Which Player Had A Higher Peak? Tracy Mcgrady or James Harden?

[DraymondGold]

not really. ben doesn't post here any more. he's a public figure (who also doesn't care what i say). if i can say things about shaq and chuck's opinions on inside, i can say it about other people on other sites. something tells me that listening to it isn't going to make tmac win a playoff series or not have a -4.8 career playoff on/off (-3 if i pick the absolute most generous stretch).

So it's good to throw accusations around people because they are public figures and they don't care? What times do we live in?

i didn't say he fabricated all his work or something actually serious that goes to the core of his work. i'm just saying he's not following an honest process if he somehow got 1 weirdly outsized peak tmac season over several consistent harden seasons at the same level, especially since tmac comes with no team success or impact metrics to offset any of the other stuff.

I don't have much of a dog in this fight -- I personally have Harden higher than McGrady -- but I do want to second what 70sFan said. If someone calls Ben "a liar" or say his takes are "kinda nuts" then don't actually engage with any of the in-depth points he raised, don't engage with the uncertainty range of the ranking, and worse yet misrepresent what he says and thinks... then we risk discourse that is unproductive at best, and actively toxic at worst.

We're here to learn about basketball. Maybe it would be best to not to call people liars without listening to them first?

Saying Tmac has "no impact metrics to offset" the difference between him and harden, when Ben literally discussed impact metrics in both podcasts is just misrepresenting what he said. In a lazy perusal of basketball reference, it's trivially easy to see TMac has higher On/off in 03 than any of Harden's typical peak years in 18-20. It's trivially easy to see Tmac has better 2-year, 3-year, 4-year, heck even 5-year on/off than peak Harden. You can question the value of on/off, you can question the uncertainty ranges, but that's trivially obviously not "no impact metrics".

Saying Ben lied about using adjacent years, when he discusses how the context of the surrounding years to 03 influences results at length... just makes it pretty clear you're insulting a guy without listening to their actual opinion.

Re: the other post saying Ben ranks 2016 Durant over LeBron... that hasn't been true for at least half a decade. It might have been the case in 2016 itself, although there's no citation given, and it seems totally inconsistent with Ben's opinion even a few years later, so might just be wrong. But even if it is true, blaming someone for an opinion they had 9 years ago is downright silly.

Re: the 2019 list from the other post, Ben in 2019 had Harden under mid peak/prime Curry (not controversial at all), mid prime LeBron (if we assume LeBron's healthy; not controversial at all), mid prime Durant (not a given but not controversial at all), mid peak Giannis (not controversial at all), mid peak Kawhi (if we assume Kawhi's healthy; not controversial at all), and mid peak Anthony Davis (a bit controversial at the time, although 2020 AD was ranked by this board higher than peak Harden and that's just oe year later). Then accounting for health, he bumps Harden to 5th above an injured LeBron and an injured Durant. Is that really "kinda nuts"? You can disagree with the specific rankings, but saying it's nuts to have peak Giannis or Kawhi above Harden leaves me scratching my head wondering if you actually watched the video. Saying it's nuts to have mid-peak AD above peak Harden again just gets to be an odd fixation over Ben's opinion about a single player comparison at best... while ignoring that the majority of this board did the same (albeit using a better AD year in 2020).

It should be possible to disagree with a person without insulting their intelligence while ignoring their points. But hey, maybe that's just me!

[70sFan]

So it's good to throw accusations around people because they are public figures and they don't care? What times do we live in?

i didn't say he fabricated all his work or something actually serious that goes to the core of his work. i'm just saying he's not following an honest process if he somehow got 1 weirdly outsized peak tmac season over several consistent harden seasons at the same level, especially since tmac comes with no team success or impact metrics to offset any of the other stuff.

I don't have much of a dog in this fight -- I personally have Harden higher than McGrady -- but I do want to second what 70sFan said. If someone calls Ben "a liar" or say his takes are "kinda nuts" then don't actually engage with any of the in-depth points he raised, don't engage with the uncertainty range of the ranking, and worse yet misrepresent what he says and thinks... then we risk discourse that is unproductive at best, and actively toxic at worst.

We're here to learn about basketball. Maybe it would be best to not to call people liars without listening to them first?

Saying Tmac has "no impact metrics to offset" the difference between him and harden, when Ben literally discussed impact metrics in both podcasts is just misrepresenting what he said. In a lazy perusal of basketball reference, it's trivially easy to see TMac has higher On/off in 03 than any of Harden's typical peak years in 18-20. It's trivially easy to see Tmac has better 2-year, 3-year, 4-year, heck even 5-year on/off than peak Harden. You can question the value of on/off, you can question the uncertainty ranges, but that's trivially obviously not "no impact metrics".

Saying Ben lied about using adjacent years, when he discusses how the context of the surrounding years to 03 influences results at length... just makes it pretty clear you're insulting a guy without listening to their actual opinion.

Re: the other post saying Ben ranks 2016 Durant over LeBron... that hasn't been true for at least half a decade. It might have been the case in 2016 itself, although there's no citation given, and it seems totally inconsistent with Ben's opinion even a few years later, so might just be wrong. But even if it is true, blaming someone for an opinion they had 9 years ago is downright silly.

Re: the 2019 list from the other post, Ben in 2019 had Harden under mid peak/prime Curry (not controversial at all), mid prime LeBron (if we assume LeBron's healthy; not controversial at all), mid prime Durant (not a given but not controversial at all), mid peak Giannis (not controversial at all), mid peak Kawhi (if we assume Kawhi's healthy; not controversial at all), and mid peak Anthony Davis (a bit controversial at the time, although 2020 AD was ranked by this board higher than peak Harden and that's just oe year later). Then accounting for health, he bumps Harden to 5th above an injured LeBron and an injured Durant. Is that really "kinda nuts"? You can disagree with the specific rankings, but saying it's nuts to have peak Giannis or Kawhi above Harden leaves me scratching my head wondering if you actually watched the video. Saying it's nuts to have mid-peak AD above peak Harden again just gets to be an odd fixation over Ben's opinion about a single player comparison at best... while ignoring that the majority of this board did the same (albeit using a better AD year in 2020).

It should be possible to disagree with a person without insulting their intelligence while ignoring their points. But hey, maybe that's just me!

Very nice post and I have the same feeling... even though I'd have Harden significantly higher (which you'll see in our peaks project) and I would probably put Tmac even lower than that.

We can strongly disagree without throwing insults after all. I disagree with Ben plenty of times, it is normal to have different opinions.

[Jaivl]

Regardless of their actual placement, the episode was just not that good.

Kinda off topic, but I feel Cody's been the clear star of the podcast for the last ~2 years. He's always clear, concise, consistent on his reasoning and way more coherent on his points than his counterpart. Adequate levels of snark, too; Ben often goes way overboard with rehashed unfunny comments.

[70sFan]

Regardless of their actual placement, the episode was just not that good.

Kinda off topic, but I feel Cody's been the clear star of the podcast for the last ~2 years. He's always clear, concise, consistent on his reasoning and way more coherent on his points than his counterpart. Adequate levels of snark, too; Ben often goes way overboard with rehashed unfunny comments.

Cody is amazing for the podcast indeed!

[LA Bird]

I haven't listened to this one yet, but this is why find the podcasts frustrating at times. Considering the amount of film study and data involved, the discussions tend to be kind of unfocused and the argumentation isn't consistent.

Giving him the benefit of the doubt but I think now that Ben is mainstream, he is maybe changing his content so it's more casual-friendly to a wider audience. Personally, I liked his podcast more a few years ago and still occasionally go back to relisten to old episodes.

Re: the other post saying Ben ranks 2016 Durant over LeBron... that hasn't been true for at least half a decade. It might have been the case in 2016 itself, although there's no citation given, and it seems totally inconsistent with Ben's opinion even a few years later, so might just be wrong. But even if it is true, blaming someone for an opinion they had 9 years ago is downright silly.

Ben penalizing players he deem to not be portable is not some decade old idea he has moved on from. It's literally one of the key pillars of his whole thinking basketball brand to this day. His approach has been discussed plenty of times on this board in recent years but I just used an older example because it was the most notable and unbelievable. If I had said someone voted 16 LeBron #3 in POY behind Durant, the assumption would be that it's a poster like JordansBulls trolling. But it's actually Ben.

You may argue him later revising 16 LeBron upwards shows he has changed his stance on "portability" but we know that's not the case based on his other evaluations. If I had to guess, that revision probably had more to do with him overfitting to the average aging curve originally and having to adjust his seasonal ratings accordingly when LeBron didn't fall off with age as expected and continued to play at an MVP level in 17/18.

[LukaTheGOAT]

I haven't listened to this one yet, but this is why find the podcasts frustrating at times. Considering the amount of film study and data involved, the discussions tend to be kind of unfocused and the argumentation isn't consistent.

Giving him the benefit of the doubt but I think now that Ben is mainstream, he is maybe changing his content so it's more casual-friendly to a wider audience. Personally, I liked his podcast more a few years ago and still occasionally go back to relisten to old episodes.

Re: the other post saying Ben ranks 2016 Durant over LeBron... that hasn't been true for at least half a decade. It might have been the case in 2016 itself, although there's no citation given, and it seems totally inconsistent with Ben's opinion even a few years later, so might just be wrong. But even if it is true, blaming someone for an opinion they had 9 years ago is downright silly.

Ben penalizing players he deem to not be portable is not some decade old idea he has moved on from. It's literally one of the key pillars of his whole thinking basketball brand to this day. His approach has been discussed plenty of times on this board in recent years but I just used an older example because it was the most notable and unbelievable. If I had said someone voted 16 LeBron #3 in POY behind Durant, the assumption would be that it's a poster like JordansBulls trolling. But it's actually Ben.

You may argue him later revising 16 LeBron upwards shows he has changed his stance on "portability" but we know that's not the case based on his other evaluations. If I had to guess, that revision probably had more to do with him overfitting to the average aging curve originally and having to adjust his seasonal ratings accordingly when LeBron didn't fall off with age as expected and continued to play at an MVP level in 17/18.

Maybe.

There's also a host of data, like more hybrid metrics, all-in-ones, and heck even stuff he developed himself since 2016, that might have illuminated that Lebron was really absurd.

Per his Backpicks BPM model, no players except 91 MJ have had a championship winning run as good as 16 Lebron.

The run rated better than any of his other 3 championships, so you know...probably a pretty good indicator that Lebron wasn't washed.

[RCM88x]

Honestly I haven't listened to them consistently since 2022, ever since they started pushing the YouTube content and discord community stuff I've lost a lot of interest. They definitely strike me as more casual in approach now than in the past. The whole "ranking" of the past thing is so tired to me too. Much prefer the meta commentary on the current league which I feel he's kind of moved away from too.

I also think the revolution of the game itself, specifically in that period from say 2013-2019 was really what Ben was so in-tune with and ahead of compared to many. Now, I don't think he's really got the edge that he used to as that revolutionary period has transitioned to be more of an evolutionary thing.

[Silvie Lysandra]

I can actually sort of see 2003 McGrady > any Harden year if you apply a TON of context to McGrady's scoring vs Harden''s scoring (it being way harder for McGrady) and the fact that his second best player (when factoring ability + health) was Pat **** Garrity. 3 year peak? Easily Harden. Career? Obviously Harden. But if you heavily weigh context I could SEE 2003 McGrady > any James Harden season.

[Cavsfansince84]

I can actually sort of see 2003 McGrady > any Harden year if you apply a TON of context to McGrady's scoring vs Harden''s scoring (it being way harder for McGrady) and the fact that his second best player (when factoring ability + health) was Pat **** Garrity. 3 year peak? Easily Harden. Career? Obviously Harden. But if you heavily weigh context I could SEE 2003 McGrady > any James Harden season.

I agree with the exception that team results are so skewed towards Harden. It's not like he just won 10 more games with a better/healthier cast either. He was league mvp on a team that absolutely destroyed everyone when he, CP3 and Capela shared the court and then lost in the wcf to the goat team trying to repeat in 7. Had McGrady found a way to win that series vs Det it'd be easier to see an argument for him. On top of the fact that he basically had the same cast as the year before around him and managed to win 2 less games while having his career/outlier season. It's just like with McGrady you gotta constantly make excuses for the lack of team results and that doesn't work for me if the other guy is also really good and had much better team results.

[Silvie Lysandra]

Which is actually fair, though that supporting cast did decline quite a bit from the year before (mostly because of Doc Rivers not realize Kemp was cooked and playing him way too many mins, Darrell Armstrong declining quite a bit, and more injury issues in general)

Also I'm not sure what more he could done that series. 31-7-5 on .561 TS% against the Pistons, and while they weren't quite the Pistons of next year yet, they were still a fringe title contender that were 4th in DRTG.

He definitely wasn't as good a floor-raiser as Harden though, and we KNOW how good peak Harden with a supporting cast is.