Quote:
|
Originally Posted by BadBaronRudigor
Interesting posts, Minstrel's argument for McGrady seems to be the most impassioned; of course, passion tends to blind one sometimes.
|
First time I've ever been called "impassioned" in basketball discussion...I'm usually considered overly analytic. I don't think there's much value in trying to decide who's more "impessioned." You sound potentially pretty emotionally invested in the ABA memories of your childhood.
Quote:
|
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).
|
I don't think ABA competition stacks up to NBA competition then and certainly not now. Further, I'd say that this is probably the greatest era ever for wing players in the NBA. The talent at the position is remarkable. Comparing Erving "shutting down" players in the ABA doesn't seem very comparable McGrady's task in defending the talent at the 2/3 position today.
The two main areas I disagree with your analysis are, as already mentioned, defense and also rebounding.
When you look at Erving's Rebound Rate, the difference between his ABA years and NBA years are startling. Since he was still in his prime when he reached the NBA, it seems pretty clear that weaker competition in the ABA aided Erving's rebounding. He had a 14.2 RbR in the ABA and a 10.4 RbR in the NBA. Erving was a slightly better rebounder than McGrady in their primes, going by NBA rates, but the difference is pretty insignificant.
Also, as has been mentioned plenty in this thread and plenty of others, I don't consider intangibles like "leadership" to be a significant factor and it's often in the eye of the beholder. McGrady got plenty of "leadership credit" in 2004-05 when the Rockets started off so poorly and McGrady went to Van Gundy and convinced him to let the team open the offense up more. In the end, none of us are in locker rooms or have much opportunity to judge such things so accurately and it's highly subjective what leadership is "worth" in a concrete manner. Is it worth 3 points a season? 10 wins a season? The first would be so insignificant as to not be worth mentioning, the second would be so significant as to potentially wipe out all other issues.
Overall, I think the two players are pretty close. I think McGrady was a better defender of NBA opponents and a superior passer. I think scoring and rebounding were pretty even, with perhaps a slight edge to Erving in rebounding.