BadBaronRudigor

Interesting posts, Minstrel's argument for McGrady seems to be the most impassioned; of course, passion tends to blind one sometimes. The comments using only Erving's NBA rbr numbers (and only talking about his NBA career) leave out the best years of Erving's career . . . the time when he showed his best skills and leadership ability and his peak physical years between 21-25 in the NBA. If you leave out the same years for McGrady of course, he ends up with only one mediocre season.

As an old geezer who saw ABA games as a kid (they used to let us in after the 1st quarter for free to help fill the empty stands), I will give my best Erving v. McGrady analysis for the years BEFORE both turned 26. I realize the competition in the ABA wasn't equal to that in the NBA (though the forward spots were the exception) but it was within 10% and today is not the great period for talent (particularly at the 5) that earlier periods were (the 4 spots may be the best of any era though).

(a) Ability to get off the shot even against stacked defense. Both player's strength is their incredible physical ability. Erving was the superior going to the hole, able to hang in the air and change his shot or just power through people like a bigger version of prime Jordan. Erving also could post up 3's or 4's and take his shot back to the basket. McGrady has far superior shooting range and is an excellent driver who can back his man off with a stutter step and shoot at will, Erving tended to go all the way through more often. Even.

(b) Scoring efficiency. Erving, as the flip side of carrying the weight of the league's survival on his shoulders got ALL the calls (just as Jordan did later). This combined with his natural talents meant that he was consistently efficient. McGrady goes hot and cold more (as most distance shooters do) and although the defenses are more open nowadays due to greater use and efficiency of the 3 point shot and the no handcheck rule, seems to take more shots to produce his 25 ppg.

(c) Defense. Erving was a great defender in his ABA years, using his physical skills to shut down opponents. He got noticeably more likely to pick his spots as he got older (though better in the passing lanes). McGrady already tends to pick his spots, coasting defensively much of the game though capable of rising to a challenge like Nowitski. Edge Erving.

(d) Rebounding. Erving banged inside more and gathered more rebounds. In part this is because he was a 3-4 rather than a 3-2 but he has to be considered the better rebounder here too. Again, later in his career he became more of a jump shooter and finesse player but this is the ABA Erving.

(e) Passing. Edge McGrady though Erving passed extremely well out of the post (less so when driving where he seems to feel invincible unless someone was left completely along). McGrady handles and passes like a guard despite his size.

(f) Leadership/Attitude. Erving was not a yeller, but he was a guy that put out consistent effort on every play, offense and defense, games and practice . . . and he did it under pressure that only a few players (Chamberlain, Russell, Kareem, Walton, Bird, Magic, Jordan, Shaq?, Lebron?) have felt of carrying the fortunes of the entire league riding on him. McGrady has never carried that burden, his attitude in Toronto was not consistently good (though he was a teenager), in Orlando he handled pressure wonderfully, in Houston his teams even with Yao have underperformed. Big edge Erving.

Overall, McGrady, even comparing only 5 year peaks to allow for his shorter career, doesn't belong in the company of Bird, Baylor and Erving (not many do?) but is probably comparable to the next grouping of Barry, Havlicek, . . . That's not an insult to McGrady, he just isn't the 3rd best SF of all time yet. (and DeBusschere was, despite his height, a PF)

__________________
If you have to shoot, shoot, don't talk