Top 5 shooting guards in NBA history

[PeterMP]

McGrady didnt have one great year tho? He was a 7 time All NBA player. 2 times he made All NBA first team. In McGrady's prime, he was a top 5 NBA player.

From 2000-01 to 2007-8, McGrady averaged like 26 points a game. Thats not a one year thing.

In 2002-2003, McGrady had his career high as a regular starter in FT%, FG%, 3Pt%, and had a PER at 30.3 and a WS/48 min over 0.26.

He never crossed a PER over 26 in other time in his career and never a WS/48 min over 0.2 in other time in his career.

That's one great year. And then around that some good years.

**EDIT**

Just to give an idea of how big of a gap that is McGrady's best season in terms of win shares his better than Moncrief's, but Moncrief than has 6 better years than McGray's #2 year.

To give another player, McGrady's best year is better than Drexlers, but than Clyde has 8 years better than McGrady's 2nd best year.

[RiggosMohawk]

MJ and Kobe obvious locks for 1 and 2. I'll take the Logo at 3. I have a personal bias towards AI, so I will put him in at 4.

Then I'm surprised that given the good old school talk here, no one has thrown out Mitch Richmond's name, given this praise

"[Richmond was my] toughest matchup....one of the best players who ever guarded me..."

[amm0409]

MJ and Kobe obvious locks for 1 and 2. I'll take the Logo at 3. I have a personal bias towards AI, so I will put him in at 4.

Then I'm surprised that given the good old school talk here, no one has thrown out Mitch Richmond's name, given this praise

Some would argue West better than Kobe especially if he had a 3 point line. I never saw him play so

[IONTOP]

Can't believe nobody has mentioned Jayson Williams

Or

[Predicto]

I think that this board is grossly overrating Allen Iverson. I'm guessing that it is because he is from Virginia, went to Georgetown and played nearby in Philly. As I recall him, all he did was shoot the ball everytime he got it, at a mediocre percentage.

At the core, the guy was little different than Monte Ellis - a little better but not much.

[Going Commando]

Umm.........Sam Jones has to be in the discussion...

http://www.game7.com/sam-jones.php

I agree.

What works against him is the same thing that works against all the other Celtics from that era. There were so many good ones they got to play with and they depressed each others individual numbers. But if you can isolate just him, he was a terrific all around player and is at least in the discussion for the top five. Back then it was extremely unusual for a guard to shoot as high as 45%.

[JMS]

I think that this board is grossly overrating Allen Iverson. I'm guessing that it is because he is from Virginia, went to Georgetown and played nearby in Philly. As I recall him, all he did was shoot the ball everytime he got it, at a mediocre percentage.

At the core, the guy was little different than Monte Ellis - a little better but not much.

Allen Iverson.

- 1 MVP

- 4 scoring Titles ( only 3 other players have done that )

-- averaged 30 ppg for his career in the playoffs (second only to Michael Jordan).

-- 11 allstar apperances

-- 2 NBA All Star MVP's

-- 3x NBA steals leader

-- 6th all time points per game

-- 7x All NBA selection

-- 1996 rookie of the year

-- probable the quickest player in NBA history

In 914 games he is ranked 17th in the NBA for all time scoring leaders. 500 pts behind Patrick Ewing with 1183 games, and 98 pts ahead of Kevin Garnet with 1,255 games

The only real comparison with Monte Ellis is they both have tatoo's and are short.

[Going Commando]

McQueen' date=' you are 26.

Why are you so on Moncrief's jock?

I saw him play. He was pretty good. But he does not belong in this discussion.[/quote']

I really like the guy. He's a fundamentals guy that played super hard. I tend to favor two way players with a low key heavy on the fundamentals approach to the game. Moncrieff was that way, but I also feel like he had some understated artistry to his game. Duncan was one of my basketball heroes growing up. Grant Hill was my favorite player ever. Moncrieff reminds me of Hill.

---------- Post added July-23rd-2012 at 06:58 PM ----------

I think that this board is grossly overrating Allen Iverson. I'm guessing that it is because he is from Virginia, went to Georgetown and played nearby in Philly. As I recall him, all he did was shoot the ball everytime he got it, at a mediocre percentage.

At the core, the guy was little different than Monte Ellis - a little better but not much.

You're being too hard on him. AI was a lot better than Monta. Smaller, but more talented. He was a first overall pick after all. Monta went in the second round because he came out of HS, he'd probably go in the lotto if you redid that draft. But he wasn't that same kind of first overall talent that AI was. AI also won a lot and won an MVP whereas Monta hasn't really come close to that.

I'll admit, I've got a soft spot for AI. Him being from Hampton is a part of it. But it was more about the sheer excitement he brought to the game. I'm usually not one for inefficient scorers at all, but he was a special player whose impact went beyond his shooting percentages. He was basically the Jimi Hendrix of ball handling and slashing and he was almost always the smallest guy on the court. But he played with a ton of heart and balls. I don't see how anyone could come away from watching him without admiring him.

[Sticksboi05]

I used to love Grant Hill. He made me choose Sprite sometimes over Coke.

[Going Commando]

Why are you so on Moncrief's jock?

Also, you have no idea how many times I've been lit up by Moncrieff on NBA 2k12. That game rewards two way players. He's usually good for 25-6-6 and at least 5 or 6 steals against me.

I don't know if anyone else plays that game, but if you do, you understand there are certain random ass players you are afraid of every time they come up on the schedule. Well Moncrieff is that man for me when I play with my legends rosters.

[JMS]

He was basically the Jimi Hendrix of ball handling and slashing and he was almost always the smallest guy on the court. But he played with a ton of heart and balls. I don't see how anyone could come away from watching him without admiring him.

Monte Ellis has 3 inches on Iverson, and Iverson probable is twice as quick. There is really no comparison between the two.

[Predicto]

You're being too hard on him. AI was a lot better than Monta. Smaller, but more talented. He was a first overall pick after all. Monta went in the second round because he came out of HS, he'd probably go in the lotto if you redid that draft. But he wasn't that same kind of first overall talent that AI was. AI also won a lot and won an MVP whereas Monta hasn't really come close to that.

I'll admit, I've got a soft spot for AI. Him being from Hampton is a part of it. But it was more about the sheer excitement he brought to the game. I'm usually not one for inefficient scorers at all, but he was a special player whose impact went beyond his shooting percentages. He was basically the Jimi Hendrix of ball handling and slashing and he was almost always the smallest guy on the court. But he played with a ton of heart and balls. I don't see how anyone could come away from watching him without admiring him.

I do admire him. He was tough as nails.

But he was also a guy who shot .420 for his career, who got scoring titles primarily because he shot more shots than anyone else in the league. He would get 26 points by taking 27 shots. That kind of scoring inefficiency is deadly to the W/L record. He also was a mediocre on the ball defender, and his assists were nothing special given how much he had the rock in his hand.

I'm not saying he wasn't great. He's in my top ten. But not in my top 5. Heart alone is not enough to get you into the top 5.

---------- Post added July-23rd-2012 at 04:52 PM ----------

The only real comparison with Monte Ellis is they both have tatoo's and are short.

And take too many low percentage shots and play for steals rather than keeping their man in front of them.

But they both look great in the highlight film.

[Going Commando]

I do admire him. He was tough as nails.

But he was also a guy who shot .420 for his career, who got scoring titles primarily because he shot more shots than anyone else in the league. He would get 26 points by taking 27 shots. That kind of scoring inefficiency is deadly to the W/L record. He also was a mediocre on the ball defender, and his assists were nothing special given how much he had the rock in his hand.

I'm not saying he wasn't great. He's in my top ten. But not in my top 5. Heart alone is not enough to get you into the top 5.

You have to make some allowance for Iverson's size in his shooting %s. If Iverson was the size of a DWade or a Kobe he could have gotten much better shots and shot for higher percentages.

Then again, if he was as big as them, he probably doesn't become the artist with the ball that he was. They say necessity is the mother of invention after all.

The thing is, Iverson was inefficient and he was incredibly ball dominant. Conventional wisdom would make you think that would make a big difference in the W/Ls like is has for guys like Monta Ellis. But Iverson still won. His teams were good defensively but he really didn't have a lot of help on the offensive end. It's remarkable he had as much team success as he did. That's a testament to how hard he played and how potent he was as a scorer. It didn't matter if Iverson had missed five shots in a row. You were still afraid of him taking the next one. He was going to run you ragged and take you to the basket if you and your help gave even the smallest opening. I mean literally small too, the guy could get skinny and split a double unlike anyone I've seen before. Sometimes pure relentlessness makes up for inefficiency.

I put him in my top five even though he is an extremely unconventional player. Not a great defender, not much of a passer, not an efficient shooter and not really one who could do his work off the ball. But he's the best ball handler I've ever seen and one of the most relentless players I've ever seen. Those two things plus his superlative speed were enough to get him into the HoF.

The rest of the SG list after Jordan, Kobe, and West is very flawed after all.

---------- Post added July-23rd-2012 at 08:39 PM ----------

Monte Ellis has 3 inches on Iverson, and Iverson probable is twice as quick. There is really no comparison between the two.

Iverson was absurdly quick, but don't sell Monta short. Monta is amazingly fast too. Not as fast as Iverson, but not too far off either. I think he's the fastest 2 guard in the league now that Wade has started slowing.

He's not the slasher Iverson was. Probably a better shooter though.

[AsiaticSkinsFan]

In 2002-2003, McGrady had his career high as a regular starter in FT%, FG%, 3Pt%, and had a PER at 30.3 and a WS/48 min over 0.26.

He never crossed a PER over 26 in other time in his career and never a WS/48 min over 0.2 in other time in his career.

That's one great year. And then around that some good years.

**EDIT**

Just to give an idea of how big of a gap that is McGrady's best season in terms of win shares his better than Moncrief's, but Moncrief than has 6 better years than McGray's #2 year.

To give another player, McGrady's best year is better than Drexlers, but than Clyde has 8 years better than McGrady's 2nd best year.

this geek stuff should never apply to basketball only baseball, im sorry. If you base your argument on PER then you need to sort it out.

There are many variables that these things do not account for, and its why it should never be the basis for everything.

Dirk Nowitzski got a higher PER than Larry Bird.

McGrady was better than Moncrief.

---------- Post added July-23rd-2012 at 08:51 PM ----------

I think that this board is grossly overrating Allen Iverson. I'm guessing that it is because he is from Virginia, went to Georgetown and played nearby in Philly. As I recall him, all he did was shoot the ball everytime he got it, at a mediocre percentage.

At the core, the guy was little different than Monte Ellis - a little better but not much.

no, Iverson was a better player than Monta Ellis. By a lot too.

[PeterMP]

this geek stuff should never apply to basketball only baseball, im sorry. If you base your argument on PER then you need to sort it out.

There are many variables that these things do not account for, and its why it should never be the basis for everything.

Dirk Nowitzski got a higher PER than Larry Bird.

McGrady was better than Moncrief.

I'm using PER to demonstrate the sheer and stark difference of McGrady's best season from the rest.

People remember that one season and the highlights from the others and think that McGrady actually had a reasonable career that was similar to his best season.

It isn't true.

McGrady had one great year, a huge step down from there, but few good ones, and then further decline from there.

Moncrief was better.

And better than Iverson too.

---------- Post added July-23rd-2012 at 09:12 PM ----------

The thing is, Iverson was inefficient and he was incredibly ball dominant. Conventional wisdom would make you think that would make a big difference in the W/Ls like is has for guys like Monta Ellis. But Iverson still won. His teams were good defensively but he really didn't have a lot of help on the offensive end. It's remarkable he had as much team success as he did. That's a testament to how hard he played and how potent he was as a scorer. It didn't matter if Iverson had missed five shots in a row. You were still afraid of him taking the next one. He was going to run you ragged and take you to the basket if you and your help gave even the smallest opening. I mean literally small too, the guy could get skinny and split a double unlike anyone I've seen before. Sometimes pure relentlessness makes up for inefficiency.

I put him in my top five even though he is an extremely unconventional player. Not a great defender, not much of a passer, not an efficient shooter and not really one who could do his work off the ball. But he's the best ball handler I've ever seen and one of the most relentless players I've ever seen. Those two things plus his superlative speed were enough to get him into the HoF.

Iverson wasn't not a good defensive player.

He was worse than that. He was a POOR defensive player (and yes I know he had a lot of steals, but they weren't on the ball defensive steals they were essentially I'm going to leave my man open and get in the passing lanes and steal the ball so I can get an easy basket the other way steals and if I don't get the steal hopefully somebody can rotate and cover me even though I can't guard a single other player on the floor, which means I can't really switch w/o some seroius help from somebody else). He was a POOR passer. He was POOR rebounder. all w/ respect to his position.

He was MAYBE a good shooter and FT. He was a GREAT scorer.

I don't think any team has been successful where the system was whatever a single player wants to do on offense and defense is fine, as long as you score points as much of those Philly teams.

Those teams were put together PERFECTLY to fit Iverson.

[Going Commando]

AsiaticSkinsFan, one thing I've learned from the tailgate, when PeterMP posts, it's usually best to just sit back and listen.

---------- Post added July-23rd-2012 at 09:40 PM ----------

Iverson wasn't not a good defensive player.

He was worse than that. He was a POOR defensive player (and yes I know he had a lot of steals, but they weren't on the ball defensive steals they were essentially I'm going to leave my man open and get in the passing lanes and steal the ball so I can get an easy basket the other way steals and if I don't get the steal hopefully somebody can rotate and cover me even though I can't guard a single other player on the floor, which means I can't really switch w/o some seroius help from somebody else). He was a POOR passer. He was POOR rebounder. all w/ respect to his position.

He was MAYBE a good shooter and FT. He was a GREAT scorer.

I don't think any team has been successful where the system was whatever a single player wants to do on offense and defense is fine, as long as you score points as much of those Philly teams.

Those teams were put together PERFECTLY to fit Iverson.

I won't dispute any of what you said, I think it paints an accurate picture of almost all of Iverson's flaws. I agree that the Philly team was built to perfectly compliment him, although I think they could have used a really good PF for finishing his drive and dish, which Iverson actually ran really well.

You're not going to get a perfect makeup though, I agree surrounding Iverson with guys like Iggy and Mutumbo made for an ideal situation. But I want to point out that if the back end of your defense is so strong with someone like Mutumbo guarding the rim, and you've got a spectacular help defender like Iggy, can it not be extremely productive to gamble and play the passing lanes and trust the defense behind you?

I think it can be.

Playing the passing lanes has an art to it too. And those quick transition buckets can be back breakers or big time sparks for your squad because sometimes it feels like a four point swing.

I guess my point is, if you've got such good perimeter help and your center is an awesome defender, why not gamble more to produce big plays? Especially if you're a super undersized player that simply can't run through screens and muscle guys out of their spots all night?

[Mr. Nostril]

The top 4 are pretty easy:

1. Jordan

2. Kobe

3. West

4. Wade

As for #5, I seriously considered The Ice Man and AI, but due mostly to the number of championships contributed to, I have to go with:

5. Sam Jones

[PeterMP]

I won't dispute any of what you said, I think it paints an accurate picture of almost all of Iverson's flaws. I agree that the Philly team was built to perfectly compliment him, although I think they could have used a really good PF for finishing his drive and dish, which Iverson actually ran really well.

You're not going to get a perfect makeup though, I agree surrounding Iverson with guys like Iggy and Mutumbo made for an ideal situation. But I want to point out that if the back end of your defense is so strong with someone like Mutumbo guarding the rim, and you've got a spectacular help defender like Iggy, can it not be extremely productive to gamble and play the passing lanes and trust the defense behind you?

I think it can be.

Playing the passing lanes has an art to it too. And those quick transition buckets can be back breakers or big time sparks for your squad because sometimes it feels like a four point swing.

I guess my point is, if you've got such good perimeter help and your center is an awesome defender, why not gamble more to produce big plays? Especially if you're a super undersized player that simply can't run through screens and muscle guys out of their spots all night?

Clearly, it worked pretty well for them. My point was that Iverson didn't get most of his steals from being a really great on the ball defender. He wasn't picking the pockets the of whoever he was suppossed to be playing.

If he'd played in another system where he was forced/asked to play a more traditional defense, I think he really would have struggled.

(And Iggy and Iverson only over lapped a little. During the best years, it was McKee and Snow helping him out. And in terms of PF, I think the idea was to allow Iverson to miss and get the ORB. They had a very good ORB team through those years.)

[AsiaticSkinsFan]

AsiaticSkinsFan, one thing I've learned from the tailgate, when PeterMP posts, it's usually best to just sit back and listen

good thing im not you.

I'm using PER to demonstrate the sheer and stark difference of McGrady's best season from the rest.

People remember that one season and the highlights from the others and think that McGrady actually had a reasonable career that was similar to his best season.

It isn't true.

McGrady had one great year, a huge step down from there, but few good ones, and then further decline from there.

Moncrief was better.

And better than Iverson too.

im trying to figure this out. I dont like PER and winshares and all those other advanced stats in basketball because there are many factors that those advanced stats do not account for...

but lets go with your use of PER. Tracy McGrady finished top 3 in PER 4 times in his career. So only 2 other players had higher PERs in 3 other seasons. In those 3 years, the only perimeter player that finished higher in PER was Vince Carter in 2000-01. The other years it was Shaq, Duncan, and Garnett. You cannot sit here with a serious face and tell me that finishing top 3 in PER (and this is based on your criteria, I dont buy this advanced stats geekery when it comes to bball. Great compliment but it never tells the whole story) behind big men does not equal a great season then I shall never take your opinions on bball serious again. You cant seriously believe that. What you probably mean is that McGrady had one AMAZING season and a few other outstanding seasons that never compared to that amazing season. Thats fair, and I would agree with that but to say he had one amazing season and then was just good the rest of the time is just flat out wrong.

Meanwhile, Moncrief never finished a season above 9th in PER. In fact, he only had one season in the top 10.

---------- Post added July-24th-2012 at 12:25 AM ----------

Moncrief only had one season with a PER above 21, while McGrady had a career average over 22 in PER.

But again, I dont buy the PER stuff like a lot of fans want too. Some people think John Stockton was a better player than Isiah Thomas because of his PER, and I would disagree completely because it doesnt show that Stockton played in one of the most point guard friendly offenses ever and that Zeke had to shoot more to keep his team in games... but thats another argument.

---------- Post added July-24th-2012 at 12:32 AM ----------

You're not going to get a perfect makeup though, I agree surrounding Iverson with guys like Iggy and Mutumbo made for an ideal situation. But I want to point out that if the back end of your defense is so strong with someone like Mutumbo guarding the rim, and you've got a spectacular help defender like Iggy, can it not be extremely productive to gamble and play the passing lanes and trust the defense behind you?

Iverson played a total of 3 years with Mutombo and Iggy. No need to make excuses, dude was a terrible defender.

and I say this as a guy who idolized Ivy.

[PeterMP]

good thing im not you.

im trying to figure this out. I dont like PER and winshares and all those other advanced stats in basketball because there are many factors that those advanced stats do not account for...

but lets go with your use of PER. Tracy McGrady finished top 3 in PER 4 times in his career. So only 2 other players had higher PERs in 3 other seasons. In those 3 years, the only perimeter player that finished higher in PER was Vince Carter in 2000-01. The other years it was Shaq, Duncan, and Garnett. You cannot sit here with a serious face and tell me that finishing top 3 in PER (and this is based on your criteria, I dont buy this advanced stats geekery when it comes to bball. Great compliment but it never tells the whole story) behind big men does not equal a great season then I shall never take your opinions on bball serious again. You cant seriously believe that. What you probably mean is that McGrady had one AMAZING season and a few other outstanding seasons that never compared to that amazing season. Thats fair, and I would agree with that but to say he had one amazing season and then was just good the rest of the time is just flat out wrong.

Meanwhile, Moncrief never finished a season above 9th in PER. In fact, he only had one season in the top 10.

PER is only an offensive stat, and it clearly has issues when comparing over longer periods of time (e.g. your point about Bird and Dirk). The league has changed. Scoring has shifted from low post big man scoring to more of a guard oriented league mostly driven by changes in the rules and interpertations with the rules that allow people to do things with the dribble that they couldn't do before.

And Moncrief's strength was defense, which PER is going to miss completely.

I didn't use PER to compare Moncrief and McGrady. I was using PER to compare McGrady to McGrady.

The rest seems to be adjectives. I don't think necessarily every year there is a great player in a certain mode. There are years where there aren't great players at certain positions.

I'd say 2002-2003 represents a great year. The other years, offensively he might have been the best non-big in the league. Something great doesn't have to happen every year.

Generally, I'll stand by my point.

In 2002-2003 McGrady was significnatly better than he was the rest of his career, including the year before and after.

It is easy for people to remember the highlights and think that McGrady performed at his 2002-2003 level for multiple years, but he didn't.

He had one year at the level.

McGrady had one year better than Moncrief's best. He might have had two, but Moncrief almost certainly had a period of 6 years that were better than the rest of McGrady's career.

My memory tells me that Moncrief was the better all around player for a longer period of time.

The advanced stats back that up.

**EDIT**

One of the nice things about modern sports is how players change teams.

McGrady changed teams three times. Toronto went 45-37 w/ him (he played in 79 game, but only started in 34). The next year w/o him the improved to 47-35.

and went from 3rd to 2nd in their division.

With McGrady Orlando went 43-39 and in 4th place in their division. The year before w/o him they were 41-41 and in 4th place.

The year before he went ot Houston, he started in 67 games for Orlando. They went 21-61 and in 7th place. The next year w/o they went 36-46 (and finished 3rd, but there were also changes in the divisions that made it easier because the reduced the teams in the division).

Houston went 51-31 w/ him and in 3rd place. The year before 45-37 and in 3rd place (again there were divisional changes so moving up was easy because there were fewer teams.)

Looking at the conference might be better for the years w/ divisional changes. The Rockets went from 7th to 5th in the conference. Orlando went from 15th with him to 10th w/o him.

It seems to me that adding and subtracting a great player like that should give you larger changes and more consistent changes.

[Going Commando]

good thing im not you.

You're right. If you were, then the obnoxious would be underrepresented in this thread.

I was telling you for your own benefit. But as they say, the best advice often goes unheeded.

[pjfootballer]

I'm not a big fan of advanced stats in any sports. When a player finishes his career, like it or not, all stats that are looked at are the regular stats of that sport. Baseball looks at average, home runs, RBIs, Doubles, Triples, Steals usually. Depending on the position in football, its about yards and scores. In basketball its about points, rebounds and assists usually. And hockey is about goals and assists. I'm not sure any HOF voter looks at advanced stats. I'm not saying they don't, but its more that its unlikely.

[Shabby]

My problem with Kobe is that when he hasnt had a top big man in the league, he hasnt done much except for scoring a lot. Theres a reason why shaq won the 3 finals MVPs when he was with the lakers, and as soon as he left, kobe made it to the playoffs only once, and even then he was knocked out of the first. He didnt do anything until Pau Gasol was aquired. He actually, not only made it to the playoffs that same year, but went to the finals 3 straight years when they aquired Pau? Correct me if i'm wrong. For those who say Pau is not a good big man, and that it was all Kobe, you are crazy. Its too big a coincidence.

---------- Post added July-24th-2012 at 10:19 AM ----------

People like calling Kobe selfish because Kobe is aloof and a jerk. Phil Jackson encouraged Kobe to shoot because they had no one else on those teams. When he got adequate teammates, it became "Kobe finally learned to play team ball" etc when his shooting totals were not that dissimilar.

People were saying Kobe was a selfish player even when they had shaq. Do you remember the whole "this is my team not shaqs team?" he broke up a dynasty. and when he doesnt win, he blames his team mates.

[AsiaticSkinsFan]

I was using PER to compare McGrady to McGrady.

I am aware. And it still is not correct. Those other years McGrady had were great, he just had one outstanding and amazing year.

Its like saying Shaq was only great in 99/00 because that was his career year, and then only good the rest of the time due to injuries and the like. No, Shaq was great for majority of his career.

I'd say 2002-2003 represents a great year. The other years, offensively he might have been the best non-big in the league. Something great doesn't have to happen every year.

Generally, I'll stand by my point.

In 2002-2003 McGrady was significnatly better than he was the rest of his career, including the year before and after.

It is easy for people to remember the highlights and think that McGrady performed at his 2002-2003 level for multiple years, but he didn't.

He had one year at the level.

it doesnt, but it did for McGrady. You dont make an All NBA team without being great. He made 7 of them. He ranked as the best PER perimeter player those 4 other years he was in the top 3. Those are GREAT years.

You cannot knock a guy for not matching his career year, when he was great every other year. Its a ridiculous standard.

And before these advanced metrics became prevalent in sports, I doubt anyone would have said McGrady had one great year and was just good the rest of his prime.

McGrady had one year better than Moncrief's best. He might have had two, but Moncrief almost certainly had a period of 6 years that were better than the rest of McGrady's career.

My memory tells me that Moncrief was the better all around player for a longer period of time.

The advanced stats back that up.

but they dont.

One of the nice things about modern sports is how players change teams.

McGrady changed teams three times. Toronto went 45-37 w/ him (he played in 79 game, but only started in 34). The next year w/o him the improved to 47-35.

and went from 3rd to 2nd in their division.

With McGrady Orlando went 43-39 and in 4th place in their division. The year before w/o him they were 41-41 and in 4th place.

The year before he went ot Houston, he started in 67 games for Orlando. They went 21-61 and in 7th place. The next year w/o they went 36-46 (and finished 3rd, but there were also changes in the divisions that made it easier because the reduced the teams in the division).

Houston went 51-31 w/ him and in 3rd place. The year before 45-37 and in 3rd place (again there were divisional changes so moving up was easy because there were fewer teams.)

Looking at the conference might be better for the years w/ divisional changes. The Rockets went from 7th to 5th in the conference. Orlando went from 15th with him to 10th w/o him.

It seems to me that adding and subtracting a great player like that should give you larger changes and more consistent changes.

in Toronto, Vince Carter had an MVP type of year that next year and everyone had career years. Alvin Williams, Antonio Davis, etc.

They fell apart the next year.

Orlando were a mess before, during, and after McGrady left. They fired Doc Rivers that last year when they lost 60 games after that start and built a new team. They also drafted Dwight Howard, so lets not ignore that.

But in fairness, that 60 loss season is a big reason why I dont rate McGrady as high as the other 2guards in that era.

My problem with Kobe is that when he hasnt had a top big man in the league, he hasnt done much except for scoring a lot. Theres a reason why shaq won the 3 finals MVPs when he was with the lakers, and as soon as he left, kobe made it to the playoffs only once, and even then he was knocked out of the first. He didnt do anything until Pau Gasol was aquired. He actually, not only made it to the playoffs that same year, but went to the finals 3 straight years when they aquired Pau? Correct me if i'm wrong. For those who say Pau is not a good big man, and that it was all Kobe, you are crazy. Its too big a coincidence.

who said Gasol wasnt a good big man?

Im just not buying this, "gasol was a dominant big man" or "best big man in the league" meme thats been sprouted the last few years. Gasol won zero playoff games in Memphis. ZERO. Made only one all star game, and never made an All NBA team. There was nothing dominant about Gasol until he arrived in LA to play with Kobe. But people will continue to give Gasol credit over Kobe despite all of that.

People were saying Kobe was a selfish player even when they had shaq. Do you remember the whole "this is my team not shaqs team?" he broke up a dynasty. and when he doesnt win, he blames his team mates.

he said that because Shaq was out of shape and constantly injured. He was right too because thats how the last 7 years of Shaq's career turned out. Shaq should have went to the background gracefully like Kareem did, and like Shaq did that one year in Miami but could not.

on top of that, Jerry Buss made the decision to trade Shaq away because he wasnt willing to pay Shaq 30 million a year over another 5 years. IT actually turned out to be the right decision.

---------- Post added July-24th-2012 at 12:33 PM ----------

You're right. If you were, then the obnoxious would be underrepresented in this thread.

I was telling you for your own benefit. But as they say, the best advice often goes unheeded.

thanks for the advice, but im a big boy

---------- Post added July-24th-2012 at 12:35 PM ----------

I'm not a big fan of advanced stats in any sports. When a player finishes his career, like it or not, all stats that are looked at are the regular stats of that sport. Baseball looks at average, home runs, RBIs, Doubles, Triples, Steals usually. Depending on the position in football, its about yards and scores. In basketball its about points, rebounds and assists usually. And hockey is about goals and assists. I'm not sure any HOF voter looks at advanced stats. I'm not saying they don't, but its more that its unlikely.

cannot agree with this with regards to baseball.

the sport is purely driven by staitistics

you can build a winning team based on those advanced stats in baseball.

[PeterMP]

I am aware. And it still is not correct. Those other years McGrady had were great, he just had one outstanding and amazing year.

Its like saying Shaq was only great in 99/00 because that was his career year, and then only good the rest of the time due to injuries and the like. No, Shaq was great for majority of his career.

There is a significant difference between Shaq and McGrady even using PER.

The point is the fall off. Shaq is another good example. McGrady's best season was better than Shaq's third best season (the list would be Shaq, Shaq, McGrady). But then Shaq has 9 seasons between McGrady's #2 seson and his #1 season.

Shaq put up a large number of years with very similar stats.

McGrady didn't.

And you don't have to look at advanced stats to see it. His career high pts/36 minute is 29.3, and ahead of Shaq's best year.

But then Shaq put up 9 seasons better than McGrady's #2 season.

I'm assuming pts/36 minutes isn't an advanced stat to you.

but they dont.

PER is just a combination of box score stats and doesn't properly take into account defense, which is where Moncrief excelled.

If you look at WS/48, you get that.