Why not use TS% when comparing their efficiency? Kobe's TS% was .520 in the 15 games without Shaq, which is certainly not great, but his improvement everywhere else balances that out. McGrady's is still higher, but does that alone give him the edge when Kobe was a better defensive player? For me the answer is no. It puts them about even and then it comes down to who played more and how they finished their season.
To be honest, I didn't calculate his TS% hah. But it still doesn't really change the fact that Kobe's TS% dropped from his season average with Shaq in the lineup, and the fact he shot 40% from the floor and roughly 35% from distance (both of which a 5%, and 3% drop respectively). He got to the line well and converted at a high level which helps his case.
Does his defensive ability outweigh the edge McGrady had statistically in nearly every offensive category? It's definitely possible (keep in mind I haven't voted yet because I'm still going through to determine my top 5 in order).
My monkier will probably bias me in my decision, but defense is definitely prevalent in Kobe's argument. I just speculate how much that has to do with other factors as well (being in the LA market, how much an offensive load each had for their respective teams etc). I don't neccesserily believe McGrady was a poor defender, he was good in the passing lanes, and good enough not to deserve the rep he often does on that end of the floor. It's also interesting to note their team defensive ranks that season. I don't think it has much to do with the debate, but it's interesting nonetheless.
The Lakers were the worst team in the NBA defending the perimeter, specifically the three point line (opponents shooting 38% from distance). The Magic on the other hand were actually top 5 in the league (opponents shooting 32%). But in terms of overall FG%, the Lakers were still below average ranking 17th in the league, but the Magic were among the worst, in the bottom five. In terms of overall points per game given up, they both ranked 24th, and 25th respectively placing them among the worst in the NBA.
One could argue that was the Lakers system defensively, to pack the paint. But I don't buy that. In 99-00, the Lakers were the top team both in defensive FG and three point% (also among league leaders in PPG). In 00-01, the Lakers were still at least above league average, just outside the top 10 in all of those categories. In 01-02, once again the Lakers were the best team defensively in terms of opponents FG% and three point%.
I'd have at least thought with Kobe on the perimeter defensively, and Fox still playing 76 games, they wouldn't have been the WORST team in the league defending the three. Both McGrady and Kobe had a similar dtRG for the season as well (but I kind of take that stat with a grain of salt, too inconsistent for my liking).
Yes, it includes both regular season and playoff games. It's not so much about team success as it is how much they were able to contribute to their teams, and IMHO a difference of 12 games and 500+ minutes is significant enough to consider when ranking those two.
But we generally don't look at it that way. I'd understand the "playing more," argument if both had the same opportunity to play the same amount of games. But factoring in playoffs when both had completely different scenarios, I'd generally classify as it as two different parts of the season. I mean if McGrady had a monster down low that averaged 28.6 / 13.1 / 3.1 and 2.8 block on over 59% from the floor in the first round, I'm sure he too would have played more games as well.
I think with that bottom line is that both played roughly around 40 minutes per game (Kobe did indeed have the edge), and seven more games is somewhat significant, but can also be argued as mini-scule in the grand scheme of things in determining who was the better player that season. ESPECIALLY when McGrady was relatively healthy all season long.
In the case of Kobe, he played 15 games without Shaq (12 to start the season, and 3 in mid-February), but the Lakers played some very tough teams in his absence (9 playoff teams) and Rick Fox also missed 6 of those games. The Lakers had an atrocious bench, so I think it's fair to say that during that stretch he had comparable (if not less) support than McGrady. The East was also incredibly weak overall with only a single team cracking 50 wins. Factoring all that in it's not much of a difference maker in my ranking.
Valid points on all accounts. The Lakers faced teams with a record of .537 in those 15 games, while McGrady and the Magic for the entire season had an SOS of .497, so roughly .500. Wasn't as large as I expected, but the conference difference is pretty significant. But they also did lose to the Eastern Conference teams they faced as well, such as the Cavs, Celtics, Wizards, and Hawks.
