it was ridiculous.

I think if he doesn't have those back problems, and plays on better teams, he'd have been up there with Kobe in terms of career accomplishments. More talented, a bit less disciplined (but still a high BBIQ player in his own right). To specifically address his TS%, the biggest thing holding him back was he didn't get to the line more, which is directly correlated to driving less due to back problems.

As for the issue with long two's, while statistically players probably did take them a bit too often in the past, I do think people will eventually realize trying to robotically shoot only 3's to up your efficiency actually makes you easier to guard in the playoffs. People cite SGA as a modern player, but he has more of an old school game with his midrange. And no he doesn't take a ton of long 2's, but he does still take them. The biggest thing in the playoffs when defense is ramped up and everyone is playing 100% is to be comfortable attacking at any moment, that's why guards/forwards who are at ease taking a quick midrange jumper when they have daylight will generally be playoff risers (Kobe, Wade, MJ, Kawhi etc) and those that can only think like statheads, drive/free throw or 3, will struggle (Harden).

[VanWest82]

Because he's not and never was. TMac was an advanced play maker, defender, and solid all around basketball player. He was not a natural scorer even though he could do all the things a natural scorer could do. That was never his thing and his TS is a reflection of that fact.

[og15]

A lot of people are mentioning era and team strength, and another issue is simply that McGrady had like a 3 year combined peak/prime and then everything else after that was really just a very declined version.

Of course a secondary factor is that TMac was not that good a shooter but then took a lot of long jumpshots, so there was some feast or famine in that regard. What he could do is get his shot off over anyone and at any time, but his actual shooting ability was not in of itself "that good", so when you start having a decline in athleticism, of course has an impact on effectiveness.

In 04-05, all the perimeter scorers got a boost with how the rules for perimeter fouls changed, but TMac had the same TS% as 03-04, because he was already having the effects of the physical decline from his back then. Also in terms of shot selection, we saw that even young 2nd option next to Vince (25.7 ppg / .543 TS%) TMac was not "efficient" either. Yes he was still developing his shooting, but you would think that he would take more efficient shots in a lesser role, but that wasn't really the case.

03 T-Mac was incredible, I think a big part of him never regaining form in Houston was back problems, that can have a huge impact, and the biggest difference was his slashing. 03 T-Mac was prime Wade slashing ability with unlimited range and 5-6 inches taller, it was ridiculous.

I think if he doesn't have those back problems, and plays on better teams, he'd have been up there with Kobe in terms of career accomplishments. More talented, a bit less disciplined (but still a high BBIQ player in his own right). To specifically address his TS%, the biggest thing holding him back was he didn't get to the line more, which is directly correlated to driving less due to back problems.

As for the issue with long two's, while statistically players probably did take them a bit too often in the past, I do think people will eventually realize trying to robotically shoot only 3's to up your efficiency actually makes you easier to guard in the playoffs. People cite SGA as a modern player, but he has more of an old school game with his midrange. And no he doesn't take a ton of long 2's, but he does still take them. The biggest thing in the playoffs when defense is ramped up and everyone is playing 100% is to be comfortable attacking at any moment, that's why guards/forwards who are at ease taking a quick midrange jumper when they have daylight will generally be playoff risers (Kobe, Wade, MJ, Kawhi etc) and those that can only think like statheads, drive/free throw or 3, will struggle (Harden).

You are correct, but I think there's a lot of misunderstanding of analytics and shot selection, and I've been preaching about the star player shot selection thing for years , though many people still don't get it. I was telling people 7,8+ years ago that their idea that analytics and the boom of 3PT shooting means that a primary scorer who doesn't shoot many three's or even can't shoot three's would struggle is not accurate, and the 3PT shooting is more about the team being able to open up space for the main guys. Now, yes, it's not totally irrelevant, a primary scorers ability to hit three's helps open up space for other teammates, but for his own personal scoring and effectiveness, it's about the teammates shooting ability.

I realize that there are still a lot of people who think analytics about 3's vs mid-range are primarily concerned with star players shot selection. While star players shot selection is not irrelevant, analytics is concerned with the teams shot selection. If a star player is efficient in what they are doing, it doesn't particularly matter what shots they are taking to score.

Star players can take whatever shots they want, I've been trying to tell people this, but what analytics has definitely been preaching is that the Matt Barnes' of the world should not frequently (or almost every) pass up an open three after the star has drawn the defense and kicked it out to him in order to take two dribbles and pull up from mid-range.

First, because of the return of the two shots, but secondly, and people don't acknowledge this part as much, because him taking that first shot is what keeps the defense honest and opens up the space in the mid-range and close to the basket for the star player.

Also to your last point, I think that's what people want the situation to be, but is that really the situation? What about Curry and his 10-11 3PA in the playoffs? What about a mid-range master in DeRozan who declines in the playoffs? What about a guy like Melo who also had some playoff struggles as a mid-range guy? It's more than just what kind of shot selection a player primarily has, it's also about things related to resilience in some instances, ability to adjust to defense, and probably other factors were aren't privy to like rest and energy levels, etc

[Primedeion]

Scoring efficiency isn't efficiency. T-Mac's turnover rate was absurdly low and he was a fairly strong offensive rebounder, and that's why his efficiency was consistently comfortably above league average during his prime seasons. He was also the best passing SG I've ever seen outside of Harden.

[GeorgeMarcus]

TS% isn’t a real number. It’s some made-up math that boosts 3PT% and throws FT% in there for no reason. It’s not a number found in nature. Look at FG% and adjust for the era like a normal person.

Well this isn't true... Some stats are made up like BPM but TS% is a way more accurate representation of scoring efficiency than FG% and isn't hard to understand

[JT3000]

Tracy McGrady was incredibly overrated because he played at a time when box-scores was all people had

Yeah, it's a shame his games were never captured on camera. Not even black & white ones. I mean who knows if he REALLY scored 62 points in a game, or 13 in 35 seconds? They could have just told him to hold up a piece of paper for show. We don't know. Plus it was just a different league. You can never trust these guys' feats, playing against plumbers & carpenters every night.

[Cavsfansince84]

TS% isn’t a real number. It’s some made-up math that boosts 3PT% and throws FT% in there for no reason. It’s not a number found in nature. Look at FG% and adjust for the era like a normal person.

No bro, I just went out for a walk and saw a ts% sitting there on a rock in nature a few feet away from a fg%. ts% is relevant when looking at scorers as is ts add. If you find yourself saying otherwise it just tells me you want to force a square object into a round hole no matter what reality says. Having said that, TMac had one really great scoring year and then his body broke down and that was the end of him being on a top 20 all time type of trajectory. You can prop him up a bit for playing in the deadball 98-2007 days but his jump shoot was too streaky to compare him to guys who could score on volume way more efficiently for 7+ years.

[Lalouie]

What does purest shooter mean?

"purest shooter" imo assumes it is NOT about stats. so therefore i think the OP misinterprets the meaning. pure shooter is subjective, and i believes implies a visual aesthetic

doesn't have to be "by the book" either and so it can mean many things where you say "man, that's REALLY NIIIIICE"

i think it can also imply,,,it's the only fkkkking thing the player can do

also it is usually about how the ball is ALL NET

the first time i ever heard the term it was describing rick mount. i don't think his shot ever tickled a rim.
i always though mcadoo's shot was pretty because of his form
curry
west
booker
kd


jmho

[sashaturiaf]

Because nobody gave a **** about TS% back then. That's why

He was 6"8, athletic freak, and a bucket. That's why he's a good pure scorer. Put those parameters into chatgpt and even your gen alpha data god will tell you that's the makings of an elite scorer.