Pau Gasol v. Kevin McHale

[Odinn21]

.

I suggest you to look at any type of linear adjustment distribution next to per game distribution. You must have more numbers than me currently, you should be able to do that easily. Say 15+ ppg on 100 constant pace and direct 15+ ppg players are your sample and put the distributions, doesn't matter if per 100 poss or what you do for this now, next to each other with the names and say that linear adjustment isn't failing at least by one third of the time and not throwing off reliability considerably.

Also, I played your game more than you played mine. Let's change it for a moment.
You think you're playing my game? No, I didn't even say "McHale's ppg is higher ez". You took a part of my post that had stats and none of the things why I mentioned those stats.
This is an interesting comparison because even though Gasol had a clear advantage in prime duration and overall longevity, McHale had the edge on postseason longevity. Usually, regular season and postseason longevities go hand in hand. But not in this one.

And you still haven't given me a reason why you left out 1988. Let's say I put it in and it doesn't change much? That's a poor way to argue. While I'm asking you for reasons, you just gave me bunch of numbers those had nothing to do with what I was arguing about.
You didn't give me a single reason why you left out 1988.
1988 was the natural poster boy for wrong arbitrary cut off points. It was right up there with 1986-87 as McHale's single season peak and you just cut it off. I'm, again, all ears to know why 1988 wasn't peak McHale and as an addition, I'm also all ears about why 2005 and 2006 for Gasol make it in but not 1989 and 1990 for McHale.

Edit; I think you've posted enough with great quality, you've always been interested in talking about the topic at hand contextually, but this time around you wanted to talk about what you wanted to see and didn't look like you cared about why I used those numbers. So, yes, that's an ever from you for me. You might disagree but I think there's no need to take it further away than this.

[sansterre]

Peak (05-10 for Gasol, 84-87 for McHale) and Post-Peak (11-16 for Gasol, 88-93 for McHale)

Is there any reason why you included 1984, but not 1988 (or even 1989) for McHale's peak? I believe that late 80s McHale was clearly superior player, at least offensively (and boxscore stats measure only offense basically).

It's also important to note that McHale was much more efficient.

Nope, totally arbitrary. I just saw a VORP jump at 84 so I started his peak there. I won't pretend there was a sophisticated analysis. I don't think reallocating it would change the results though.

Of course McHale was more efficient; the argument that McHale was a better scorer than Gasol is driven by efficiency, not ppg. I just saw McHale being compared favorably to Gasol based on PPG and I was like "Huh, I bet Gasol played on slower-paced teams, let's see about that".

Really, my post is only meant to say "Comparing these players based on per-game counting stats without paying attention to pace is misleading. Because if you adjusted for pace, the counting stats favor Gasol." I intend no representation that it's an actual substantive analysis of the two players.

[sansterre]

.

I thank you for your kind words. I may have missed the mark on the substance of your comment.

I absolutely agree that Gasol's scoring dropped noticeably in the playoffs after 2011, which McHale's did not.

[Hal14]

McHale's peak was probably higher, but Gasol's definitely got the longevity advantage. Given that McHale's a fairly high-turnover, low-pass big, I'm leery. Those sets of weaknesses often correlate badly to team success, so as much as I love his scoring, I favor Gasol by a decent margin.

This bolded statement would make sense if McHale had bad team success - but he didn't. He had outstanding team success - much greater than Gasol..

Don't really agree with the bolded. Not counting 81 when McHale was a rookie and 5th in that team's rs and ps win shares he played in 4 finals and won 2. Pau played in 3 and also won 2. Pau also was actually leading those teams in rs and sometimes ps win shares which McHale never did outside of the 85 playoffs. I agree though that his style was overall a big plus given his combo of great efficiency and very good defense.

1) How about all of the years Pau was on bad teams?

2) How About if we include conference finals appearances?

3) How about if we average out the regular season win total for their respective teams for each year in their career and compare those numbers?

4) McHale was a strong contributor on the 81 Celtics. They were already good in 80, but adding McHale and parish in 81 is what put them over the hump to win the title. You take either McHale or Parish off that 81 team and there's a pretty good chance they don't win the title. So it's unfair to completely disregard that title and say that "each player won 2 rings" because they didn't. Don't act like McHale was the last guy at the end of the bench in 81. To play at that level he did, as a rookie against top notch competition and help his team win a ring should not be ignored.

[Cavsfansince84]

1) How about all of the years Pau was on bad teams?

2) How About if we include conference finals appearances?

3) How about if we average out the regular season win total for their respective teams for each year in their career and compare those numbers?

4) McHale was a strong contributor on the 81 Celtics. They were already good in 80, but adding McHale and parish in 81 is what put them over the hump to win the title. You take either McHale or Parish off that 81 team and there's a pretty good chance they don't win the title. So it's unfair to completely disregard that title and say that "each player won 2 rings" because they didn't. Don't act like McHale was the last guy at the end of the bench in 81. To play at that level he did, as a rookie against top notch competition and help his team win a ring should not be ignored.

When was McHale ever shown to be able to lead mediocre to bad supporting casts anywhere though? That's not really a relevant comparison to bring up here when comparing them. McHale played on mostly stacked teams with a top 10 player of all time leading them. McHale was a contributor on the 81 team. I didn't say anything or infer in any way him being a guy at the end of the bench. In fact, I specifically said he was 5th in both rs and ps win shares on that team. He also only played 20mpg that year. So yes we can acknowledge he played on that team but he wasn't a major contributor like both of them were on those other teams that won titles.

[prolific passer]

I have to give the edge to Gasol due to his passing.

[Hal14]

I have to give the edge to Gasol due to his passing.

So the fact that McHale is arguably the best low post scorer / best array of low post moves of all time has nothing to do with it?

Gasol's passing - that's it...that's all that matters, huh?

I'll admit, Gasol was a better passer, but:

1) It's not by much. It's only a slight edge for Gasol.
2) The perception is that McHale is this black hole who never passes, but if you actually watch some of his footage you'll see lots of outstanding interior passing as well as good transition passing.
3) The slight edge Gasol has passing-wise can easily be chalked up to the fact a) he often times played in the high post where he could more easily see the entire floor, hit cutters or dump the ball in to a teammate in high post so it is less about him being a better passer and more about the way he was used on offense and b) he played in an era with less physicality and more floor spacing which makes it easier for him to make good passes whereas McHale played in an era with less spacing and more physicality, he gets the ball in the post with defenders draped all over him so all he could do is either kick the ball back out to the perimeter or try and score

[penbeast0]

I have to give the edge to Gasol due to his passing.

So the fact that McHale is arguably the best low post scorer / best array of low post moves of all time has nothing to do with it?

Gasol's passing - that's it...that's all that matters, huh?

I'll admit, Gasol was a better passer, but:

1) It's not by much. It's only a slight edge for Gasol.
2) The perception is that McHale is this black hole who never passes, but if you actually watch some of his footage you'll see lots of outstanding interior passing as well as good transition passing.
3) The slight edge Gasol has passing-wise can easily be chalked up to the fact a) he often times played in the high post where he could more easily see the entire floor, hit cutters or dump the ball in to a teammate in high post so it is less about him being a better passer and more about the way he was used on offense and b) he played in an era with less physicality and more floor spacing which makes it easier for him to make good passes whereas McHale played in an era with less spacing and more physicality, he gets the ball in the post with defenders draped all over him so all he could do is either kick the ball back out to the perimeter or try and score

Actually, of all the great low post scorers, McHale probably was allowed to score in single coverage more than any other I can think of as the attention was primarily focused on Bird and you couldn't leave guys like Parish, DJ, etc. alone. So his efficiency should probably be taken in that context just as his lower rebounding numbers also have to be seen in the context of playing on a front line with two other HOF bigs. That said, McHale was an excellent post scorer and most of his black hole image comes from Larry Bird talking trash, he was an average passer.

[Jaivl]

Mchale. No one judges someone by how long they played. Otherwise you might as well judge by how long a country was in a war.

Of course you don't, because that's... probably the stupidest metaphor ever for so many reasons.

But well, even within that nonsense... people do judge military generals by quality AND number of victories, don't they?

[HeartBreakKid]

Mchale. No one judges someone by how long they played. Otherwise you might as well judge by how long a country was in a war.

Of course you don't, because that's... probably the stupidest metaphor ever for so many reasons.

But well, even within that nonsense... people do judge military generals by quality AND number of victories, don't they?

I'm surprised you had the will to respond to that.