RealGM Top 100 List #31

[ronnymac2]

Just compare them 10 years into the prime -- 98 Stock vs. 00 Miller. One is a low-minute, low-production cog/decision-maker, the other is the driving offensive star of a championship-level team. Miller averaged 24 ppg on 60% TS in the PS for goodness sakes, including back-to-back 40 pointers in the PS, 34 to close the Knicks, and after his G1 Finals disaster, 27.8 ppg on 65.5% TS for that series. Dude's playing at like peak levels at 34.

Just to add to this point...Miller dropped that 24 ppg. on 60 percent True Shooting through 23 playoff games that year. Of those 23 playoff games, 18 came against a top 6 defensive team in the league. Six games were against L.A. (# 1), six were against N.Y. (# 6), and six were against Philly (# 4).

That's impressive as hell. I remember I brought this up during the year 2000 RPOY thread because I thought Reggie deserved at least a little consideration. My suggestion was brushed off- understandably so, I guess- because Miller wasn't that well-rounded. I get that, but he wasn't deficient in any area, had more strengths than people thing, and had one EXTREME strength that is very important.

I know I'm defending Reggie here, but I actually have Ray Allen in front of him. Now that I think about it though, both Miller and Allen should be competitive with Stockton in this project.

[lorak]

1998 was the only year when Stockton played less than 30 MPG as a starter until his final season (I'm talking about playoffs). And even in 2002 he was 35 MPG player and led NBA in assists in playoffs (but played only 4 games). He also led league in assists and outplayed Payton in 2000 playoffs.

Sure, he didn't score much but he wasn't that type of guy. You seems to like high scoring and inefficient guard like Payton and it's fine, but it don't automatically means that Payton was more valuable.

Did Reggie really played longer on high level?
I'm not sure. Looking quickly Stockton have 14 season with 0.200 or more WS/48 and one with 0.190.

Reggie only 5 with 0.200 or more and 4 with 0.180-0.190.

In playoffs it's closer, but still no Reggie's advantage:
Miller 4 years with 0.200 or more (but most of them with small sample of games) and 3 with 0.190-0.199.
Stockton 7 with 0.200 or more (also most of them with small sample of games).


And of course we know that even old Stockton had big impact on the game (Winston's APM). Now we also have RAPM, so we even can compare impact's of old Stockton and old Miller:

2005
Miller -0.4

2004
Miller -0.7

2003
Miller -0.9
Stockton +3.0

2002
Miller 0.0
Stockton +2.2

[Laimbeer]

Reggie Miller? Really fine shooting guard, probably in the Sam Jones or Joe Dumars range, with a touch of Robert Horry. I think the admirable moments of clutch play are being a little too heavily weighed here.

Just for one, how does he begin to compare to a guy like Elvin Hayes? Three first teams, 12 all-stars, led a team to a title, six top 10 MVP finishes, top ten all time in points and rebounds, a dangerous low post threat and excellent defender.

Miller never made even a second team, five all stars, never finished top ten in MVP voting. He wasn't that highly regarded in his own time. He wasn't a dominant player.

If you go by accolades, you're certainly going to pick Hayes over Miller.

Getting into Hayes, I'm open to more detailed arguments for him. Remember though, I'm the same guy who knocked Baylor so hard for his weak efficiency. Hayes comes in a decade AFTER Baylor in a more efficient league and managed a weaker career TS%. It just doesn't impress me that much.

Just as a general point, do we overrate efficiency here? I see players with a lot of recognition and admirable traits that are written as being "inefficient" the kiss of death.

Efficiency counts, I just feel it's overblown at times, to the extent of ignoring about everything else.

[lorak]

One more thing about Payton. He never missed games, so it's hard to determine his on/off impact, but in '03 he changed teams when he still was 20-8-4-1.7 player.

Sonics in 30 games without Payton were much better than with him:
+3.5 (60% W-L%) without Payton
-2.2 (42% W-L%) with Payton
(both offense and defense were better without Payton).

Bucks however were better with him in 28 games:
+1.3 (53.6% W-L%) with Payton
-0.3 (50% W-L%) without Payton
(offense with Payton was much better, but defense with him was worse)

[ElGee]

Your numbers are off. Before the 2003 trade, Seattle was -0.8 (52 games with Payton). After Allen joined the team, they were +2.2 (net difference of 3). Of course, Allen had a stable lineup the whole way down the stretch, with Barry moved to the point and a Lewis-Evans-Drobnjak frontline.

But the team went into turmoil and flux with injuries before the trade. When Payton played with Barry-Lewis-Evans-Drobnjak they were +1.7 in 21 games. Absolutely negligible. And I would assume we all treat 2003 Allen as a better offensive player than Payton anyway...
--
As for Stockton, I just made note of how a stat like WS/48 doesn't accurately represent him in his prime, let alone when he shores up that efficient role even more in 28 mpg later in his career. If you "believe" Win Shares, or don't understand why Stockton looks so good in them, you will come away thinking he was the 5th-best player in the NBA from 1998-2004, better than Dirk, KG and Kobe. (!) And you'd think something was wrong with Sloan for not playing Stockton more and something was wrong with all the other Jazz for not playing better with such a superstar on their team.

And one more statistical note -- has anyone looked at the math behind the early RAPM model? The numbers look so squeezed together to me I'm not sure how much value there is in those early single seasons...

Also, there is no way on any planet Stockton "outplayed" Payton in 2000. I've broken it down in detail already...and you can watch G5 of the series and other clips of other games on youtube. Payton is the star of a weak team, often playing the 2 as a scorers role. He led the team in rebounding in the series (and of course assists, with his typically low TOV). My goodness, in G4 (elimination game) Payton had 35 points 11 assists 10 rebounds and 6 steals! Stock played (atypically) well in G5, but it wasn't at the expense of Payton...who did a great deal to have Sea within an open Person 3 of overtime.

[lorak]

Your numbers are off.

I think my numbers are accurate. But you never said what formula for possessions and what data source you are using. Maybe that's the reason why we have different numbers?
I'm using b-r team game logs as data source and b-r possessions formula:
0.5 * ((Tm FGA + 0.4 * Tm FTA - 1.07 * (Tm ORB / (Tm ORB + Opp DRB)) * (Tm FGA - Tm FG) + Tm TOV) + (Opp FGA + 0.4 * Opp FTA - 1.07 * (Opp ORB / (Opp ORB + Tm DRB)) * (Opp FGA - Opp FG) + Opp TOV)).

http://www.basketball-reference.com/about/glossary.html

And you'd think something was wrong with Sloan for not playing Stockton more and something was wrong with all the other Jazz for not playing better with such a superstar on their team.

You highly value Malone, so maybe it was something wrong with him, because he didn't elevate other Jazz players to higher level?

And Stockton played around 35 MPG in playoffs until his last season in the NBA. In regular it's normal that coaches rest their most important players, especially when they are old and - relatively - unathletic.

[ElGee]

^^^So your numbers are per 100?

[lorak]

Yes.

[ElGee]

You might want to say that then.

And 35 mpg in the PS is not far removed from 30 mpg in the RS. Everyone ramps up PS minutes. For instance, Stockton was 42nd in mpg in the 2000 playoffs, with 15 players going over 40 mpg. 138 players played at least 3 games and 10 mpg...which puts Stock in the 70th percentile. He was 105th in the RS of 335, (20 GP, 10 mpg) 69th percentile.

[fatal9]

Vote: Clyde Drexler


Pro:

He is the best all-around player from those I'm considering voting for. Very good scorer, top 3 passer ever from the SG position (and I’m not just saying that because his assist numbers are great, he was amazing in this area, I’m actually working on a passing mix of him similar to the one I made for Magic), very good rebounder for his position especially on the offensive boards (got you couple of putbacks every game). By the numbers he is THE best offensive rebounding guard of all-time. No other guard has gotten over 3.5/game and he is the only one to average more than 3/game multiple times. So offensively, I think his impact was somewhat underrated because people don't realize he helped the team in every way imaginable. Whether it's scoring an efficient 20-25 a game (which fit in really well with the team concept because he never pounded the ball), getting offensive rebounds/putbacks at the rate of most centers/PFs or passing/making plays at an elite level at his position. On top of that he was a very active defender who was great at converting his defense ( or missed shots) into an easy fast break opportunity for his team. The only thing he lacked was handles that didn't really allow him to break down the defense like an MJ, Kobe or Wade, so if his jumper was off, you weren't gonna get great one on one scoring from him.

His teams were really talented, but imo his impact gets underrated because of that. Looking at missed games in his prime (ElGee’s list), in ’90 Blazers were +8.3 with him (9 games), and overall in his prime (’88-’92) when he missed games, Blazers were just 8-14 without him (doing a quick check, their offensive rating in those games seems to be well below league average with him missing). Considering the talent those teams had, you would think they would perform much better. In ’93 Drexler experiences a massive decline due to his injury and Portland goes from making the finals in ’90, WCF in ’91, finals in ’92 to a middle of the pack playoff team that never won a playoff series again till 1999.

And what he did as a sidekick should be taken into consideration as well. In the '95 playoffs, he played that role as well as you could expect. 21/7/5 on 58 TS% and delivered big performances at crucial times when Houston absolutely needed them. Also while his prime got cut short due to nagging injuries (though he still made himself a very productive player afterwards), he gave you 5-6 great prime seasons, 3-4 great sidekick seasons and 10 years overall where he was an all-star, which is very good longevity in this range.

Basically, I think of him like a middle-class man’s LeBron. An very, very well rounded player who just lacked some things that kept him from being at that level. Lot of people when they look back at Clyde really only watch the '92 finals and base a lot of their opinions of him from that but he was better than Mike made him look.

Cons:

He benefited a lot from transition scoring, his scoring/efficiency in the late 80s/early 90s years actually fluctuates pretty consistently with the pace the Blazers played at. If you watch some of his 40+ pt games from the 80s, you’ll notice he literally gets 50+% of his points in transition in some of those games (I swear in his 50 pt game against the Knicks, he scored 80% of his points on the break). He would score in transition in any era because he was a beast in transition, but just making a point of how his scoring numbers from the 80s overstate his actual scoring ability.

That said, he was still a very good scorer. His jumpshot was mildly streaky, but overall better than most people think (and better than what his 3 PT% would suggest in his pre-Rockets years). He often didn’t help himself by taking a lot of rushed jumpers but that was his game, to make his moves quickly. He wasn’t quite the leader/killer you’d want but most guys in this range aren’t.




Nominate: McAdoo (for now)

[Dr Positivity]

I had Rick Barry on a tier above the remaining candidates, so breaking down the remaining candidates, I'll start with a process of elimination:

Kidd - Just nominated too high by my standards considering I'm not sure he's a top 100 halfcourt offensive player due to poor shooting % and the damage of a player's who scoring weakness allows defenders to provide help defense off. I would not be opposed to someone saying prime Kidd vs Ben Wallace is a hard question. Both have big strengths and big weaknesses and have had succesful careers, but still

Tmac - Weak longevity, doesn't really get it, took bad shots a large portion of his career. Not impressed at all by his Houston run and I don't feel he and Yao would've done much better if completley healthy. To quote Dr Mj, they underachieved when playing together and overachieved when one got injured. My impression of their pairing is zero chemistry, unlike Kobe and Gasol as a comparison. Tmac has some Wilt in him in that his MO is how do these players help me win, rather than how do I make this the best team possible

Gervin - Behind Drexler and Pierce, whom I trust more due to all around games. While Gervin is part of a group of underrated off ball scoring, it's hard to get behind major weaknesses, as it was with Kidd.

Drexler - I have Pierce slightly over him. I feel Pierce's halfcourt ability is better due to stronger isolation ability and range which is enough to give him the minor edge

McHale - Surprisingly harder to cross off this list than I would've thought (suppose there's no other PFs on the board to say "Ok, he's worse than him"), but I can't see myself actually voting for him here. I'll say if given the choice, I'd at least take Dwight Howard over him, despite a smaller career in duration. To give an idea of how Dwight's career duration is not as bad as it seems, having Dwight's 7 years in place of McHale's first 7 would take him through 1988, covering the majority of the years we love from McHale. And McHale took just as long to 'start'

So that leaves Pierce, Stockton, Howard, Payton and Gilmore. And I'm having a pretty damn hard time picking between them. The guy I'm most confused by is Gilmore. Is he Howard with a long career (which would make him the obvious pick here), or someone who was too slow in read/react defense to have a great impact on that end like Howard? Is it possible he was in the ABA, then his knee surgery made him the equivalent of a baseball batter who can no longer catch up to fastballs, defensively? I'll leave him on the side for now and choose between the other 4

Starting with the PGs, Stockton and Payton. Both great defensively, Payton is a bit better. The fact that PG defense isn't essential in the first place + Stockton being above average there anyways, makes Payton's defensive advantage a small factor here. I'm picking between them for their offense. Stockton is a floor spreader, a better strict passer and runs a mean pick and roll. Payton pounds the ball and is more explosive and has surprisingly elite ORTG results. I'm going to choose Stockton because of a preference of ball moving and he just gets it a bit more. Plus he gives you more value at the end of his career if he needs a tiebreaker.

Pierce vs Stockton. Pierce is a much much better scorer, spreads the floor as much for his position and came up big in the playoffs. I feel like Pierce does more for an offense by putting more pressure on it and opening things up more for teammates. I like Pierce here over the PGs Stockton and Payton

Pierce vs Howard. Howard's superior peak vs Pierce's longevity. I have questions about Howard's offense once he gets into the playoffs and defenses can gameplan. All of a sudden power doesn't cut it against Kendrick Perkins. I don't know if Howard can be the best offensive player on a title team. He can be the best PLAYER, but offensively he needs what 08 KG had - Um, Paul Pierce. With that said, he made a Finals and ECF without great help and the regular season impact from 09 to 11 with that talent level is just WOW. I think replacing Howard with an average C costs the team about 35 Ws each of those 3 years. Still, you basically get half the prime years. So I'll ask, would I rather draft Pierce or Howard's careers? I think I bring it back to the thought that I don't believe Howard can pull a 2011 Mavericks or 94 Rockets in those 5 years, so that somewhat puts him in a closer group to Pierce. I'll take Pierce here, narrowly

To pick between Pierce and Gilmore, I'll go with the drafting question again and my answer is Pierce. Gilmore just concerns me, between his post NBA mobility and questions about his attitude and missing something.

Vote Paul Pierce

Nominate: Bob McAdoo

Switching my vote from Nique to McAdoo. He had enough of a high peak to get in now

[colts18]

I think this is around the time we should start considering Pau Gasol. I'm not really convinced that McHale is even a better than Gasol. Gasol has proved that he can do the McHale 2nd banana role for a championship team. Gasol has played 10 years already so longevity is not a huge issue. McHale played 13. McHale only has a 4,000 more minutes than Gasol which is like a 1 season advantage.

Scoring:
Gasol: 18.8 PPG
McHale: 17.9 PPG

TS%:
Gasol .579 TS%
McHale .605 TS%

TRB%:
Gasol: 14.5 (9.1 Reb/game)
McHale: 13.2 (7.3 Reb/game)

AST:
Gasol: 15.9% (3.2 AST)
McHale: 8.1% (1.7 AST)

BLK:
Gasol 3.5%
McHale 3.2%

PER:
Gasol 22.1
McHale 20

WS/148:
Gasol: .179
McHale: .180

Gasol was the better scorer, rebounder, and passer while McHale was more efficient. Defense I would say they are about equal

[fatal9]

Gasol was the better scorer.

Just no.

Defense I would say they are about equal

And also no.

[ElGee]

Tmac - Weak longevity, doesn't really get it, took bad shots a large portion of his career. Not impressed at all by his Houston run and I don't feel he and Yao would've done much better if completley healthy. To quote Dr Mj, they underachieved when playing together and overachieved when one got injured. My impression of their pairing is zero chemistry, unlike Kobe and Gasol as a comparison. Tmac has some Wilt in him in that his MO is how do these players help me win, rather than how do I make this the best team possible

What do you base this on?
-he certainly doesn't have weak longevity (7 all-nba teams?)
-how does he not "get it?"

-I don't see much of a difference between Kobe's shot selection issues and McGrady's. If anything, T-Mac's bothered me less, at least in his early years. I do think there is evidence to suggest he has a flatter skill curve like Iverson though...

Consider his line with and without Yao:
w/out Yao: 26.1 ppg 5.7 rpg 5.8 apg 50.7% TS (22.5 FGA's) -- 45-29 (74g) .608%
w/Yao: 23.4 ppg 5.8 rpg 5.8 apg 50.8% TS (20.2 FGA's) -- 127-61 (188g) .676%

It looks a like what he does in the PS...namely the ability to ramp up scoring without his efficiency dropping. Then again, much of that comes from McGrady's low efficiency in his final seasons...he was stil 52.6% TS in 2005...a year in which Houston started 14 other players besides Mac and Yao and McGrady clearly had an adjustment period. With the post-trade lineup of Ming - Howard/Spoon - McGrady - Sura - Wesley they were 31-10 with a +6.9 MOV. As I've said before, McGrady's play post new year:

Good lineup: 26.5 ppg 6.1 rpg 5.4 apg 53.0% TS 2.6 TOV 1.9 stl 19.5 GmSc
Other 7 g: 24.6 ppg 6.3 rpg 5.3 apg 51.9% TS 2.3 TOV 1.9 stl 17.7 GmSc

As we would expect, nicer numbers with nicer role players around. And viewing the team offensive performance, assuming a constant 88.8 pace, that lineup had a 111.5 ORtg and the other lineups 100.8. Huge shift.

So in their first year together, both healthy, after a few months of turmoil, they were pretty darn good, no?

[therealbig3]

Gasol was a better scorer than McHale? Huh?

Gasol compared to league average (TS%)

02: +4.6
03: +5.1
04: +2.6
05: +5.3
06: +2.0
07: +5.2
08: +5.4
09: +7.3
10: +5.0
11: +4.8

League average TS% over this time was 53.3%. Gasol's TS% over this time was 57.9% (+4.6; 731 games).

Compare this to McHale's best 10-year stretch:

82: +3.0
83: +4.2
84: +6.2
85: +7.4
86: +8.2
87: +11.7
88: +11.8
89: +7.1
90: +8.6
91: +7.2

League average TS% over this time was 53.8%. McHale's TS% over this stretch was 61.6% (+7.8; 762 games).

And with regards to scoring (since the pace argument can be used):

McHale (% of team's ppg):

82: 12.1%
83: 12.6%
84: 16.4%
85: 17.2%
86: 18.7%
87: 23.2%
88: 19.9%
89: 20.6%
90: 19.0%
91: 16.5%

Gasol:

02: 19.6%
03: 19.5%
04: 18.3%
05: 19.1%
06: 22.1%
07: 20.5%
08: 18.8% (Grizzlies)/17.3% (Lakers)
09: 17.7%
10: 18.0%
11: 18.5%

From 84-91, McHale was scoring at comparable volumes, and McHale didn't really emerge as a legit volume scorer until 84. Also, McHale did this while coming off the bench and playing less minutes, and deferring to Larry Bird. As you can see, once Gasol joined the Lakers and started deferring to Kobe, his volume scoring declined to what McHale did pretty much his entire career, maybe even a little lower. And even with McHale being a 2nd option, and Gasol being the 1st option for the 1st half of his career, McHale peaked higher as a volume scorer in 87, while scoring on efficiency that Gasol has never come close to (+11.7).

McHale was clearly the superior scorer, by a good amount.

[therealbig3]

I think I've really learned to look past McGrady's inefficient scoring, because he does pretty much everything else so well. His defense is underrated, and in fact, was pretty darn good imo. Still impressed by the job he did on Dirk in the 05 playoffs. His rebounding has always been good, and he was pretty awesome in 01 and 02. His playmaking is among the best ever at the SF position, and it's something you just have to see. He's got great court vision and passing ability. He's also a very willing passer, which is something you don't see much in guys that score at his volume. The problem is, he's pretty much always been on teams where he's the only guy that can create offense, so he's had to score at very high volume. But I think McGrady would have fit in perfectly as a Scottie Pippen: play great team defense, chip in 20 ppg, crash the boards, and run the offense. I think he had a Jordan-mindset, but I think he was smart enough to fit in as a Pippen if that's what was asked of him.

However, since volume scoring was his main contribution to a team, his TS% (outside of 03) peaking at 53.2%, and dropping to as low as 48.7% in his prime, is concerning, and it's the main reason I take a guy like Pierce over him. Pierce has been over 60% TS in the last couple of seasons, and he was usually at 56% or higher during his prime. That's a huge gap in scoring efficiency, and it's a big deal.

However, I also think that T-Mac's inefficiency can be overblown as well. During his prime, his TS% was around league average (slightly below), both in the regular season and the playoffs. So on league average efficiency, he's dropping 26 ppg in the regular season (30 ppg in the playoffs), while giving you great defense, rebounding, and passing. He also takes care of the basketball (turns the ball over less than Kobe, Wade, and LeBron...in fact, his TO numbers are better than Chris Paul's, a guy praised for taking care of the ball). This makes up for the inefficient scoring somewhat.

For me, T-Mac is coming up soon, along with Paul Pierce. Probably my next vote actually, unless there's a bunch of great Gilmore arguments.

I see that Gilmore's stats look nice...but I want to see evidence of his impact on a team. I think it was DavidStern that showed that Gilmore's defensive impact was way overblown.

[therealbig3]

I was curious to see how TOs affect T-Mac's efficiency, so I'm using some crude math (mainly because I don't really know a better way to do this).

TS% basically tries to estimate points/possession. So for example, we see that in the 01 playoffs, T-Mac had a 48.3 TS%. So I estimate that to be 48.3 points/100 possessions. We also see that he had a 5.4 TOV%, which is 5.4 TOs/100 possessions. So in 100 possessions, T-Mac will score 48.3 points and have 5.4 TOs.

Compare this to Kobe in the 07 playoffs, in which he had a 56.1 TS%. So that's 56.1 points/100 possessions. He also had a 13.1 TOV%, which is 13.1 TOs/100 possessions. So in 100 possessions, Kobe will score 56.1 points and have 13.1 TOs.

So overall, Kobe is wasting 13.1 possessions, while T-Mac is wasting 5.4 possessions. If we add that to the 100 possessions, T-Mac is scoring 48.3 points on 105.4 possessions, while Kobe is scoring 56.1 points on 113.1 possessions.

The adjusted TS% for these would be 45.8% for T-Mac, and 49.6% for Kobe. Compared to league average TS%:

01 T-Mac: -6.2%
07 Kobe: -4.5%

So T-Mac greatly closes the gap in terms of efficiency, while dishing out almost 17 more assists per 100 possessions and grabbing half a rebound more per 100 possessions. He also played better defense.

If my way of calculating things is acceptable (I understand it's flawed, it's just an attempt at estimating things), T-Mac's 01 playoffs is statistically superior to Kobe's 07 playoffs, but a quick glance at ppg, apg, rpg, and TS% wouldn't reveal that.

[Laimbeer]

Vote count handy?

[colts18]

McHale (% of team's ppg):

82: 12.1%
83: 12.6%
84: 16.4%
85: 17.2%
86: 18.7%
87: 23.2%
88: 19.9%
89: 20.6%
90: 19.0%
91: 16.5%

Gasol:

02: 19.6%
03: 19.5%
04: 18.3%
05: 19.1%
06: 22.1%
07: 20.5%
08: 18.8% (Grizzlies)/17.3% (Lakers)
09: 17.7%
10: 18.0%
11: 18.5%

From 84-91, McHale was scoring at comparable volumes, and McHale didn't really emerge as a legit volume scorer until 84. Also, McHale did this while coming off the bench and playing less minutes, and deferring to Larry Bird. As you can see, once Gasol joined the Lakers and started deferring to Kobe, his volume scoring declined to what McHale did pretty much his entire career, maybe even a little lower. And even with McHale being a 2nd option, and Gasol being the 1st option for the 1st half of his career, McHale peaked higher as a volume scorer in 87, while scoring on efficiency that Gasol has never come close to (+11.7).

McHale was clearly the superior scorer, by a good amount.

By those numbers McHale averaged 17.62% of his team points and Gasol did 19.13% of his team points. Gasol never had a season below McHale's average. Gasol had 9 18%+ seasons to McHale's 5, Gasol had 5 19%+ season to McHale's 4. Gasol's lowest number is 17.7%. McHale had 5 seasons below that. When you factor Gasol's superior rebounding and passing, and equal defense, I think that is enough make up for the efficiency gap. That is a close comparison.

[therealbig3]

McHale (% of team's ppg):

82: 12.1%
83: 12.6%
84: 16.4%
85: 17.2%
86: 18.7%
87: 23.2%
88: 19.9%
89: 20.6%
90: 19.0%
91: 16.5%

Gasol:

02: 19.6%
03: 19.5%
04: 18.3%
05: 19.1%
06: 22.1%
07: 20.5%
08: 18.8% (Grizzlies)/17.3% (Lakers)
09: 17.7%
10: 18.0%
11: 18.5%

From 84-91, McHale was scoring at comparable volumes, and McHale didn't really emerge as a legit volume scorer until 84. Also, McHale did this while coming off the bench and playing less minutes, and deferring to Larry Bird. As you can see, once Gasol joined the Lakers and started deferring to Kobe, his volume scoring declined to what McHale did pretty much his entire career, maybe even a little lower. And even with McHale being a 2nd option, and Gasol being the 1st option for the 1st half of his career, McHale peaked higher as a volume scorer in 87, while scoring on efficiency that Gasol has never come close to (+11.7).

McHale was clearly the superior scorer, by a good amount.

By those numbers McHale averaged 17.62% of his team points and Gasol did 19.13% of his team points. Gasol never had a season below McHale's average. Gasol had 9 18%+ seasons to McHale's 5, Gasol had 5 19%+ season to McHale's 4. Gasol's lowest number is 17.7%. McHale had 5 seasons below that. When you factor Gasol's superior rebounding and passing, and equal defense, I think that is enough make up for the efficiency gap. That is a close comparison.

But like I said, McHale played less minutes and deferred to Bird. And since I wanted to use 10 years for McHale, I used 82 and 83, when his volume scoring was only around 12%. When Gasol played with Kobe, he averaged 17.9% of his team's points, and when you consider the difference in minutes, that's pretty much the same as McHale's average. And even with McHale as the 2nd option in 87, he averaged 23.2%...Gasol never got that high, even as a 1st option in Memphis. Then you have the big gap in efficiency.

And where do you get the idea that Gasol is equal on defense?

Better scoring and better defense for McHale, by a good amount, imo. Better passing by a good amount, and slightly better rebounding for Gasol, imo. Gasol also has him beat in terms of longevity. But is that enough? Seems like McHale has some big advantages in scoring and defense.