Outside wrote:Of those guys, I have Grant Hill highest. I don't have him for a while yet, but I'm open to moving him up. He was really, really good in every area of the game, and he had enough longevity after his injuries to move him up the list
Walton had the highest peak, but the longevity issue makes him difficult to rank in this project. Someone argued that there is a separate peaks project and that Walton deserves greater consideration there, but that he might not make many people's list here. I've still got him on the list, but he's pretty low. How do you compare his career, with his really high peak but really poor longevity, with a guy like Mutumbo, a limited player who had great longevity? It seems like longevity is the trump card here, but I resist rewarding longevity filled with good but not remarkable play or else Kevin Willis will be the poster boy for the project.
I'm not on the T-Mac train. Longevity is an issue -- he has fewer games and minutes than Grant Hill (938 games /30,658 minutes vs 1,026 / 34,776 for Hill).
And postseason performance is particularly important for me. His teams were rarely favored in the PS during his prime, but he had several winnable series:
-- In 2001-02, 44-38 Orlando played 44-38 Charlotte, but Charlotte beat them easily, 3-1.
-- In 2002-03, 42-40 Orlando played 50-32 Detroit. Although Orlando was only the 8th seed, they got a 3-1 lead in the series. When asked how he felt after winning game 4, McGrady famously said, “It feels good to get in the second round.” Detroit won the next three games to take the series, one of only 10 teams in NBA history to come back from a 3-1 deficit.
-- In 2004-05, 50-32 Houston had the misfortune of drawing 58-24 Dallas in the first round. However, Houston won the first two games in Dallas, but proceeded to lose the next two games at home. The series went to a game 7, where Houston lost by 40.
-- In 2006-07, 52-30 Houston played 49-33 Utah. Houston lost game 7 at home.
-- In 2007-08, 55-27 Houston played 54-28 Utah. Houston lost the first two games at home on their way to losing the series, 4-2.
I just can't ignore that he was a number one guy, a two-time scoring champ, and never won a single series over the course of his career. There are a lot of players more deserving before I get to McGrady.
Perhaps. I think he only had 2 chances in the playoffs - namely 2002 vs Charlotte or 2007 vs Utah. The rest of the times, the teams he faced were better. 2003 is the type of series that Kobe had vs Suns in 2006, and for a good portion of his prime T-Mac appeared to be a slightly worse version of what Kobe was doing.
2002 series : 30/6/5 @ 55 TS% type performance.
2003 series: 30/6/4 @ 56 TS% type performance.
2005 series: 30/6/7 @ 55 TS% type performance.
So he was remarkably consistent doing what he was during the 01-05 type timespan and there really isn't any evidence he was legitimately having playoff issues. With the 2002 series, his roleplaying supporting cast was not as strong as Baron Davis- led cast (who actually is a strong playoff performer himself). The culprit in 2002 is the infamous Troy Hudson - guy who's ineptitude Drza has spoken of numerous times in his various KG chronicles.
2003 tells me T-Mac was basically Kobe for his peak year. Drew Gooden was his 2nd best scorer? Really? LeBron is pretty much the only one who handled Drew Gooden on his team. Goodens' a notorious +/- suck.
2005 was a strange, strange series. Somehow Dirk shot poorly and the Mavs won. Terry did play out of his mind, but watching this closely everyone did have a relatively high opinion of T-Mac's overall play.
There is nothing you can say about his game hurting his team in the playoffs up till 2005. Post up? Isolation? Transition? Spacing? Honestly he was well on pace to being Top 20 all time. No doubt.
Now the part you can criticize somewhat.
The Jazz. He really should've gotten past them in 2007 I felt - esp with HCA. It was Yao Ming, T-Mac and role players who weren't to be counted upon in the playoffs. It was a Stockton-Malone type of issue. With 2008 they were literally in the playoffs because of the roleplayers, and once that ran out, the better record became meaningless. T-Mac was viewed not Top 5 but all-NBA type of guy during this era. He generally still demonstrated the capacity of very good team ball leading performances and outstanding play. The injuries had started affecting him so I don't feel he was athletically there in the 2nd half of his prime, but he was still a guy most would pick up for his overall feel of the game and ability to deliver the volume numbers necessary to get a team somewhere.
So at worst you'd say AHHH, it ends too early. Not enough healthy games. That's fine for where he can be placed, I think. He exhibits performances that give you a serious luxury of having him on your team in the first half of his prime. The skillset of being a superstar do-it-all type player is just not happening anymore in this list, and that's his case over everyone else.
I am trying to figure out if his longevity marks him down. But it really appears to be a Dwyane Wade case at worst - where Wade would still be at an All-NBA level but not putting up his 06-11 type numbers. So yes longevity hurts him. No the first round exits aren't an issue. There is no real evidence of his game running into trouble during the playoffs.
