Quote:
|
Originally Posted by BadBaronRudigor
Minstrel, the original argument by you was that Erving's ABA numbers which show him as significantly better than McGrady should be ignored because upon his move to the NBA, his numbers dropped across the board. You particularly pointed to his rebounding numbers.
I suggested an alternative explanation; that it was a natural process of age and used the first three comparables on the 3rd party list of GOAT SGs (the peer group in discussion) to show that this particular drop was in fact common among this type of player.
|
I don't understand what makes English and Worthy, for example, particularly comparable to Erving. I think Pierce is more comparable to Erving than those two.
I went to basketball-reference.com and checked his most comparable list. The overwhelming choice (comparable at many ages) was Clyde Drexler. So let's look at Clyde Drexler:
25: 9.4
26: 10.9
27: 10.3
28: 10.6
Certainly doesn't fit the pattern. And this is the player who is judged most like Erving through their careers. Therefore, I don't see it as very compelling that it's "just something that happens" to players at that age.
I've never seen a rigorous statistical survey or an attempt to translate ABA numbers to NBA, so until I do, common sense tells me that the ABA being a weaker league leads to bigger numbers for the best players. I believe that had McGrady played his 20-25 year in the ABA, his number would be even larger.
I'm willing to give Erving the small edge in rebounding. I simply think McGrady's edges in passing and, in my opinion, defense, lead to his being the slightly better player.
I do think that regardless of who you pick, there's no way you can say one player is in an entirely different tier. They're clearly very close. It mostly comes down to whom you give the defensive edge to, and that's evidently not a slam dunk to either player.