RollWithEm

Are you implying here that McGrady would've buckled under that pressure, while Havlicek would’ve thrived under the pressure of reviving a fading franchise like the Magic?

McGrady does have time to rise or fall. What you’ve neglected to realize in this whole debate is that I ranked Havlicek ahead of McGrady. I think McGrady still has to rise one spot to reach Hondo on this list. I was simply arguing the point that team success should not be factored into this discussion as a primary reason for Havlicek’s greatness because of the significant difference between the career circumstances of these two players. I do think there is other significant evidence to support Hondo’s small greatness advantage over McGrady. I just do not think your professed, primary reason is a sound one for your contention.

__________________
But that's just me.

kflo

just found this quote - thought it interesting - it's from dennis rodman, who picked james worthy at the 3 for his dream team (he had jordan, pippen, himself at the 5, worthy at the 3 and mchale at the 4).

"Why James Worthy? I’m one of the best defensive players of all time, and I couldn’t guard his ***."

RollWithEm

I don't think anyone would ever accuse Dennis of being modest. Himself at the 5? Wow.

__________________
But that's just me.

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

Minstrel

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.

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.

__________________
John Peel [the day after the invasion of Grenada]: "Red Lorry Yellow Lorry's 'He's Read.' And that's 'Read,' spelled 'R-E-A-D', so you can call off the Marines..."

BadBaronRudigor

To respond to your two points:

(1) Do a rough survey of any group of wing players and you will find a significant decrease in their rebound rate going from age 21-26 to age 27-32. It is a fact of life, not necessarily an ABA/NBA thing. For that matter watch McGrady's RbR over the next 4 years . . . even though he plays more minutes at 3 and less at 2 than earlier in his career, his RbR will STILL probably go down.

(2) The group of forwards that Erving faced as a three is stronger on the average top to bottom than that faced in the 29-30 team NBA that McGrady has faced. Look at the median year for Erving, 1974. Erving faced a 10 team league. Including Erving, 5 of the 10 SFs could legitimately play in the NBA All-Star game: Billy Cunningham, Willie Wise, Roger Brown, and George Gervin. The others were Warren Jabali, George Carter, Wil Jones all very solid . . . and two weak players in Travis Grant (gunner) and Walt Simon (aging defensive specialist).

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

Minstrel

The difference is pretty large, though. 10+ is excellent for a wing player (McGrady has been one of the best wing rebounders of his generation) while 14+ RbR is simply incredible. And his drop-off was immediate. It's not that he declined gradually over that span of years, he fell off immediately after joining the NBA.

I don't think anyone really believes that the ABA was similarly strong. It wasn't a terrible league or anything, but it was significantly weaker from all accounts.

I don't see any merit to the argument for Wise and Brown as Hall of Famers. They certainly didn't produce like Hall of Famers. They each had two seasons above 20 PER, and those were just barely above 20. They profile as generally good players who should have made a couple of All-Star games each. Not as anything like Hall of Famers. I don't pretend to have watched them, as they were before my time, but their record isn't strong.

Gervin and Cunningham were both excellent players, but their seasons in the ABA (inflated by being in the ABA) don't look significantly different from players like Vince Carter and Paul Pierce. To say nothing of players like Kobe Bryant, LeBron James, Dirk Nowitzki (which is McGrady's defensive assignment), etc. I think defending players like Carter, Bryant, James, Nowitzki, etc, is considerably more demanding and difficult than defending Gervin and Cunningham 10 times each or so.

Granted, we're arguing over different things. You're basing this purely on his ABA years, while I'm using purely his NBA years. I didn't see his ABA years, and I'm going from the statistical record and the general consensus that the ABA was weaker.

As far as I'm concerned, judging players by their ABA performance has many of the same pitfalls as judging Sabonis by his international play...we have varying opinion on it's relative strength, we have the statistical record for what was achieved...but it simply wasn't NBA competition.

__________________
John Peel [the day after the invasion of Grenada]: "Red Lorry Yellow Lorry's 'He's Read.' And that's 'Read,' spelled 'R-E-A-D', so you can call off the Marines..."

JPSeraph

Wow, I can't believe this argument is still alive.

The Bad Baron has better articulated (through actual experience) what I was trying to point out about Erving: he was definitely a better rebounder (quicker off the floor from what I've heard) than McGrady; just going by his NBA numbers, Ervings RBR is better: 10+ until he was 33. By contrast, McGrady has been up and down from 8.5 to 11.4 and the advantage is even more in Erving's favor when you factor in his youthful ABA days.

As for Erving's defense, everything I've heard about Dr. J indicates that he was indeed a top defender in his youthful ABA days. Perhaps what is confusing the issue is that Erving began experiencing chronic knee problems (some form of tendinitis I assume) throughout his career which may have coincided with his transition from the ABA to the NBA. (not an argument for taking ABA RBR figures at face value)

Most of what we, the younger generation that is, have seen of Dr J is of a 30 something player who could occasionally pull off impressive moves, but doesn't really compare with all the young studs going around the league these days. As much as we would like to claim objectivity, watching an older defenseless Erving definitely affects one's impression of Erving overall. It's like when some teenager on the board talks about how MJ wasn't such a great athlete and is speaking only of the little they saw from 96 onwards.

As much as you (Minstrel, that is) may find anecdotal or second hand evidence abhorrent, I believe for the reasons above, we must use it. I, for one, doubt that every member of an older generation is hellbent on proving that their guys had to be the best. If that was true, then the same would be true of us. So, it's a matter of evaluating the source. While Baron was giving more credence to the ABA than many younger fans (myself included) find plausible, he didn't strike me as an Erving fanatic or a poor observer of the game, and much of what he said actually coincides with what I have heard from other sources I would consider credible.

It's not perfect, but if one is willing to consider PER estimates from basketball-reference, then why not strong anecdotal or second hand evidence?

__________________
On a given day, in a given circumstance, you think you have a limit...

BadBaronRudigor

Sorry Minstrel, thought I edited that before anyone read it to indicate that they are not HOF but All-Star level players . . . . and yes, in a 30 team league there should be more top players than in a 10 team league (3 times as many), my point is that the top HALF of SF in the ABA were NBA All-Star level, maybe a third of the NBA players McGrady faces are that level (10 of them in other words).

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