Prime T-Mac abusing '03 Nets - 46 points, 13 assists and 10 rebounds

[millwad]

It's easy to forget how great T-mac used to be in his Orlando days, the guy had it all.. To be that tall, that skilled, that athletic and that fast is just unreal.

This game is just sick, it should be mentioned that he did it against the same New Jersey Nets who made it to the finals that same year..

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b1bvdkoXSgA&feature=player_embedded#!

Boxscore: http://www.basketball-reference.com/boxscores/200302230NJN.html

http://www.bestsportsphotos.com/files/t_33956.jpg

[catch24]

What makes this game special is the fact it came against an NBA finalist.

Kinda depressing seeing a dude like T-Mac who had more talent in his pinkie than 90% of the today's league, wasting his prime years on bottom-feeding teams.

[RRR3]

What an incredible player T-Mac was. He truly had GOAT-level potential. Shame his career turned out the way it did.

[mattvNJ]

damn, i hope he gets on a contender this year with his upcoming free agency dude deserves a ring.

[kaiiu]

Tmac was the truth

[DuMa]

TMac had goat potential. yes he did.

[RRR3]

TMac had goat potential. yes he did.
Agreed. He was sort of like a combination of Kobe and Lebron.

[lefthook00]

McGrady was like a taller, longer Kobe.

They're both so disrespectful. They just shoot in your face like it's nothing.

[jlip]

If memory serves me correctly, in the game either right before or right after this one, he had 52 points in 3 quarters.

[Nets fan 93]

That was a weak orlando team. no wonder T-Mac never made it out of the 1st round until that one year in Houston where he was out anyway.

[millwad]

If memory serves me correctly, in the game either right before or right after this one, he had 52 points in 3 quarters.

Correct, 52 points in 33 minutes!
Sick how someone can dominate like that in back to backs..

[thejumpa]

Dude was the definition of gifted. Once in a lifetime player.

[Clippersfan86]

I think the reason we embrace him so much and even overrate him at times is because assuming he wasn't injury prone and didn't play with such bad talent no question dude would have at least a ring. Nobody realizes this guy arguably was better than PRIME Kobe. Kobe is now moving into talks as the 2nd best SG ever and moving up the GOAT list. Imagine if Tracy could stay healthy, was on a great team and worked as hard as Kobe? He would of been right there next to Kobe right now as the 2nd best SG's ever.

Tracy was a bigger Kobe who was a superior playmaker and IMO smarter all around player. Tracy also could block shots on a regular basis.

[millwad]

I think the reason we embrace him so much and even overrate him at times is because assuming he wasn't injury prone and didn't play with such bad talent no question dude would have at least a ring. Nobody realizes this guy arguably was better than PRIME Kobe. Kobe is now moving into talks as the 2nd best SG ever and moving up the GOAT list. Imagine if Tracy could stay healthy, was on a great team and worked as hard as Kobe? He would of been right there next to Kobe right now as the 2nd best SG's ever.

Tracy was a bigger Kobe who was a superior playmaker and IMO smarter all around player. Tracy also could block shots on a regular basis.

Couldn't agree more.

[pauk]

jason kidd had a nice statline himself that game... 26 - 15 - 11 - 6.. quadruple double goin on there

[Clippersfan86]

Couldn't agree more.

:eek: :eek:

[Jacks3]

Almost as good as Kobe...that year. But G.O.A.T potential? Even at his absolute peak, he wasn't at that level. Please. :facepalm

[The_Yearning]

^lol this guy is so diluted of knowledge... from reading your post you would think he started watching basketball in 2005.

[Jacks3]

wut

[millwad]

^lol this guy is so diluted of knowledge... from reading your post you would think he started watching basketball in 2005.

Who?

[chips93]

:roll: @ 4:50, prime t-mac being guarded by none other than brian scalabrine :lol

[RRR3]

:roll: @ 4:50, prime t-mac being guarded by none other than brian scalabrine :lol
That proves T-Mac was a beast. It's not every player who has the HONOR of being guarded by an all-time great defender like the White Mamba.

[RRR3]

Almost as good as Kobe...that year. But G.O.A.T potential? Even at his absolute peak, he wasn't at that level. Please. :facepalm
McGrady had back problems most of his career. He was better than Kobe for a brief period. Kobe has had a much better career, you should be satisfied with that. But no, how dare anyone point out that there was someone who could have been even better! Blasphemy!

[ShaqAttack3234]

I think the reason we embrace him so much and even overrate him at times is because assuming he wasn't injury prone and didn't play with such bad talent no question dude would have at least a ring. Nobody realizes this guy arguably was better than PRIME Kobe. Kobe is now moving into talks as the 2nd best SG ever and moving up the GOAT list. Imagine if Tracy could stay healthy, was on a great team and worked as hard as Kobe? He would of been right there next to Kobe right now as the 2nd best SG's ever.

Tracy was a bigger Kobe who was a superior playmaker and IMO smarter all around player. Tracy also could block shots on a regular basis.

Well, 2003 T-Mac was comparable to peak Kobe, but a big difference is that Kobe has 3 or 4 seasons comparable or better than that one by T-Mac.

From 2001-2005 it was a popular debate, as far as how close I think they were, the biggest gap between the 2 was in Kobe's favor in 2001. I'd only rank T-Mac ahead of Kobe in 2003 and 2005, though 2002 and 2004 are debatable despite Kobe having the advantage, imo.

But that time frame doesn't even cover Kobe's best seasons from 2006-2008 which is important to remember. It also includes Kobe's 2 worst prime seasons(2004 and 2005).

Granted, T-Mac's back problems had occurred even before he played his best basketball with Orlando, so you can still wonder how good he could have been without chronic back problems, or what he could have don during his short prime or peak with a capable supporting cast.

[Clippersfan86]

Well, 2003 T-Mac was comparable to peak Kobe, but a big difference is that Kobe has 3 or 4 seasons comparable or better than that one by T-Mac.

From 2001-2005 it was a popular debate, as far as how close I think they were, the biggest gap between the 2 was in Kobe's favor in 2001. I'd only rank T-Mac ahead of Kobe in 2003 and 2005, though 2002 and 2004 are debatable despite Kobe having the advantage, imo.

But that time frame doesn't even cover Kobe's best seasons from 2006-2008 which is important to remember. It also includes Kobe's 2 worst prime seasons(2004 and 2005).

Granted, T-Mac's back problems had occurred even before he played his best basketball with Orlando, so you can still wonder how good he could have been without chronic back problems, or what he could have don during his short prime or peak with a capable supporting cast.

That's just it. I'm not saying he was better but that he was on Kobe's prime level even if it was just for a season or two. If he was healthy and had better talent on his teams he likely has a similarly successful career to Kobe with a couple rings less.

[8BeastlyXOIAD]

:bowdown: :bowdown: :bowdown:

[swi7ch]

Kinda depressing seeing a dude like T-Mac who had more talent in his pinkie than 90% of the today's league, wasting his prime years on bottom-feeding teams.

If I were him or any other star, I would sign for the MINIMUM to be on the defending champions' team, win a championship, then sign elswhere for max money.

Just one-year contract paying the minimum. Then once you get your championship, sign for 100 million on whichever team.

[RRR3]

If I were him or any other star, I would sign for the MINIMUM to be on the defending champions' team, win a championship, then sign elswhere for max money.

Just one-year contract paying the minimum. Then once you get your championship, sign for 100 million on whichever team.
If I were T-Mac and I wanted a ring, I'd go to the Heat or Thunder, not the Mavs. The Mavs are aging and unlikely to repeat.

[chips93]

If I were him or any other star, I would sign for the MINIMUM to be on the defending champions' team, win a championship, then sign elswhere for max money.

Just one-year contract paying the minimum. Then once you get your championship, sign for 100 million on whichever team.

then you would get more hate than lebron did.

that would be seen as ring chasing of the worst degree

[Jacks3]

McGrady had back problems most of his career. He was better than Kobe for a brief period. Kobe has had a much better career, you should be satisfied with that. But no, how dare anyone point out that there was someone who could have been even better! Blasphemy!

T-Mac was never better.

But you're not saying that. You're saying he had G.O.A.T potential, which means as good as guys like Kareem/MJ, but that's not true...even at his absolute best he wasn't really close to that level. So no... he never had the potential to be G.O.A.T.

[RRR3]

T-Mac was never better.

But you're not saying that. You're saying he had G.O.A.T potential, which means as good as guys like Kareem/MJ, but that's not true...even at his absolute best he wasn't really close to that level. So no... he never had the potential to be G.O.A.T.

Potential=/=results. For example, Darius Miles had good potentail. Where is he now? And T-Mac was better than Kobe in 2002-03 and 2004-05 as Shaqattack said. From around 2000 to 2005 they were pretty much even. Then T-Mac began to decline while Kobe did not, and the gap began to grow and has ever since. T-Mac had more potential, Kobe got better results.

[Clippersfan86]

Potential=/=results. For example, Darius Miles had good potentail. Where is he now? And T-Mac was better than Kobe in 2002-03 and 2004-05 as Shaqattack said. From around 2000 to 2005 they were pretty much even. Then T-Mac began to decline while Kobe did not, and the gap began to grow and has ever since. T-Mac had more potential, Kobe got better results.

Yup. People aren't saying Tmac was or is better than Kobe career wise or w/e. They are saying IF he was healthy his entire career he would likely be equal or better. Matching prime Kobe for a season or two alone is a massive accomplishment/feat to begin with.

[Jacks3]

He never had the potential to be GOAT. Even in 2003, when he was at his absolute best and matched his potential he wasn't even close to GOAT level. GTFO. And no, he wasn't better than Kobe in 2003, nor did he have more talent. But whatever.

[RRR3]

Yup. People aren't saying Tmac was or is better than Kobe career wise or w/e. They are saying IF he was healthy his entire career he would likely be equal or better. Matching prime Kobe for a season or two alone is a massive accomplishment/feat to begin with.
Yeah. I hate how these kobe fans think it's a horrible crime to say anything that might possibly make Kobe look less than perfect. :facepalm

[Jacks3]

If he was healthy his entire career he still wouldn't have been as good as Kobe...considering he was still inferior even when healthy in 01/02/03/04/06 and 07.

[RRR3]

He never had the potential to be GOAT. Even in 2003, when he was at his absolute best and matched his potential he wasn't even close to GOAT level. GTFO. And no, he wasn't better than Kobe in 2003, nor did he have more talent. But whatever.
:facepalm :facepalm

[Clippersfan86]

He never had the potential to be GOAT. Even in 2003, when he was at his absolute best and matched his potential he wasn't even close to GOAT level. GTFO. And no, he wasn't better than Kobe in 2003, nor did he have more talent. But whatever.

Dude stop nerd raging. It's not a big deal. Yes I'd take his best season over Kobe's best as well. Like Shaq said they were on the same level for a few years.

[RRR3]

If he was healthy his entire career he still wouldn't have been as good as Kobe...considering he was still inferior even when healthy in 01/02/03/04/06 and 07.

Yeah he was so healthy in 06 he played 47 whole games. :roll: T-Mac has probably never been 100% healthy; he had back problems even in Orlando.

[Jacks3]

His best wasn't better than Kobe's, nor did he have the potential to be GOAT.

No rage at all. It's the truth.

[RRR3]

Dude stop nerd raging. It's not a big deal. Yes I'd take his best season over Kobe's best as well. Like Shaq said they were on the same level for a few years.
But...but...but...it's KOBEEEE!
No one can be better than him at anything ever!
KOBE....
DA BEST...
Scorer
Rebounder
Passer
Defender
Shooter
Ballhandler
Teammate
Coach
General Manager
....ever!!!!:bowdown: :bowdown:

[Jacks3]

Yeah he was so healthy in 06 he played 47 whole games. :roll: T-Mac has probably never been 100% healthy; he had back problems even in Orlando.
:oldlol:

You're just overrating his "talent". I'm not surprised. See the same shit happen with guys like Hill/Penny/Coleman/Bias etc etc. GOAT potential. LOL

[catch24]

I thought Mac had Kobe beat in 2003 and 2005. Kobe from 2000-02, '04 and '06-08 was better.

And I don't think Mcgrady had GOAT potential, but definitely top 2-3 at his position potential though.

[Jacks3]

. It's not a big deal. Yes I'd take his best season over Kobe's best as well.
Kobe's 2001/2003/2006/2007/2008 seasons are all better than anything T-Mac ever did.

[RRR3]

Kobe's 2001/2003/2006/2007/2008 seasons are all better than anything T-Mac ever did.
:facepalm

[RRR3]

I thought Mac had Kobe beat in 2003 and 2005. Kobe from 2000-02, '04 and '06-08 was better.

And I don't think Mcgrady had GOAT potential, but definitely top 2-3 at his position potential though.
Good post. Don't agree with all of it, but I see where you're coming from. :cheers:

[RRR3]

One interesting thing about T-Mac is that for a player who had the ball in his hands as much as he did, he had a surprisingly low number of turnovers. In his 2002-03 year (his best year by far) his turnover percentage was only 8.38 percent even though he had the highest usage percentage in the NBA.

[Jacks3]

Honestly even if T-Mac was healthy his entire career he still wouldn't have been as good as Jordan/Kareem/Wilt/Bird/Magic...so where is this GOAT talk coming from?

:confusedshrug:

[RRR3]

Honestly even if T-Mac was healthy his entire career he still wouldn't have been as good as Jordan/Kareem/Wilt/Bird/Magic...so where is this GOAT talk coming from?

:confusedshrug:
Even when he was healthy, McGrady didn't always have the best work ethic. If he had tried harder more often, then his 2002-03 year would have most likely not have been his only year on that level.

[catch24]

What's crazy is Mac was only 23 during the 2002-2003 season. With the rules-changes and influx of perimeter scoring, I don't think it's all that far-fetched to say he could have had career years during his mid-to-late 20's from 2006-2008.

[Jacks3]

No work-ethic? Isn't this the same guy who won most improved player award? I don't think you can get that with no work-ethic. Also, his 03 season wasn't GOAT level, so him staying at that level for some extra seasons still doesn't make him a GOAT candidate. I still don't see this GOAT level potential. :confusedshrug:

[ThaSwagg3r]

I thought Mac had Kobe beat in 2003 and 2005. Kobe from 2000-02, '04 and '06-08 was better.

And I don't think Mcgrady had GOAT potential, but definitely top 2-3 at his position potential though.
It my have to do with the teammates. Tmac got to play with the rising star at the time in Yao Ming while Kobe was playing with......Kwame Brown? Kobe was in a new system, new coach, new teammates, new everything, and he had to deal with injuries.

If you look at their production they are nearly identical. If you were to switch Kobe and Tmac on the Rockets they more than likely would have gotten past the Mavericks.

[catch24]

What's crazy is Mac was only 23 during the 2002-2003 season. With the rules-changes and influx of perimeter scoring, I don't think it's all that far-fetched to say he could have had career years during his mid-to-late 20's from 2006-2008.

Keep in mind, this is if he had stayed healthy.

[ThaSwagg3r]

No work-ethic? Isn't this the same guy who won most improved player award? I don't think you can get that with no work-ethic. Also, his 03 season wasn't GOAT level, so him staying at that level for some extra seasons still doesn't make him a GOAT candidate. I still don't see this GOAT level potential. :confusedshrug:
That has to do with the fact that he was put in a system where the team was revolved and built around him. He always had major talent and star potential. He was just finally able to show it in '00-'01 when he went to the Magic.

[Clippersfan86]

Kobe's 2001/2003/2006/2007/2008 seasons are all better than anything T-Mac ever did.

So this season isn't better than any of those Kobe seasons? *****ng joke of a homer.

32 ppg, 6.5 rpg, 5.5 apg, 1.7 spg and almost a block a game on 46 percent from the field and 38.6 percent from deep.

[catch24]

It my have to do with the teammates. Tmac got to play with the rising star at the time in Yao Ming while Kobe was playing with......Kwame Brown? Kobe was in a new system, new coach, new teammates, new everything, and he had to deal with injuries.

If you look at their production they are nearly identical. If you were to switch Kobe and Tmac on the Rockets they more than likely would have gotten past the Mavericks.

Mcgrady was never really 100% with Houston. He had constant back issues.

There wasn't ONE year where I'd take Mac during his stint with Houston over Kobe from 2006-2008. #8/24 was playing at a level only one other SG could match and exceed.

[Jacks3]

So this season isn't better than any of those Kobe seasons? *****ng joke of a homer.

32 ppg, 6.5 rpg, 5.5 apg, 1.7 spg and almost a block a game on 46 percent from the field and 38.6 percent from deep.
No. Not being a homer at all. I could make a legit case for all those seasons over 03 T-Mac.

[ThaSwagg3r]

Mcgrady was never really 100% with Houston. He had constant back issues.

There wasn't ONE year where I'd take Mac during his stint with Houston over Kobe from 2006-2008. #8/24 was playing at a level only one other SG could match and exceed.
He was very healthy in '04-'05 but after that season his health went down the shitter. So yes he was healthy, but just for a short stint.

Kobe vs. Tmac in '04-'05 is arguable and I probably would take Kobe. I have a hard time seeing Kobe losing to the Mavericks in the 1st round with Yao Ming as his running mate.

[Clippersfan86]

One interesting thing about T-Mac is that for a player who had the ball in his hands as much as he did, he had a surprisingly low number of turnovers. In his 2002-03 year (his best year by far) his turnover percentage was only 8.38 percent even though he had the highest usage percentage in the NBA.

:applause: .. Great find. Very important to note.

[Clippersfan86]

No. Not being a homer at all. I could make a legit case for all those seasons over 03 T-Mac.

Then do it and stop talking sh*t just because for 2 seasons Tmac was better than your boyfriend.

[Jacks3]

Then do it and stop talking sh*t just because for 2 seasons Tmac was better than your boyfriend.
The only season he's been better is 2005...and even that's arguable.

Why are u getting so upset son?

[RRR3]

Mcgrady was never really 100% with Houston. He had constant back issues.

There wasn't ONE year where I'd take Mac during his stint with Houston over Kobe from 2006-2008. #8/24 was playing at a level only one other SG could match and exceed.
Agreed. Outside of his first year in Houston, Kobe was a good deal better than T-Mac during his Rocket years, although T-Mac was still a superstar, he was declining due to his constant back problems.

[catch24]

He was very healthy in '04-'05 but after that season his health went down the shitter. So yes he was healthy, but just for a short stint.

Kobe vs. Tmac in '04-'05 is arguable and I probably would take Kobe. I have a hard time seeing Kobe losing to the Mavericks in the 1st round with Yao Ming as his running mate.

He was healthier than any other year he played for Houston, but still had back problems.

Tracy McGrady: Back Feeling Better
RotoWire.com Staff - RotoWire.com
Friday, April 22, 2005

Update: McGrady's sore lower back was better Thursday, and he should be able to play in Game 1 Saturday against the Mavericks, the Houston Chronicle reports.

Yea, like I originally listed, '03 and '05 are the only seasons I'd take Mcgrady over Kobe.

[Clippersfan86]

The only season he's been better is 2005...and even that's arguable.

Why are u getting so upset son?

I'm not upset at all.. I just don't see the point of basically saying you can make a great point Tmac was never better... but not doing it. It would be like me saying "I can prove Tmac was always better than Kobe" and not presenting my case.

[RRR3]

He was very healthy in '04-'05 but after that season his health went down the shitter. So yes he was healthy, but just for a short stint.

Kobe vs. Tmac in '04-'05 is arguable and I probably would take Kobe. I have a hard time seeing Kobe losing to the Mavericks in the 1st round with Yao Ming as his running mate.

T-Mac averaged 31/7/7/2/1 on 46/37/82 shooting against Dallas that year. Yeah, he really choked against the Mavericks.:rolleyes:

[ThaSwagg3r]

T-Mac averaged 31/7/7/2/1 on 46/37/82 shooting against Dallas that year. Yeah, he really choked against the Mavericks.:rolleyes:
Yeah he did choke.

2-0 lead and you just won the first two games AT Dallas.
Playing like shit and disappearing in Game 7.
Have a 3-2 lead, had two chances to finish them off and blowing it.

Sounds like a choke to me.

His game 7 performance....

27/7/7 with 10/26 shooting, 39% :oldlol: Typical Tmac.

[RRR3]

Yeah he did choke.

2-0 lead and you just won the first two games AT Dallas.
Playing like shit and disappearing in Game 7.
Have a 3-2 lead, had two chances to finish them off and blowing it.

Sounds like a choke to me.

His game 7 performance....

27/7/7 with 10/26 shooting, 39% :oldlol: Typical Tmac.
Man, he must be great if 27/7/7=choking.

[Jacks3]

Also did a great job on Dirk.

[RRR3]

Also did a great job on Dirk.
Yeah because T-Mac should have locked down the best-shooting 7 footer of all time :facepalm. And you really don't want to bring Dirk up with your Kobe agenda. What did Dirk do to Kobe this year? :roll: :roll: :roll:

[Jacks3]

:wtf:

I was praising the guy. He did do a great job on him defensively that series. WTF?

[ThaSwagg3r]

Man, he must be great if 27/7/7=choking.
Sure if you want to ignore his terrible inefficiency and the other things that he did that was considered "choking."

[RRR3]

Sure if you want to ignore his terrible inefficiency and the other things that he did that was considered "choking."
Since when do you care about efficiency? :roll:

[G-train]

Shawn Kemp sighting.

[RRR3]

:wtf:

I was praising the guy. He did do a great job on him defensively that series. WTF?
Oh. Well then I apologize. Not used to you praising McGrady. :cheers:

[ThaSwagg3r]

Since when do you care about efficiency? :roll:
For a while now.....


He was healthier than any other year he played for Houston, but still had back problems.

Tracy McGrady: Back Feeling Better
RotoWire.com Staff - RotoWire.com
Friday, April 22, 2005

Update: McGrady's sore lower back was better Thursday, and he should be able to play in Game 1 Saturday against the Mavericks, the Houston Chronicle reports.

Yea, like I originally listed, '03 and '05 are the only seasons I'd take Mcgrady over Kobe.
I can find TONS of reports on Kobe's injuries from 03-present. :oldlol: He wasn't plagued with serious injuries yet and it was certainly nothing that affected him seriously.

[ShaqAttack3234]

If he was healthy his entire career he still wouldn't have been as good as Kobe...considering he was still inferior even when healthy in 01/02/03/04/06 and 07.

T-Mac was past his prime after his first season in Houston, the decline was noticeable. He wasn't nearly as explosive, he relied on jumpers more and his shot had gotten flatter so '06 and '07 aren't representative of T-Mac's potential when healthy.

T-Mac vs Kobe is definitely debatable in 2003. I have T-Mac over Kobe due to a more consistent season and the fact that his team overachieved while Bryant's underachieved and his playoff play was more on par with his regular season than Kobe's. Though Kobe at his best was arguably the best player during the regular season and they were pretty much equal in terms of ability.

Either way, it's too close, imo to call one inferior to the other that season.

Same with 2002, even though I agree that Kobe was better. Due to how close they were individually and T-Mac's horrible team going 43-33 when he played(1-5 without him). Hard to expect much more out of that team considering they were mediocre defensively and had no business being a top 7 offensive team. The latter was due to T-Mac carrying them, check out their offense with him out or even just his teammates he had, and even Mike Miller missed 19 games.

As I said, I give Kobe the edge due to his clutch play in the playoffs, while T-Mac has never proven himself in the clutch in later rounds. Not necessarily his fault, but I still feel like going over someone where that ability isn't an unknown and T-Mac could've played better down the stretch in the Hornets series, iirc.


What's crazy is Mac was only 23 during the 2002-2003 season. With the rules-changes and influx of perimeter scoring, I don't think it's all that far-fetched to say he could have had career years during his mid-to-late 20's from 2006-2008.

Yeah, the fact that T-Mac peaked at only 23 makes me wonder. On the other hand, his health seemed similar enough that you'd think he'd have come closer to that season in 2004 and 2005 if he was really going to get better. Though motivation was a problem in 2004. It's hard to imagine him getting much better than 2003, but how many players peak at 23?

And yeah, 32 ppg on 46 FG%/56 TS% is even more amazing considering the era. You just didn't see many efficient high volume seasons from '98-'04.



Kobe vs. Tmac in '04-'05 is arguable and I probably would take Kobe. I have a hard time seeing Kobe losing to the Mavericks in the 1st round with Yao Ming as his running mate.

Yao was in foul trouble a lot during that series, iirc and he wasn't at a superstar level yet. Very good center, but still improving. T-Mac to carry that '05 Rocket team a lot to get to 50+ wins. And he played very well during that series vs Dallas. I could easily see '05 Kobe losing as well.

As far as work ethic? You're right that part of it was T-Mac getting a chance to show his skills more, but his skills also improved very noticeably his first half dozen years in the league, particularly his jump shot. And you can't become as good as T-Mac was in Orlando(particularly in 2003) without a work ethic.

I won't argue that he had some issues as far as work ethic, though I think that became more of a problem later. As Jeff Van Gundy said, a better work ethic could've possibly prevented some injuries, and he didn't look as lean or in as good shape his last few years with Houston.

[catch24]

For a while now.....


I can find TONS of reports on Kobe's injuries from 03-present. :oldlol: He wasn't plagued with serious injuries yet and it was certainly nothing that affected him seriously.

I'm sure you can. That still doesn't change the fact he had back issues like I had originally stated.

[RRR3]

T-Mac was past his prime after his first season in Houston, the decline was noticeable. He wasn't nearly as explosive, he relied on jumpers more and his shot had gotten flatter so '06 and '07 aren't representative of T-Mac's potential when healthy.

T-Mac vs Kobe is definitely debatable in 2003. I have T-Mac over Kobe due to a more consistent season and the fact that his team overachieved while Bryant's underachieved and his playoff play was more on par with his regular season than Kobe's. Though Kobe at his best was arguably the best player during the regular season and they were pretty much equal in terms of ability.

Either way, it's too close, imo to call one inferior to the other that season.

Same with 2002, even though I agree that Kobe was better. Due to how close they were individually and T-Mac's horrible team going 43-33 when he played(1-5 without him). Hard to expect much more out of that team considering they were mediocre defensively and had no business being a top 7 offensive team. The latter was due to T-Mac carrying them, check out their offense with him out or even just his teammates he had, and even Mike Miller missed 19 games.

As I said, I give Kobe the edge due to his clutch play in the playoffs, while T-Mac has never proven himself in the clutch in later rounds. Not necessarily his fault, but I still feel like going over someone where that ability isn't an unknown and T-Mac could've played better down the stretch in the Hornets series, iirc.



Yeah, the fact that T-Mac peaked at only 23 makes me wonder. On the other hand, his health seemed similar enough that you'd think he'd have come closer to that season in 2004 and 2005 if he was really going to get better. Though motivation was a problem in 2004. It's hard to imagine him getting much better than 2003, but how many players peak at 23?

And yeah, 32 ppg on 46 FG%/56 TS% is even more amazing considering the era. You just didn't see many efficient high volume seasons from '98-'04.



Yao was in foul trouble a lot during that series, iirc and he wasn't at a superstar level yet. Very good center, but still improving. T-Mac to carry that '05 Rocket team a lot to get to 50+ wins. And he played very well during that series vs Dallas. I could easily see '05 Kobe losing as well.

As far as work ethic? You're right that part of it was T-Mac getting a chance to show his skills more, but his skills also improved very noticeably his first half dozen years in the league, particularly his jump shot. And you can't become as good as T-Mac was in Orlando(particularly in 2003) without a work ethic.

I won't argue that he had some issues as far as work ethic, though I think that became more of a problem later. As Jeff Van Gundy said, a better work ethic could've possibly prevented some injuries, and he didn't look as lean or in as good shape his last few years with Houston.

Excellent post. Very fair-minded. :cheers: I'm curious where you think T-Mac could have ended up on the GOAT list if he hadn't had back problems and inconsistent effort...I personally think 02-03 was definitely in his abilities to replicate a few times...He's my all-time favorite player so I admit I'm somewhat biased, but to me he was the most gifted player I saw, at least on offense.

[RRR3]

I'm sure you can. That still doesn't change the fact he had back issues like I had originally stated.
Swagg3r logic=If RRR3 argues for anything, said thing is automatically incorrect.

[Dave3]

considering he was still inferior even when healthy in 01/02/03/04/06 and 07.
That's the problem right there. Even when Tmac was at his absolute best ('03) he was still having back issues. All the games he missed that year were because of the back, and even in most of the games he played, his back was hurting. Back problems are actually a pretty big deal and affect every single aspect of your game, and without them we would have seen seasons even better than 2003. Think about it, When Kobe was in the middle of his prime but had injuries (2005) he was way below his actual potential ability (2003, 2006, 2007). The best we say from Tmac was when he was injured. Not to mention we saw it during probably the hardest time to be an offensive player ever.

Iverson in 2002 and 2003 shot 39.8% and 41.4%. Beginning in 2006 he had seasons of 45%, 45%, and 44% despite being past his prime (and maintaining ~28 ppg volume). Teams in that time were ending games 68-65. I distinctly remember the series of Detroit Boston in 2003 having multiple games ending with neither team reaching 70. Everyone in that time was talking about how scoring and efficiency was way down, and that was the time we saw Tmac at his best. It's not hard to say we would have seen much better if he was

a) not injured/hurt while playing all the time
b) played in pretty much any other point in time in the NBA
c) didn't have ridiculous off the court issues (I think he has something like a close person to him dying every year he was in the league until 2004)
d) wasn't mentally exhausted from carrying a bad team for so many years

[Jacks3]

Give me a break. He played 75 games in 03. The back problem wasn't even close to a big deal at that point. He was about as healthy as you can except any superstar to be. All those other reasons are frivolous. Maybe he could have been slightly better, but still not a series contender for GOAT. Why do people have such a weird need to overrate the potential of guys who get injured?

People saying G.Hill could have been top 10 ever, T-Mac as the GOAT, Penny better than prime Kobe, Coleman better than Barkley etc etc. :facepalm

If Kobe had suffered a career-ending injury after his epic 2003 season, I have no doubt that people would somehow regard his talent and abilities much more highly. Very strange.

[RRR3]

Give me a break. He played 75 games in 03. The back problem wasn't even close to a big deal at that point. He was about as healthy as you can except any superstar to be. All those other reasons are frivolous. Maybe he could have been slightly better, but still not a series contender for GOAT. Why do people have such a weird need to overrate the potential of guys who get injured?

People saying G.Hill could have been top 10 ever, T-Mac as the GOAT, Penny better than prime Kobe, Coleman better than Barkley etc etc. :facepalm

If Kobe had suffered a career-ending injury after his epic 2003 season, I have no doubt that people would somehow regard his talent and abilities much more highly. Very strange.

That's nice. Hill, Penny and Coleman were never close to T-Mac's 02-03 year.

[juju151111]

Tmac has never been healthy. He was born with a back problem, I forget wat its call.

[Dave3]

Give me a break. He played 75 games in 03. The back problem wasn't even close to a big deal at that point. He was about as healthy as you can except any superstar to be. All those other reasons are frivolous. Maybe he could have been slightly better, but still not a series contender for GOAT. Why do people have such a weird need to overrate the potential of guys who get injured?

People saying G.Hill could have been top 10 ever, T-Mac as the GOAT, Penny better than prime Kobe, Coleman better than Barkley etc etc. :facepalm

If Kobe had suffered a career-ending injury after his epic 2003 season, I have no doubt that people would somehow regard his talent and abilities much more highly. Very strange.
Yes he played 75 games. That doesn't mean the injury wasn't lingering for those games either. It's not like he was hurt for 7 games and healthy for 75. I clearly stated that the injury was there even when he was playing.

A league in which teams on average score about 2-5 ppg (depending on whether 2006 or 2007 or now) more than 2003 and 2% higher field goal percentage is frivolous? I'd say that's a pretty big difference considering it's LEAGUE wide, not just to a few teams. Especially when you look and find that 5 or 6 stars that year had career highs. How is that not significant?

As for the rest, I never mentioned any of those players nor have I said anything close to that about any of them.

Kobe in 2003 averaged 30 ppg on 45%. He was 24. He averaged 35 ppg on 45% in 2006 and was 27. Iverson averaged 33 ppg on 45% and was even older.

Tmac was 23 in 2003 when he averaged 32 ppg on 46%. If he had a healthy year in 2006 you don't think he could've done something like 34-36 ppg on 46-49% FG% if he shot enough?

LeBron wasn't even close to the scorer he was in 2009 and 2010 and he still managed 31.4 ppg that year, and hasn't been able to match it since? How many coincidences is too many? Should I mention Melo and Arenas? What about Dirk and Ray Allen? How many players is that? ALL of them had their highest ppg of their careers in that one year. You mean to tell me something's not up?

Edit: Add Paul Pierce to that list. And I'm continuing to look...
Edit2: Also Steve Nash

[RRR3]

There was definitely something in the water (or rather reffing lol) in 06.

[The_Yearning]

T-Mac is a legend... the best player Orlando ever had.

[L.Kizzle]

Tmac has never been healthy. He was born with a back problem, I forget wat its call.
scoliosis

[catch24]

scoliosis

Mac had scoliosis? :wtf:

[Jacks3]

Yes he played 75 games. That doesn't mean the injury wasn't lingering for those games either. It's not like he was hurt for 7 games and healthy for 75. I clearly stated that the injury was there even when he was playing.
No, he was reasonably healthy all of 2003. The back problem wasn't a serious issue at that point in time.






Kobe in 2003 averaged 30 ppg on 45%. He was 24. He averaged 35 ppg on 45% in 2006 and was 27. Iverson averaged 33 ppg on 45% and was even older.

Tmac was 23 in 2003 when he averaged 32 ppg on 46%. If he had a healthy year in 2006 you don't think he could've done something like 34-36 ppg on 46-49% FG% if he shot enough?

LeBron wasn't even close to the scorer he was in 2009 and 2010 and he still managed 31.4 ppg that year, and hasn't been able to match it since? How many coincidences is too many? Should I mention Melo and Arenas? What about Dirk and Ray Allen? How many players is that? ALL of them had their highest ppg of their careers in that one year. You mean to tell me something's not up?
First, those guys seeing their scoring go up wasn't just strictly from the rule changes. There was a myriad of reasons. Second, the rule changes wouldn't have helped T-Mac nearly as much as you think, because he's ALWAYS been more of a jump-shooter. Third, saying he'd go up to 36 PPG and 49% FG due to them is absolutely ridiculous. Really. A 4 PPG increase? With a increase in FG% to boot? Do you realize how massive that is? :oldlol:

A more reasonable number would be around 33 PPG/56% TS, which is right around what he did in 2003. And that's still not GOAT level, nor was his 03 season. We saw what he did in his absolute peak. It was awesome and all, but let's not start overrating the guy, and giving him this ridiculous mythical status.

[The_Yearning]

No, he was reasonably healthy all of 2003. The back problem wasn't a serious issue at that point in time.


First, those guys seeing their scoring go up wasn't just strictly from the rule changes. There was a myriad of reasons. Second, the rule changes wouldn't have helped T-Mac nearly as much as you think, because he's ALWAYS been more of a jump-shooter. Third, saying he'd go up to 36 PPG and 49% FG due to them is absolutely ridiculous. Really. A 4 PPG increase? With a increase in FG% to boot? Do you realize how massive that is? :oldlol:

A more reasonable number would be around 33 PPG/56% TS, which is right around what he did in 2003. And that's still not GOAT level, nor was his 03 season. We saw what he did in his absolute peak. It was awesome and all, but let's not start overrating the guy, and giving him this ridiculous mythical status.


Like what?

Durant is a jump shooter and he gets to the line 20 times a game. Michael Redd that one year shot like 700+ free throws. Both of these guys have no handles and can't attack the rim. Whose to say the most talented offensive player this decade can't match that or do even better?

T-Mac is just that good... and peaking at 23? Players don't even learn how to play defense until their 25 at least.

[Jacks3]

I already said he'd see a increase in his stats. It's still not GOAT level and people who think he'd be "much" better than he was in 03 because of a bunch of frivolous reasons like Dave3 make me laugh. :oldlol:

[Dave3]

No, he was reasonably healthy all of 2003. The back problem wasn't a serious issue at that point in time.


First, those guys seeing their scoring go up wasn't just strictly from the rule changes. There was a myriad of reasons. Second, the rule changes wouldn't have helped T-Mac nearly as much as you think, because he's ALWAYS been more of a jump-shooter. Third, saying he'd go up to 36 PPG and 49% FG due to them is absolutely ridiculous. Really. A 4 PPG increase? With a increase in FG% to boot? Do you realize how massive that is? :oldlol:

A more reasonable number would be around 33 PPG/56% TS, which is right around what he did in 2003. And that's still not GOAT level, nor was his 03 season. We saw what he did in his absolute peak. It was awesome and all, but let's not start overrating the guy, and giving him this ridiculous mythical status.

Few people watched Tmac in 2003 more than I did. I'm positive I followed him more than you did and I'm telling you it was there the entire time. And I'm not the only one telling you this, everyone else is also telling you he had chronic back problems. There's an linked here about how he was born with scoliosis.

" "When I first entered the NBA and got tested by doctors and trainers," McGrady says, "they projected I'd play five or six years because of the way my body is structured."

The 28 year old McGrady, a seven time all star and two time league scoring champion in his forth season with the Houston Rockets was born with a mild case of scoliosis (curvature of the spine.) His back was also injured following a hard foul he suffered in his fourth season while playing with Orlando."

But I'm sure you know more than those idiot doctors right?

A myriad of reasons? How about naming some? Way to completely ignore a point. "This didn't happen because of what you were saying, it was something else" and then go on to explain nothing. That's not a counter argument lol.

Um, Kobe saw his ppg increase by 5.4 ppg from his previous career high. Iverson past his prime saw a 2 ppg increase. Saying Tmac would increase 2-4 ppg is too much? Ray Allen also increased like 4 ppg from his previous career high and so did LeBron. Iverson went from being a career 41% shooter to 45% in that year alone to accompany his volume increase. Again, how is Tmac improving the same (or less even) than these guys so out of the question?

And Tmac was a jumpshooter? Uh...no. You're kind of further proving you didn't watch him in 2003. He was a jumpshooter in Houston, definitely. In Orlando he was a rim attacker who happened to have an amazing jumper, but he wasn't a shooter AT ALL.

Here's the link BTW: http://www.operationsports.com/forums/pro-basketball/239501-tmac-has-scoliosis.html

The article was taken down, but that's the secondary source and it was discussed. Surprisingly some people already knew, as if it was obvious or something...

[D.J.]

McGrady at his peak was a more consistent version of Kobe. Just as good a scorer, a slightly better shooter, not quite as good a defender but still decent, better ball handling ability, just as good a passer, and made smarter decisions. McGrady didn't shot jack to the extent Kobe did. Kobe would be taking 25 foot fadeaway three pointers with 2 guys on him, something McGrady didn't do. He made smarter decisions with the basketball and you didn't see him make many mistakes out there. He was just a smoother player. Kobe was more likely to go off for 40-50, but McGrady was more dependable. He wasn't as likely to have 17-47 shooting nights.

Unfortunately, McGrady was rarely healthy even in his prime. He often played through nagging injuries. He had back problems as early as 21-22. He was never truly healthy.

[Dave3]

Unfortunately, McGrady was rarely healthy even in his prime. He often played through nagging injuries. He had back problems as early as 21-22. He was never truly healthy.
Agreed with the whole post. About this though, Jacks seems to think we're all making that up about him being injured even when he was playing.

[Jacks3]

LeBron wasn't even close to the scorer he was in 2009 and 2010 and he still managed 31.4 ppg that year, and hasn't been able to match it since? How many coincidences is too many? Should I mention Melo and Arenas? What about Dirk and Ray Allen? How many players is that? ALL of them had their highest ppg of their careers in that one year. You mean to tell me something's not up?

Edit: Add Paul Pierce to that list. And I'm continuing to look...
Edit2: Also Steve Nash
Pierce did 26.1 PPG in 02 at the age of 24. 26.8 PPG in 06 really isn't cray, especially considering he was at his prime age of 28.

Nash's jump had far more to due with the greater freedom and role he got than the rule changes. He clearly wasn't optimized as well playing in Dallas next to a bunch of isolation players like Dirk and Finley. Don't give me that garbage.

LeBron saw a massive jump in his third year like many young superstars (see: CP3/Rose/Durnat) and is one of the greatest athletes/slashers/finishers EVER.
He could have very easily put up 31+ PPG under the old rules.

Dirk was entering his prime (age 27) and had already registered a 25.1 PPG season under the old rules at the age of 24. The rule changes had very little to do with it.

I could go on, but you get the point. The rule changes don't really mean all that much.

[Jacks3]

lol @ as good a ball-handler. lol @ as good a scorer when Kobe's peak crushes his. lol @ not being as much of a shot-jacker when Kobe has always been far more efficient. T-mac fans. :roll:

[Dave3]

Pierce did 26.1 PPG in 02 at the age of 24. 26.8 PPG in 06 really isn't cray, especially considering he was at his prime age of 28.

Nash's jump had far more to due with the greater freedom and role he got than the rule changes. He clearly wasn't optimized as well playing in Dallas next to a bunch of isolation players like Dirk and Finley. Don't give me that garbage.

LeBron saw a massive jump in his third year like many young superstars (see: CP3/Rose/Durnat) and is one of the greatest athletes/slashers/finishers EVER.
He could have very easily put up 31+ PPG under the old rules.

Dirk was entering his prime (age 27) and had already registered a 25.1 PPG season under the old rules at the age of 24. The rule changes had very little to do with it.

I could go on, but you get the point. The rule changes don't really mean all that much.
So you're saying 10 different players had 10 different career highs in the exact same season (with some past their prime, others past their Peak (like Pierce, he was at his best in 2002 and 2003, not 2006 anymore)) all by coincidence? Dirk was in his prime from 2005, Peirce's peak was about 2002-2004, LeBron is a much better scorer but hasn't scored as much, Ray Allen, Iverson, and Melo also saw scoring boosts and the former 2 were by significant points/game. Kobe saw an increase of 5.4 ppg. If you're saying all of those happened by coincidence in the same year then there's not really much I can say.

You're naming reasons why players can have good scoring seasons. You're not naming reasons for them to have their absolute career highs. "Peirce was almost as good as he was in 2002, and therefore had a career high" isn't a good argument. Peirce was ending his prime then and his best years were behind him. And that's just one of the arguments you made.

[Jacks3]

Few people watched Tmac in 2003 more than I did. I'm positive I followed him more than you did and I'm telling you it was there the entire time. And I'm not the only one telling you this, everyone else is also telling you he had chronic back problems. There's an linked here about how he was born with scoliosis.
Who cares? The point is he was healthy in 2003. Deal with it.



And Tmac was a jumpshooter? Uh...no. You're kind of further proving you didn't watch him in 2003. He was a jumpshooter in Houston, definitely. In Orlando he was a rim attacker who happened to have an amazing jumper, but he wasn't a shooter AT ALL.
Yes, he was. Watch the games. He was primary a jump-shooter. I watched him more than you did.




The article was taken down, but that's the secondary source and it was discussed. Surprisingly some people already knew, as if it was obvious or something...
You're delusional. But keep on overrating the guy if it makes you feel better.

:oldlol:

[RRR3]

lol @ as good a ball-handler. lol @ as good a scorer when Kobe's peak crushes his. lol @ not being as much of a shot-jacker when Kobe has always been far more efficient. T-mac fans. :roll:
McGrady was a better ballhandler. He had very little turnovers for a player who had the ball so much. And his career FG% was around 46 before his back problems really started to get worse. And yeah, let's ignore the fact that he was a much better passer.

[Jacks3]

So you're saying 10 different players had 10 different career highs in the exact same season (with some past their prime, others past their Peak (like Pierce, he was at his best in 2002 and 2003, not 2006 anymore)) all by coincidence? Dirk was in his prime from 2005, Peirce's peak was about 2002-2004, LeBron is a much better scorer but hasn't scored as much, Ray Allen, Iverson, and Melo also saw scoring boosts and the former 2 were by significant points/game. Kobe saw an increase of 5.4 ppg. If you're saying all of those happened by coincidence in the same year then there's not really much I can say.
The rules changes were in place in 04-05. They've been in place since. And we didn't see anything like that, so yeah, those jumps had far more to do with other reasons than just simply the rule changes. Deal with it.

And you're wrong about Pierce/Dirk/LeBron etc. LeBron could have easily very easily scored as much in 08/09/2010 if he wanted. That's obvious. Pierce hit his prime age in 06 and only saw a .5 increase. Melo became a superstar and naturally improved his game. Dirk had already registered a 25+ PPG season pre-prime. You're just exaggeration what the rule changes did.

****ing idiot.

[Dave3]

Who cares? The point is he was healthy in 2003. Deal with it.



Yes, he was. Watch the games. He was primary a jump-shooter. I watched him more than you did.




You're delusional. But keep on overrating the guy if it makes you feel better.

:oldlol:
No he wasn't. The fact that you're insisting he was when you either a) have no clue what you're talking about or b) are purposely stating something wrong pretty much says you have no argument there.

Again, no he wasn't. Second point where you're denying fact. Can't really argue against myth.

You've actually made no arguments other than

"no you're wrong about this" when I'm right. For goodness sakes I give you a link with doctors saying he has a congenital disease and you say "no he was healthy" as if diseases like that just magically disappear for a year.

and

":oldlol: you're delusional"

Those aren't really arguments and if they're all you have then we have nothing really further to discuss. If you deny facts then you're not looking to be open minded and there's nothing I can do about that.

[Jacks3]

McGrady was a better ballhandler.
Wrong. Prime Kobe was the best non-PG ball-handler ever.

He had very little turnovers for a player who had the ball so much.
Who cares? That doesn't make him a better ball-handler.

And his career FG% was around 46 before his back problems really started to get worse.
Kobe's TS% blows him away.

And yeah, let's ignore the fact that he was a much better passer.
He's a slightly better passer. lol @ "much better". Wow. :oldlol:

[Jacks3]

No he wasn't. The fact that you're insisting he was when you either a) have no clue what you're talking about or b) are purposely stating something wrong pretty much says you have no argument there.
He didn't have any serious health problems in 03. That's a fact. Stop being stubborn. Stop trying to make him look better than he is.


Again, no he wasn't. Second point where you're denying fact. Can't really argue against myth.
Yes, he was. Watch the games.



Those aren't really arguments and if they're all you have then we have nothing really further to discuss. If you deny facts then you're not looking to be open minded and there's nothing I can do about that.

What is there to discuss? I'm right. You're wrong. Why can't you accept T-Mac as who he was? We saw what he was in 2003. He could not have been much better. Deal with it.

[D.J.]

lol @ as good a ball-handler. lol @ as good a scorer when Kobe's peak crushes his. lol @ not being as much of a shot-jacker when Kobe has always been far more efficient. T-mac fans. :roll:


Since you seem to think 2001-2004 Kobe was always better than 2001-2004 McGrady and also more efficient:


2001 PER
Kobe- 24.5
Tracy- 24.9


2002 PER
Kobe- 23.2
Tracy- 25.1


2003 PER
Kobe- 26.2
Tracy- 30.3


2004 PER
Kobe- 23.7
Tracy- 25.3
-------------------------------------------
2001 eFG%
Kobe- 48.4
Tracy- 47.4


2002 eFG%
Kobe- 47.9
Tracy- 48.3


2003 eFG%
Kobe- 48.3
Tracy- 50.5


2004 eFG%
Kobe- 46.8
Tracy- 47.3

[Dave3]

Since you seem to think 2001-2004 Kobe was always better than 2001-2004 McGrady and also more efficient:


2001 PER
Kobe- 24.5
Tracy- 24.9


2002 PER
Kobe- 23.2
Tracy- 25.1


2003 PER
Kobe- 26.2
Tracy- 30.3


2004 PER
Kobe- 23.7
Tracy- 25.3
-------------------------------------------
2001 eFG%
Kobe- 48.4
Tracy- 47.4


2002 eFG%
Kobe- 47.9
Tracy- 48.3


2003 eFG%
Kobe- 48.3
Tracy- 50.5


2004 eFG%
Kobe- 46.8
Tracy- 47.3
He doesn't do well with facts. He'll just reply with "no he wasn't"
Seems to be the only thing he knows how to say.

[Jacks3]

Kobe's TS% is much better in 2001, 2002, 2004, and 2005. lol @ calling Kobe more of a chuker when he's more efficient by far every year outside 03.

:roll:

PER isn't a measure of scoring efficiency.

Yawn.

[Jacks3]

He doesn't do well with facts. He'll just reply with "no he wasn't"
Seems to be the only thing he knows how to say.
It's a fact that Kobe TS% is far better. It must sting huh?

****ing *******.

[RRR3]

Wrong. Prime Kobe was the best non-PG ball-handler ever.

Who cares? That doesn't make him a better ball-handler.

Kobe's TS% blows him away.

He's a slightly better passer. lol @ "much better". Wow. :oldlol:
:roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll:

[D.J.]

He doesn't do well with facts. He'll just reply with "no he wasn't"
Seems to be the only thing he knows how to say.


He'll point to TS% as a fact and despite Kobe having a higher TS%, McGrady still has a higher PER and eFG%. The only reason he has a higher TS% was because he shot 82-83% at the line to T-Mac's 77-78%. Their FG% are comparable and Tracy was a better three point shooter.

[RRR3]

He'll point to TS% as a fact and despite Kobe having a higher TS%, McGrady still has a higher PER and eFG%. The only reason he has a higher TS% was because he shot 82-83% at the line to T-Mac's 77-78%. Their FG% are comparable and Tracy was a better three point shooter.
TS% is his favorite stat because it's very forgiving to people who shoot free throws at a high clip.

[D.J.]

TS% is his favorite stat because it's very forgiving to people who shoot free throws at a high clip.


As I mentioned, Kobe's mid 80s to Tracy's mid-high 70s.

[RRR3]

As I mentioned, Kobe's mid 80s to Tracy's mid-high 70s.
IK. Just saying why he loves TS.

[Jacks3]

Why in the world would anybody bring up PER when discussing scoring efficiency? :oldlol:

Why use eFG% when TS% is a much better way to measure scoring efficiency?

To make your boy look better?

****ing moron.

[Dave3]

He'll point to TS% as a fact and despite Kobe having a higher TS%, McGrady still has a higher PER and eFG%. The only reason he has a higher TS% was because he shot 82-83% at the line to T-Mac's 77-78%. Their FG% are comparable and Tracy was a better three point shooter.
Apparently McGrady being a worse free throw shooter makes him more of a field goal chucker. Hey, in Jacks' world, facts don't matter. Only Kobe does.

[Dave3]

It's a fact that Kobe TS% is far better. It must sting huh?

****ing *******.
The term chucker refers to field goals attempts and makes. eFG% is all field goal attempts and makes. Nothing more nothing less.

TS% takes into account free throw percentage. In fact, the free throw percentage inclusion in the only difference between TS% and eFG%. How does shooting worse free throws make you more of a chucker? Is he supposed to pass his free throws to someone else? But no, good logic...

[RRR3]

Apparently McGrady being a worse free throw shooter makes him more of a field goal chucker. Hey, in Jacks' world, facts don't matter. Only Kobe does.
:roll: :oldlol: :applause:

[Jacks3]

Apparently the guy who is much more efficient...is somehow a bigger chucker in the mind of T-Wack fans. Amazing. :oldlol:

[RazorBaLade]

ITT: People praise someone for being like Kobe Bryant for a short amount of time for not being named kobe bryant

[D.J.]

Why in the world would anybody bring up PER when discussing scoring efficiency? :oldlol:

Why use eFG% when TS% is a much better way to measure scoring efficiency?

To make your boy look better?

****ing moron.


PER is player efficiency rating. If Kobe was more efficient offensively, then McGrady had to be more efficient defensively to account for his higher rating. You think Kobe was more efficient offensively, so I guess McGrady was more efficient defensively. :roll: F*cking idiot.

:roll: at TS% being much better. Because Kobe's FT% is higher, that's why it's better. TS% includes two pointers, three pointers, and foul shots. eFG% does not include free throws and it adjusts for the fact that a three pointer is worth one more point than a two pointer. Oddly enough, McGrady has the higher eFG%. F*cking idiot. :roll: :roll:

Why do you insist on TS%? To make your boy look better? F*cking idiot. :roll: :roll: :roll:

[Dave3]

:roll: :oldlol: :applause:
Seriously, I haven't seen such blatant disregard for facts ever in my life. A human being is diagnosed with a congenital disease resulting in curvature of the spine, and this man replies "no, he was healthy."

Then he tells me freaking 2003 Tmac was a shooter, not a slasher.

What can anyone say to ignorance like that? It's like arguing with someone, but they refuse to accept that one of your premises is that the world isn't flat.

[eliteballer]

LOL at the delusion. The difference was Kobe was all nba defensive first team in 03 and Mcgrady was known as a sieve on defense. not only that, but Kobes numbers in games without Shaq that year were better than mcgrady in every category. it was something like 32/7/8, and Kobe's FG% in the early part of the season is skewed because that was the first year he bulked up and it threw off his shot. When Kobe had to turn it up he had that record streak of 40 point games.

[Jacks3]

Yes, the fact that Bryant is much better at getting to the line and converting means nothing. Great logic, Dave. ****ing idiot. Of course, you're the same guy who though that 40+ means only 40-49, so I'm not surprised. :oldlol:

[Dave3]

ITT: People praise someone for being like Kobe Bryant for a short amount of time for not being named kobe bryant
Relativity. This player's legacy isn't even top 50. Kobe's is considered top 5-10. There are different standards for players who aren't in the top 50 and those argued for as high as 7 or 8 on all time lists.

[RRR3]

Seriously, I haven't seen such blatant disregard for facts ever in my life. A human being is diagnosed with a congenital disease resulting in curvature of the spine, and this man replies "no, he was healthy."

Then he tells me freaking 2003 Tmac was a shooter, not a slasher.

What can anyone say to ignorance like that? It's like arguing with someone, but they refuse to accept that one of your premises is that the world isn't flat.

In Jacksland...
Anything that makes Kobe look less than perfect=lie

He can't stand the fact that there was a more talented version of Kobe at one time. He must have been dancing in the streets when T-Mac started to have serious back problems. Oh, but then LeBron and Wade came along. LOL

[RRR3]

Yes, the fact that Bryant is much better at getting to the line and converting means nothing. Great logic, Dave. ****ing idiot. Of course, you're the same guy who though that 40+ means only 40-49, so I'm not surprised. :oldlol:
Yeah let's act like the Refs aren't gay for Kobe.

[Jacks3]

PER is player efficiency rating. If Kobe was more efficient offensively, then McGrady had to be more efficient defensively to account for his higher rating. You think Kobe was more efficient offensively, so I guess McGrady was more efficient defensively. :roll: F*cking idiot.
:wtf:

:roll: at TS% being much better. Because Kobe's FT% is higher, that's why it's better. TS% includes two pointers, three pointers, and foul shots. eFG% does not include free throws and it adjusts for the fact that a three pointer is worth one more point than a two pointer. Oddly enough, McGrady has the higher eFG%. F*cking idiot. :roll: :roll:
:wtf:

[D.J.]

but Kobes numbers in games without Shaq that year were better than mcgrady in every category. it was something like 32/7/8, and Kobe's FG% in the early part of the season is skewed because that was the first year he bulked up and it threw off his shot.


Yet they were losing without Shaq. They were still sub .500 in January.

[D.J.]

:wtf:

:wtf:


:wtf:

[eliteballer]

because the only other player to average double figures or shoot over 40% in those first 13 games was Fisher

[Dave3]

LOL at the delusion. The difference was Kobe was all nba defensive first team in 03 and Mcgrady was known as a sieve on defense. not only that, but Kobes numbers in games without Shaq that year were better than mcgrady in every category. it was something like 32/7/8, and Kobe's FG% in the early part of the season is skewed because that was the first year he bulked up and it threw off his shot. When Kobe had to turn it up he had that record streak of 40 point games.
You're close actually.

32.3ppg/8.3rpg/5.8apg/2.1spg/1bpg, TS% 53% with 5W - 10L.

TS% of 53% and a 5-10 record. Hardly arguments to support a player. Also hardly a big enough sample size to use.

[RRR3]

LOL at the delusion. The difference was Kobe was all nba defensive first team in 03 and Mcgrady was known as a sieve on defense. not only that, but Kobes numbers in games without Shaq that year were better than mcgrady in every category. it was something like 32/7/8, and Kobe's FG% in the early part of the season is skewed because that was the first year he bulked up and it threw off his shot. When Kobe had to turn it up he had that record streak of 40 point games.
:facepalm

[Jacks3]

In Jacksland...
Anything that makes Kobe look less than perfect=lie

He can't stand the fact that there was a more talented version of Kobe at one time. He must have been dancing in the streets when T-Mac started to have serious back problems. Oh, but then LeBron and Wade came along. LOL
T-Mac was never more talented, and why would I "worry" about someone who's always been inferior to Bryant? :oldlol:

Seriously, stop lying to yourself. T-Mac was nothing more than a poor-man's Bryant. :oldlol:

[D.J.]

because the only other player to average double figures or shoot over 40% was Fisher


He's Kobe. I mean he's so godly, he should have been able to win with that cast and Shaq not close to 100% until February.

[Dave3]

Yes, the fact that Bryant is much better at getting to the line and converting means nothing. Great logic, Dave. ****ing idiot. Of course, you're the same guy who though that 40+ means only 40-49, so I'm not surprised. :oldlol:
Who said it means nothing? It has nothing to do with the label of chucker, but I haven't said it means nothing. Is your best chance of winning anything really putting words in my mouth?

[eliteballer]

:facepalm

He was, you tool. That was his biggest criticism back then.

The game that really ended the Kobe/Tmac debate was this, the following year:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jf8RndUf-0Y

[Jacks3]

50+ point games for Bryant in 2007: 10

T-Wack for entire career: 3

:roll: :roll: :roll:

[Jacks3]

Kobe shutting T-Wack down while dropping 24 in one quarter on his ass.

:roll:

[RRR3]

because the only other player to average double figures or shoot over 40% in those first 13 games was Fisher
Oh man, I can't believe you went there. :roll: You wanna go to supporting casts? REALLY? REALLY? ARE YOU ****ING SERIOUS? :roll: :roll: :roll:
McGrady in 2002-03 had:
A fat useless Shawn Kemp
Mike Miller (the only above average player he had) for half the year (not for the playoffs)
Darrell Armstrong (decent but old)
Andrew ****ing Declerq
Pat Garrity :roll:
A young Drew "no d" Gooden for 21 games
Jacque Vaughn :facepalm
Gordan Giricek :roll: (for 25 games)
Jeryl Sasser
Pat Burke
Steven Hunter
Ryan Humphrey
Olumide Oyedeji
And Grant Hill in a wheelchair

[RRR3]

He was, you tool. That was his biggest criticism back then.

The game that really ended the Kobe/Tmac debate was this, the following year:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jf8RndUf-0Y
Pretty much everyone agrees that T-Mac completely gave up that year. And he was an excellent defender when he felt like it (which wasn't often enough i admit)

[D.J.]

50+ point games for Bryant in 2007: 10

T-Wack for entire career: 3

:roll: :roll: :roll:


Points per 36 minutes from 2001-2004
Kobe- 24.4
Tracy- 25.7

[eliteballer]

Lets not forget...T-Mac played in the East.

[RRR3]

50+ point games for Bryant in 2007: 10

T-Wack for entire career: 3

:roll: :roll: :roll:

McGrady has never taken over 37 shots in a game. Kobe has taken over 37 shots 14 times and over 40 8 times :eek:

[eliteballer]

Points per 36 minutes from 2001-2004
Kobe- 24.4
Tracy- 25.7

Kobe played with Shaq, which suppressed his numbers. He ws averaging 30 in 2001 before he turned it down because Shaq had issues with his shots. Of course you've never let basketball analysis enter into your arguments.

[D.J.]

Lets not forget...T-Mac played in the East.


And took the #1 seed Pistons, best defensive team in the league, and one year away champs to 7 games.

[D.J.]

Kobe played with Shaq, which suppressed his numbers. He ws averaging 30 in 2001 before he turned it down because Shaq had issues with his shots. Of course you've never let basketball analysis enter into your arguments.


I've used plenty of basketball analysis. Maybe you and Jacks should stop sucking Kobe's dick.

[eliteballer]

And took the #1 seed Pistons, best defensive team in the league, and one year away champs to 7 games.

No Rasheed Wallace or Larry Brown, and he blew a 3-1 lead.

[D.J.]

No Rasheed Wallace or Larry Brown


Still gave up the fewest points in the league. Nice try.




and he blew a 3-1 lead.


One year earlier and we're not having this argument.

[eliteballer]

I've used plenty of basketball analysis. Maybe you and Jacks should stop sucking Kobe's dick.

Your argument is, "I have an agenda against Kobe".

When have you ever made a positive statement about Kobe. You fake as if your unbiased but really...you've never made a positive comment on Kobe. Its always little shots here and there.

[Jacks3]

McGrady from 03-04:
30.2/6.3/5.5/55% TS
19 40+ point games
3 50+ point games
1 60+ point games


Kobe 05-07:
33.5/5.7/5.4/57% TS
45 40+ point games
18 50+ point games
4 60+ point games

Not even ****ing close. :roll: :roll: :roll:

[eliteballer]

Still gave up the fewest points in the league. Nice try.






One year earlier and we're not having this argument.

You tried to make it seem like they were the same team. They weren't...and it isnt one year earlier and we are having this argument:roll:

[RRR3]

Your argument is, "I have an agenda against Kobe".

When have you ever made a positive statement about Kobe. You fake as if your unbiased but really...you've never made a positive comment on Kobe. Its always little shots here and there.
Pot, meet kettle.

[L.Kizzle]

No Rasheed Wallace or Larry Brown, and he blew a 3-1 lead.
He ... the Orlando Tracy's? :confusedshrug:

[Jacks3]

Points per 36 minutes from 2001-2004
Kobe- 24.4
Tracy- 25.7
point per 36? Really? :roll:

[Jacks3]

McGrady from 03-04:
30.2/6.3/5.5/55% TS
19 40+ point games
3 50+ point games
1 60+ point games


Kobe 05-07:
33.5/5.7/5.4/57% TS
45 40+ point games
18 50+ point games
4 60+ point games

Not even ****ing close. :roll: :roll: :roll:
:roll: :roll: :roll:

[D.J.]

Your argument is, "I have an agenda against Kobe".

When have you ever made a positive statement about Kobe. You fake as if your unbiased but really...you've never made a positive comment on Kobe. Its always little shots here and there.


I've using multple stats to prove McGrady was more efficient. I've made plenty of positive comments about Kobe in other threads. Maybe you should stop taking shots at T-Mac. I don't fake anything. I've proven with empirical proof that McGrady was more efficient than Kobe and with multiple forms. Your argument is "I have an agenda against T-Mac".

[RRR3]

point per 36? Really? :roll:
I know! It's a sin to post factual data that makes Kobe look less than perfect! How dare he! The infidel!

[D.J.]

point per 36? Really? :roll:


If you're going to use TS%, then I can use this. Don't like it when the shoe is on the other foot, eh? :roll:

[Dave3]

I've using multple stats to prove McGrady was more efficient. I've made plenty of positive comments about Kobe in other threads. Maybe you should stop taking shots at T-Mac. I don't fake anything. I've proven with empirical proof that McGrady was more efficient than Kobe and with multiple forms. Your argument is "I have an agenda against T-Mac".
You'll move mountains before you can change the mind of these guys. Don't know why I even tried. Giving them the benefit of the doubt just disappoints you.

BTW, do you agree or have comments on the 2000-2003 vs 2006-2010 NBA with regards to offense/defense?

[Jacks3]

Kobe 50+ point games in 2007: 10

Mcgrady in entire 14 year career: 3


:roll: :roll: :roll:

[D.J.]

You tried to make it seem like they were the same team. They weren't...and it isnt one year earlier and we are having this argument:roll:


I already proved they were the best defensive team in the league. They were still an ECF team. Truth hurts, doesn't it?

[Jacks3]

If you're going to use TS%, then I can use this. Don't like it when the shoe is on the other foot, eh? :roll:
I use TS% because it's the best measurement of scoring efficiency.

Per 36 is just :facepalm

[D.J.]

BTW, do you agree or have comments on the 2000-2003 vs 2006-2010 NBA with regards to offense/defense?


What were the claims?

[Jacks3]

McGrady from 03-04:
30.2/6.3/5.5/55% TS
19 40+ point games
3 50+ point games
1 60+ point games


Kobe 05-07:
33.5/5.7/5.4/57% TS
45 40+ point games
18 50+ point games
4 60+ point games

Not even ****ing close. :roll: :roll: :roll:

[eliteballer]

I already proved they were the best defensive team in the league. They were still an ECF team. Truth hurts, doesn't it?

...and he got shut down in the last 3 games. They weren't a better defensive team than the spurs. They played weaker comp in the East. so what does it prove?:roll:

[Dave3]

What were the claims?
"Few people watched Tmac in 2003 more than I did. I'm positive I followed him more than you did and I'm telling you it was there the entire time. And I'm not the only one telling you this, everyone else is also telling you he had chronic back problems. There's an linked here about how he was born with scoliosis.

" "When I first entered the NBA and got tested by doctors and trainers," McGrady says, "they projected I'd play five or six years because of the way my body is structured."

The 28 year old McGrady, a seven time all star and two time league scoring champion in his forth season with the Houston Rockets was born with a mild case of scoliosis (curvature of the spine.) His back was also injured following a hard foul he suffered in his fourth season while playing with Orlando."

But I'm sure you know more than those idiot doctors right?

A myriad of reasons? How about naming some? Way to completely ignore a point. "This didn't happen because of what you were saying, it was something else" and then go on to explain nothing. That's not a counter argument lol.

Um, Kobe saw his ppg increase by 5.4 ppg from his previous career high. Iverson past his prime saw a 2 ppg increase. Saying Tmac would increase 2-4 ppg is too much? Ray Allen also increased like 4 ppg from his previous career high and so did LeBron. Iverson went from being a career 41% shooter to 45% in that year alone to accompany his volume increase. Again, how is Tmac improving the same (or less even) than these guys so out of the question?

And Tmac was a jumpshooter? Uh...no. You're kind of further proving you didn't watch him in 2003. He was a jumpshooter in Houston, definitely. In Orlando he was a rim attacker who happened to have an amazing jumper, but he wasn't a shooter AT ALL.

Here's the link BTW: http://www.operationsports.com/forum...scoliosis.html

The article was taken down, but that's the secondary source and it was discussed. Surprisingly some people already knew, as if it was obvious or something..."

[D.J.]

I use TS% because it's the best measurement of scoring efficiency.


Better than eFG%? I think not. You think it's the best measurement because Kobe's is higher. Charles Barkley has a higher TS% than Michael Jordan. I guess he's the better of the two according to your logic.

[D.J.]

...and he got shut down in the last 3 games. They weren't a better defensive team than the spurs. They played weaker comp in the East. so what does it prove?:roll:


With your logic, I guess the Nets were the best defensive team because they had the lowest defensive rating.

[ShaqAttack3234]

A more reasonable number would be around 33 PPG/56% TS, which is right around what he did in 2003. And that's still not GOAT level, nor was his 03 season. We saw what he did in his absolute peak. It was awesome and all, but let's not start overrating the guy, and giving him this ridiculous mythical status.

I'd say his TS% goes up from 56.4% to 57-58% range and ppg go up maybe a point or 2 if 2003 T-Mac played in '06 or later. I'd say that Orlando T-Mac would regularly be a 27-28 ppg/55 TS% type player aside from that. His 2004 season could have also been a 30 ppg/55 TS% season considering how unusually low everyone's numbers were that year anyway, even compared to the early 2000's in general.


Pierce did 26.1 PPG in 02 at the age of 24. 26.8 PPG in 06 really isn't cray, especially considering he was at his prime age of 28.

He may have benefited a little, but Pierce has always been one of the best scorers. It's even hard to compare his FTA or efficiency because some of his earlier prime years came under Jim O'Brien and he shot more 3s then.

With that being said, 10.3 FTA on just 18.5 FGA is pretty insane, though.


Nash's jump had far more to due with the greater freedom and role he got than the rule changes. He clearly wasn't optimized as well playing in Dallas next to a bunch of isolation players like Dirk and Finley. Don't give me that garbage.

Yeah, as far as scoring, he had already had an 18 ppg/8 apg/60 TS% season in '02 and if you compare his numbers from '04 with Dallas to '05 with Phoenix, the rule changes seem insignificant. He shot a little bit more in '05 with Phoenix, his scoring average went from 14.5 to 15.5, his TS% went from 59% to 60.6% and his assists increased from 8.8 to 11.5, but his turnovers also went from 2.7 to 3.3.

And then factor in that 2004 was somewhat of an anomaly in how low everyone's numbers were, Nash's minutes going up a bit, Phoenix playing at a faster pace and Nash having much more freedom.

Not sure how much the rule changes affected Nash, but I don't think it was that much, if at all.


Dirk was entering his prime (age 27) and had already registered a 25.1 PPG season under the old rules at the age of 24. The rule changes had very little to do with it.


Good point about Dirk, he was a 25 ppg/58 TS% player in '03 and added to his game after that.

The rule changes had a different effect on various players. Kobe and Dirk didn't benefit all that much, imo. Kobe's 10 FTA for 27 FGA was nothing unusual. He attempted a free throw for every 2.65 FGA. Not much different than '03 when he attempted a free throw for every 2.7 FGA.

And when Phil gave him more freedom in 2003, he averaged 33 ppg on 45.7 FG% and 56.7 TS% over the final 40 games and did so on 24.8 FGA and 9.7 FTA which was a free throw for every 2.53 FGA.

Kobe was affected less because a lot of his big scoring nights came when he'd get hot and start hitting impossible jumpers.

Players who rely on drawing fouls to score more will benefit more. For example, no way in hell do I see Durant having a 30 ppg/61 TS% from 1998-2004 or Arenas having 29 on 58 TS%.

[Jacks3]

Better than eFG%? I think not. You think it's the best measurement because Kobe's is higher. Charles Barkley has a higher TS% than Michael Jordan. I guess he's the better of the two according to your logic.
How is not better than eFG% when it includes FT's? Those still count as points.
The fact that Kobe is better at getting to the line and converting is a huge deal. How is this not obvious?

WTF? Your second post makes no sense because Jordan's volume crushes Barkely. That's not the case with Kobe/T-mac.

[D.J.]

"Few people watched Tmac in 2003 more than I did. I'm positive I followed him more than you did and I'm telling you it was there the entire time. And I'm not the only one telling you this, everyone else is also telling you he had chronic back problems. There's an linked here about how he was born with scoliosis.


His back problems were no secret. He had issues dating back to his earliest days in Orlando.


" "When I first entered the NBA and got tested by doctors and trainers," McGrady says, "they projected I'd play five or six years because of the way my body is structured."


Though he did last longer, his prime was essentially over by '05-'06. The medical staff weren't far off with their prediction.



The 28 year old McGrady, a seven time all star and two time league scoring champion in his forth season with the Houston Rockets was born with a mild case of scoliosis (curvature of the spine.) His back was also injured following a hard foul he suffered in his fourth season while playing with Orlando."


But I'm sure you know more than those idiot doctors right?


Don't recall the foul offhand, but I'll take the doctor's word over anyone here.



Um, Kobe saw his ppg increase by 5.4 ppg from his previous career high. Iverson past his prime saw a 2 ppg increase. Saying Tmac would increase 2-4 ppg is too much? Ray Allen also increased like 4 ppg from his previous career high and so did LeBron. Iverson went from being a career 41% shooter to 45% in that year alone to accompany his volume increase. Again, how is Tmac improving the same (or less even) than these guys so out of the question?


The new rules allowed for more free throw attempts and scoring opportunities. Kobe and Tracy both put up 30 a night when handchecking was still allowed. No reason to think McGrady couldn't match Kobe's scoring in the new style if he was still in his prime.



And Tmac was a jumpshooter? Uh...no. You're kind of further proving you didn't watch him in 2003. He was a jumpshooter in Houston, definitely. In Orlando he was a rim attacker who happened to have an amazing jumper, but he wasn't a shooter AT ALL.


He attacked the rim more than he shot. He averaged almost 10 free throws a night that season.

[D.J.]

How is not better than eFG% when it includes FT's? Those still count as points.
The fact that Kobe is better at getting to the line and converting is a huge deal. How is this not obvious?

WTF? Your second post makes no sense because Jordan's volume crushes Barkely. That's not the case with Kobe/T-mac.


Nope. Barkley shot a higher TS%, therefore he's better.

[Dave3]

His back problems were no secret. He had issues dating back to his earliest days in Orlando.




Though he did last longer, his prime was essentially over by '05-'06. The medical staff weren't far off with their prediction.





Don't recall the foul offhand, but I'll take the doctor's word over anyone here.





The new rules allowed for more free throw attempts and scoring opportunities. Kobe and Tracy both put up 30 a night when handchecking was still allowed. No reason to think McGrady couldn't match Kobe's scoring in the new style if he was still in his prime.





He attacked the rim more than he shot. He averaged almost 10 free throws a night that season.
All facts Jacks enjoys disputing. :oldlol:

PS. That foul was the one by Kenyon Martin in the 2001-2002 season on Tmac. I still remember it haha

[Jacks3]

McGrady from 03-04:
30.2/6.3/5.5/55% TS
19 40+ point games
3 50+ point games
1 60+ point games


Kobe 05-07:
33.5/5.7/5.4/57% TS
45 40+ point games
18 50+ point games
4 60+ point games

Not even ****ing close.

lol @ the rule changes making up for the massive difference.

:roll: :roll: :roll:

[Jacks3]

All facts Jacks enjoys disputing. :oldlol:
Congrats. You're among the few annoying enough to go on my ignore list.

[RRR3]

Has anyone else noticed that when Jacks loses an argument about Kobe, he'll post a bunch of cherry-picked stats that favor Kobe over and over again and say something like ":roll: ****ing ________"?

[Dave3]

Has anyone else noticed that when Jacks loses an argument about Kobe, he'll post a bunch of cherry-picked stats that favor Kobe over and over again and say something like ":roll: ****ing ________"?
Pretty sure you can find an inverse relationship with "strength or argument" and "number of :roll: 's used"

[D.J.]

PS. That foul was the one by Kenyon Martin in the 2001-2002 season on Tmac. I still remember it haha


Ah, yes! I recall that one. His back bent in a nasty way too.

[Jacks3]

T-Wack fans can't stand the facts.

McGrady from 03-04:
30.2/6.3/5.5/55% TS
19 40+ point games
3 50+ point games
1 60+ point games


Kobe 05-07:
33.5/5.7/5.4/57% TS
45 40+ point games
18 50+ point games
4 60+ point games

Kobe shits all over T-Wack.

[RRR3]

LOL! Jacks just proved my point! That was truly pathetic.

[Jacks3]

Facts must sting.

[D.J.]

LOL! Jacks just proved my point! That was truly pathetic.


And he used 2 Kobe seasons and only 1 T-Mac season. No bias.

[RRR3]

And he used 2 Kobe seasons and only 1 T-Mac season. No bias.
Yeah, and after the handcheck rule too. how convenient.

[Jacks3]

It's actually 2 T-Mac seasons. 03 and 04. He still doesn't come close to Bryant.

[ThaSwagg3r]

:oldlol: How bored are you Jacks3?

[Jacks3]

McGrady from 03-04:
30.2/6.3/5.5/55% TS
19 40+ point games
3 50+ point games
1 60+ point games


Kobe 05-07:
33.5/5.7/5.4/57% TS
45 40+ point games
18 50+ point games
4 60+ point games

Not. Even. Close.

[Jacks3]

:oldlol: How bored are you Jacks3?
Very. :oldlol:

[D.J.]

It's actually 2 T-Mac seasons. 03 and 04. He still doesn't come close to Bryant.


2003 and 2004 = 2
2005-2007 = 3

[Jacks3]

05-06 + 06-07= 2 seasons

[D.J.]

05-06 + 06-07= 2 seasons


You're so full of sh*t and now you're back tracking. You said 2003-2004 and 2005-2007. Those are not the same amount of seasons.

[Jacks3]

What the hell are you talking about?

I used T-Mac's 02-03/03-04 seasons and Bryant's 05-06/06-07. Check the numbers. lol

[ThaSwagg3r]

Jacks3 reminds me of Fatal9 without the intelligence. Fatal9 trolls and ***** around when he is bored just like Jacks3 is doing right now.

Seems like everyone is taking the bait especially RR3 but he is probably the easiest person that you can **** around with on this site. :oldlol:

[Jacks3]

THASwagg3r talking shit about someone's intelligence.

Probably the biggest dumbass on this forum. :oldlol:

[ThaSwagg3r]

THASwagg3r talking shit about someone's intelligence.

Probably the biggest dumbass on this forum. :oldlol:
:oldlol: Right..... even when you aren't trolling you are a moron dude. Not to mention you are one confused ****.

[RRR3]

Ironic swagg3r is insulting jacks when jacks at least has some semblance of a brain.

[Jacks3]

:oldlol: Right..... even when you aren't trolling you are a moron dude. .
You calling anyone else a moron. :roll:

Dude, your dumbass makes guys like RRR3 seem smart.

:oldlol:

[ThaSwagg3r]

You calling anyone else a moron. :roll:

Dude, your dumbass makes guys like RRR3 seem smart.

:oldlol:
:applause: You are upset.

[Legends66NBA7]

McGrady from 03-04:
30.2/6.3/5.5/55% TS
19 40+ point games
3 50+ point games
1 60+ point games


Kobe 05-07:
33.5/5.7/5.4/57% TS
45 40+ point games
18 50+ point games
4 60+ point games

Not even ****ing close.

lol @ the rule changes making up for the massive difference.

:roll: :roll: :roll:

In fact, they did:

2004-05
-New rules were introduced to curtail hand-checking, clarify blocking fouls and call defensive three seconds to open up the game.

2006-07
-On a clear-path-to-the-basket foul, the team that is fouled is awarded two free throw attempt and the ball on the sideline.

Those are rule changes available on the NBA's website:

Points per game leaders 24+:

2003-2004 ppg:
Points Per Game Leaders
1. Tracy McGrady-ORL 28.0
2. Peja Stojakovic-SAC 24.2
3. Kevin Garnett-MIN 24.2
4. Kobe Bryant-LAL 24.0

2004-2005 ppg (There is a spike in scoring average and notice how many perimeter players are now on top the PPG lists)
Points Per Game Leaders
1. Allen Iverson-PHI 30.7
2. Kobe Bryant-LAL 27.6
3. LeBron James-CLE 27.2
4. Dirk Nowitzki-DAL 26.1
5. Amare Stoudemire-PHO 26.0
6. Tracy McGrady-HOU 25.7
7. Gilbert Arenas-WAS 25.5
8. Vince Carter-TOT 24.5
9. Dwyane Wade-MIA 24.1

2005-2006 ppg (Worst year for perimeter defense)
1. Kobe Bryant-LAL 35.4
2. Allen Iverson-PHI 33.0
3. LeBron James-CLE 31.4
4. Gilbert Arenas-WAS 29.3
5. Dwyane Wade-MIA 27.2
6. Paul Pierce-BOS 26.8
7. Dirk Nowitzki-DAL 26.6
8. Carmelo Anthony-DEN 26.5
9. Michael Redd-MIL 25.4
10. Ray Allen-SEA 25.1
11. Elton Brand-LAC 24.7
12. Vince Carter-NJN 24.2

2006-2007 ppg
1. Kobe Bryant-LAL 31.6
2. Carmelo Anthony-DEN 28.9
3. Gilbert Arenas-WAS 28.4
4. LeBron James-CLE 27.3
5. Michael Redd-MIL 26.7
6. Ray Allen-SEA 26.4
7. Allen Iverson-TOT 26.3
8. Vince Carter-NJN 25.2
9. Joe Johnson-ATL 25.0
10. Tracy McGrady-HOU 24.6
11. Dirk Nowitzki-DAL 24.6

2007-2008
1. LeBron James-CLE 30.0
2. Kobe Bryant-LAL 28.3
3. Allen Iverson-DEN 26.4
4. Carmelo Anthony-DEN 25.7
5. Amare Stoudemire-PHO 25.2

2008-2009
1. Dwyane Wade-MIA 30.2
2. LeBron James-CLE 28.4
3. Kobe Bryant-LAL 26.8
4. Dirk Nowitzki-DAL 25.9
5. Danny Granger-IND 25.8
6. Kevin Durant-OKC 25.3

2009-2010 ppg
1. Kevin Durant-OKC 30.1
2. LeBron James-CLE 29.7
3. Carmelo Anthony-DEN 28.2
4. Kobe Bryant-LAL 27.0
5. Dwyane Wade-MIA 26.6
6. Monta Ellis-GSW 25.5
7. Dirk Nowitzki-DAL 25.0
8. Danny Granger-IND 24.1
9. Chris Bosh-TOR 24.0

2010-2011 ppg
1. Kevin Durant-OKC 27.7
2. LeBron James-MIA 26.7
3. Carmelo Anthony-TOT 25.6
4. Dwyane Wade-MIA 25.5
5. Kobe Bryant-LAL 25.3
7. Derrick Rose-CHI 25.0
8. Monta Ellis-GSW 24.1

Now, i give Kobe credit where credit is due. He clearly proved he was the scoring champion for 2 years. But those 2 years were when defensive players were still adjusting to new rules. It was obvious that those were two of the weakest years in terms of perimeter defenses. Just look at the 2006 Finals and Wade sherrding up the Mavericks defense.

And to think that Mark Cuban wanted the rules to free up more offense for Dirk Nowitzki, SMH...

You can clearly see from the decline in numbers later on that the defenders (even though they are at a severe dis-advantage) have caught on.

[Dave3]

In fact, they did:

2004-05
-New rules were introduced to curtail hand-checking, clarify blocking fouls and call defensive three seconds to open up the game.

2006-07
-On a clear-path-to-the-basket foul, the team that is fouled is awarded two free throw attempt and the ball on the sideline.

Those are rule changes available on the NBA's website:

Points per game leaders 24+:

2003-2004 ppg:
Points Per Game Leaders
1. Tracy McGrady-ORL 28.0
2. Peja Stojakovic-SAC 24.2
3. Kevin Garnett-MIN 24.2
4. Kobe Bryant-LAL 24.0

2004-2005 ppg (There is a spike in scoring average and notice how many perimeter players are now on top the PPG lists)
Points Per Game Leaders
1. Allen Iverson-PHI 30.7
2. Kobe Bryant-LAL 27.6
3. LeBron James-CLE 27.2
4. Dirk Nowitzki-DAL 26.1
5. Amare Stoudemire-PHO 26.0
6. Tracy McGrady-HOU 25.7
7. Gilbert Arenas-WAS 25.5
8. Vince Carter-TOT 24.5
9. Dwyane Wade-MIA 24.1

2005-2006 ppg (Worst year for perimeter defense)
1. Kobe Bryant-LAL 35.4
2. Allen Iverson-PHI 33.0
3. LeBron James-CLE 31.4
4. Gilbert Arenas-WAS 29.3
5. Dwyane Wade-MIA 27.2
6. Paul Pierce-BOS 26.8
7. Dirk Nowitzki-DAL 26.6
8. Carmelo Anthony-DEN 26.5
9. Michael Redd-MIL 25.4
10. Ray Allen-SEA 25.1
11. Elton Brand-LAC 24.7
12. Vince Carter-NJN 24.2

2006-2007 ppg
1. Kobe Bryant-LAL 31.6
2. Carmelo Anthony-DEN 28.9
3. Gilbert Arenas-WAS 28.4
4. LeBron James-CLE 27.3
5. Michael Redd-MIL 26.7
6. Ray Allen-SEA 26.4
7. Allen Iverson-TOT 26.3
8. Vince Carter-NJN 25.2
9. Joe Johnson-ATL 25.0
10. Tracy McGrady-HOU 24.6
11. Dirk Nowitzki-DAL 24.6

2007-2008
1. LeBron James-CLE 30.0
2. Kobe Bryant-LAL 28.3
3. Allen Iverson-DEN 26.4
4. Carmelo Anthony-DEN 25.7
5. Amare Stoudemire-PHO 25.2

2008-2009
1. Dwyane Wade-MIA 30.2
2. LeBron James-CLE 28.4
3. Kobe Bryant-LAL 26.8
4. Dirk Nowitzki-DAL 25.9
5. Danny Granger-IND 25.8
6. Kevin Durant-OKC 25.3

2009-2010 ppg
1. Kevin Durant-OKC 30.1
2. LeBron James-CLE 29.7
3. Carmelo Anthony-DEN 28.2
4. Kobe Bryant-LAL 27.0
5. Dwyane Wade-MIA 26.6
6. Monta Ellis-GSW 25.5
7. Dirk Nowitzki-DAL 25.0
8. Danny Granger-IND 24.1
9. Chris Bosh-TOR 24.0

2010-2011 ppg
1. Kevin Durant-OKC 27.7
2. LeBron James-MIA 26.7
3. Carmelo Anthony-TOT 25.6
4. Dwyane Wade-MIA 25.5
5. Kobe Bryant-LAL 25.3
7. Derrick Rose-CHI 25.0
8. Monta Ellis-GSW 24.1

Now, i give Kobe credit where credit is due. He clearly proved he was the scoring champion for 2 years. But those 2 years were when defensive players were still adjusting to new rules. It was obvious that those were two of the weakest years in terms of perimeter defenses. Just look at the 2006 Finals and Wade sherrding up the Mavericks defense.

And to think that Mark Cuban wanted the rules to free up more offense for Dirk Nowitzki, SMH...

You can clearly see from the decline in numbers later on that the defenders (even though they are at a severe dis-advantage) have caught on.
Waste of time. Facts falling on deaf ears. This guy won't even believe what a doctor says about someone's back:oldlol:

[HylianNightmare]

dude was a monster

[Legends66NBA7]

Waste of time. Facts falling on deaf ears. This guy won't even believe what a doctor says about someone's back:oldlol:

I have these numbers saved. I update them from time to time.

I give Kobe props though, he did light up the competition, but it's not a concidence that he and every other perimeter player were doing this more consistetly after the rule changes that clearly favor perimeter players.

[Dave3]

I have these numbers saved. I update them from time to time.

I give Kobe props though, he did light up the competition, but it's not a concidence that he and every other perimeter player were doing this more consistetly after the rule changes that clearly favor perimeter players.
It is to Jacks...

[Legends66NBA7]

It is to Jacks...

Well bro, it's up to people to see reality or not. If homers want to be ignorant, let them be ignorant. It won't change the facts. Period.

[juju151111]

I have these numbers saved. I update them from time to time.

I give Kobe props though, he did light up the competition, but it's not a concidence that he and every other perimeter player were doing this more consistetly after the rule changes that clearly favor perimeter players.
You do realize who your talking to right. Also I like to add Larry brown,Thibs, and pat Riley agrees with you. Yep the 2 best defensive coaches of this era and a 20 year coach agrees, but hey Jack is right. Wing players just got amazing in 06 .:facepalm retard probably never played basketball on his life to say handchecking doesnt effect you.

[Jacks3]

The rule changes had nothing to do with Kobe's scoring, you morons, and I already showed how those guys guys seeing jumps in their scoring had more to do with other factors.

[Jacks3]

In fact, they did:


Kobe would have been at 35+ PPG with or without the rules. What made that season extraordinary was that he increased his usage by a TON (38% USG, 27 FGA per game) with no loss in efficiency. That has nothing to do with the rule changes. Deal with it.

[Jacks3]

.:facepalm retard probably never played basketball on his life to say handchecking doesnt effect you.
You realize that real hand-checking hasn't even been around since the 70's right? And that the NBA has been curtailing it since the early 80's?

****ing idiot.

[Jacks3]

I give Kobe props though, he did light up the competition, but it's not a concidence that he and every other perimeter player were doing this more consistetly after the rule changes that clearly favor perimeter players.
Yeah, those guys hitting their primes, coming back from injuries, making the jump to super-stardom (LBJ etc), simply taking more shots, etc had nothing to do with it. :oldlol: :oldlol: :oldlol:

[Legends66NBA7]

You realize that real hand-checking hasn't even been around since the 70's right? And that the NBA has been curtailing it since the early 80's?

****ing idiot.

No that's a lie, NBA players have adimmited there was handchecking even after 1980:

Joe Johnson from the Atlanta Hawks was asked about the handchecking rule during the summer of 2010: "It benefits me," said Joe Johnson, one of three players (Mike Bibby and Jamal Crawford are the others) on the Hawks' roster who have averaged 20 or more points in a season. "It definitely changes the game because it gives every guy that extra step. "If we could hand check now, the game would be totally different," Johnson said. "If they couldn't hand check back in the day, there are some guys that would have been even better than they were. It would have been nuts for some of the big-time scorers and perimeter players from the 1980s and 1990s. Can you imagine what Michael Jordan would have done in a league where you couldn't hand check."

Why is Joe Johnson referring to handchecking in the 80's and 90's ? Why does he assume the game would be a lot different ?

"The game has changed big-time,

[imdaman99]

Sure he was great and made the game look easy. But who cares? What was it that Van Gundy said about him? He was passive and not a hard worker and didn't work on improving himself, like Kobe did. That is the difference, not this garbage everyone spews about his injuries.

[Legends66NBA7]

Yeah, those guys hitting their primes, coming back from injuries, making the jump to super-stardom (LBJ etc), simply taking more shots, etc had nothing to do with it. :oldlol: :oldlol: :oldlol:

Allen Iverson was @ age 30, was not progressing at all as a player anymore and averaged a career high 33ppg.

Why do you think they got more shots ?

Again, to Stu Jackson:

Stu Jackson: No. The scoring increase was not our goal. Our objective was to allow for more offensive freedom by not allowing defenders to hand-, forearm- or body-check ball handlers. By doing so, we encouraged more dribble penetration. As players penetrated more, it produced higher quality shots for the ball handler as well as shots for teammates on passes back out to perimeter. When NBA players get higher quality shots -- having more time to shoot -- they tend to make more of them.

[Legends66NBA7]

Sure he was great and made the game look easy. But who cares? What was it that Van Gundy said about him? He was passive and not a hard worker and didn't work on improving himself, like Kobe did. That is the difference, not this garbage everyone spews about his injuries.

Yes that is true. Kobe had and still does have a terrific work ethic. McGrady did not. I think his injuries came from that too, not staying enough in game/NBA shape. Too lazy.

[Jacks3]

Again, I'm not saying the new rules didn't play a part. I'm saying 1) there were other factors at play 2) every player is differently affected based on the style of their game. It had very little impact on a shooter like Bryant's/Dirk's/T-Mac's compared to a A.I or Arenas 3) you guys are overrating how much a difference hand-checking makes, or are else underrating these stars. These guys are extraordinary scorers with or without hand-checking.

[Jacks3]

No that's a lie, NBA players have adimmited there was handchecking even after 1980:

.
I don't care what NBA players say. Real hand-checking hasn't been allowed since the 70's.

[Legends66NBA7]

Again, I'm not saying hand-checking didn't play a part. I'm saying 1) there were other factors at play 2) every player is differently affected based on the style of their game. It had very little impact on a shooter like Bryant's/Dirk's/T-Mac's game compared to a A.I or Arenas 3) you guys are overrating how much a difference hand-checking makes, or are else underrating these stars. These guys are extraordinary scorers with or without hand-checking.

Nope, never did i say they are not great scorers.

They will get their points no doubt, but they would struggle against physical defenses.

Mark Cuban already wanted those rule changes for Dirk. Why would he not want them, if he thought of Dirk as suck a great scorer if he couldn't handle the punishment ?

In fact, let's see what perimeter player were doing before the 1999-2000, official rule changes started:

Points per game 24+:

1997-1998 ppg
1. Michael Jordan*-CHI 28.7
2. Shaquille O'Neal-LAL 28.3
3. Karl Malone-UTA 27.0
(these were the only 3 players over 24ppg)

1996-1997 ppg
1. Michael Jordan-CHI 29.6
2. Karl Malone-UTA 27.4
3. Glen Rice-CHH 26.8
4. Mitch Richmond-SAC 25.9
5. Latrell Sprewell-GSW 24.2

1995-1996 ppg
1. Michael Jordan-CHI 30.4
2. Hakeem Olajuwon-HOU 26.9
3. Shaquille O'Neal-ORL 26.6
4. Karl Malone-UTA 25.7
5. David Robinson-SAS 25.0
(notice, only one perimeter player)

1994-1995 ppg
1. Shaquille O'Neal-ORL 29.3
2. Hakeem Olajuwon-HOU 27.8
3. David Robinson-SAS 27.6
4. Karl Malone-UTA 26.7
5. Jamal Mashburn-DAL 24.1
(Notice the lack of perimeter players)

1993-1994 ppg
Points Per Game leaders
1. David Robinson-SAS 29.8
2. Shaquille O'Neal-ORL 29.3
3. Hakeem Olajuwon-HOU 27.3
4. Dominique Wilkins-TOT 26.0
5. Karl Malone-UTA 25.2
6. Patrick Ewing-NYK 24.5
(where are the perimeter players?)

1992-1993 ppg
Points Per Game leaders
1. Michael Jordan-CHI 32.6
2. Dominique Wilkins-ATL 29.9
3. Karl Malone-UTA 27.0
4. Hakeem Olajuwon-HOU 26.1
5. Charles Barkley-PHO 25.6
6. Patrick Ewing-NYK 24.2

1991-1992 ppg
Points Per Game leaders
1. Michael Jordan-CHI 30.1
2. Karl Malone-UTA 28.0
3. Chris Mullin-GSW 25.6
4. Clyde Drexler-POR 25.0
5. Patrick Ewing-NYK 24.0

1990-1991 ppg
Points Per Game leaders
1. Michael Jordan-CHI 31.5
2. Karl Malone-UTA 29.0
3. Bernard King-WSB 28.4
4. Charles Barkley-PHI 27.6
5. Patrick Ewing -NYK 26.6
6. Michael Adams-DEN 26.5
7. Dominique Wilkins-ATL 25.9
8. Chris Mullin-GSW 25.7

9. David Robinson-SAS 25.6

And that's just the 90's. So outside of Jordan, why were they not more perimter stars lighting up the league in scoring ? Rules were clearly different and it was harder to penetrate for the perimeter players. Big men could play like big men, that's why there more dominating big men like Shaq, Hakeem, Robinson, Ewing, Mourning, etc...

[Jacks3]

No, they wouldn't. They'd be dominant scorers in any era. As for the 90's, maybe it's because the wings were simply not as good as and the quality of bigs much greater? It's not rocket science.

[Legends66NBA7]

No, they wouldn't. They'd be dominant scorers in any era. As for the 90's, maybe it's because the wings were simply not as good as and the quality of bigs much greater? It's not rocket science.

None is denying that at all. But their scoring production clearly spiked.

Again, this a tribute to the rule changes.

There's still some good big men, but the style of play has changed.

They don't bang inside or post up as much anymore. They've now become mostly perimeter players because the rules don't allow them to be as physical and camp in the lane. The 3 second defensive rule clearly plays a huge factor as well as the 5 second no back to the basket rule.

These rules have made them develop a better perimeter game, but they've lost their post up game, interior passing, interior defense, thoughness etc.etc. Not that they aren't tough individuals, but the rules don't really allow them to be tough inside, at least not how they used to be.

And why do these big men suffer ?

Because rules changes favor the perimeter players over post players. It's not rocket science that these rules are favoring one style of play over the other.

[Jacks3]

The big men aren't as good because they're simply not as good. It has little to do with the rule changes. Guys like Hakeem/Ewing/Robinson etc would put up about the same numbers if they played today, and guys like Pierce/Arenas/Iverson etc would put up about the same numbers with or without the rule changes. Greatness is greatness. It's not rocket science.

[eliteballer]

Nope, never did i say they are not great scorers.

They will get their points no doubt, but they would struggle against physical defenses.

Mark Cuban already wanted those rule changes for Dirk. Why would he not want them, if he thought of Dirk as suck a great scorer if he couldn't handle the punishment ?

In fact, let's see what perimeter player were doing before the 1999-2000, official rule changes started:

Points per game 24+:

1997-1998 ppg
1. Michael Jordan*-CHI 28.7
2. Shaquille O'Neal-LAL 28.3
3. Karl Malone-UTA 27.0
(these were the only 3 players over 24ppg)

1996-1997 ppg
1. Michael Jordan-CHI 29.6
2. Karl Malone-UTA 27.4
3. Glen Rice-CHH 26.8
4. Mitch Richmond-SAC 25.9
5. Latrell Sprewell-GSW 24.2

1995-1996 ppg
1. Michael Jordan-CHI 30.4
2. Hakeem Olajuwon-HOU 26.9
3. Shaquille O'Neal-ORL 26.6
4. Karl Malone-UTA 25.7
5. David Robinson-SAS 25.0
(notice, only one perimeter player)

1994-1995 ppg
1. Shaquille O'Neal-ORL 29.3
2. Hakeem Olajuwon-HOU 27.8
3. David Robinson-SAS 27.6
4. Karl Malone-UTA 26.7
5. Jamal Mashburn-DAL 24.1
(Notice the lack of perimeter players)

1993-1994 ppg
Points Per Game leaders
1. David Robinson-SAS 29.8
2. Shaquille O'Neal-ORL 29.3
3. Hakeem Olajuwon-HOU 27.3
4. Dominique Wilkins-TOT 26.0
5. Karl Malone-UTA 25.2
6. Patrick Ewing-NYK 24.5
(where are the perimeter players?)

1992-1993 ppg
Points Per Game leaders
1. Michael Jordan-CHI 32.6
2. Dominique Wilkins-ATL 29.9
3. Karl Malone-UTA 27.0
4. Hakeem Olajuwon-HOU 26.1
5. Charles Barkley-PHO 25.6
6. Patrick Ewing-NYK 24.2

1991-1992 ppg
Points Per Game leaders
1. Michael Jordan-CHI 30.1
2. Karl Malone-UTA 28.0
3. Chris Mullin-GSW 25.6
4. Clyde Drexler-POR 25.0
5. Patrick Ewing-NYK 24.0

1990-1991 ppg
Points Per Game leaders
1. Michael Jordan-CHI 31.5
2. Karl Malone-UTA 29.0
3. Bernard King-WSB 28.4
4. Charles Barkley-PHI 27.6
5. Patrick Ewing -NYK 26.6
6. Michael Adams-DEN 26.5
7. Dominique Wilkins-ATL 25.9
8. Chris Mullin-GSW 25.7

9. David Robinson-SAS 25.6

And that's just the 90's. So outside of Jordan, why were they not more perimter stars lighting up the league in scoring ? Rules were clearly different and it was harder to penetrate for the perimeter players. Big men could play like big men, that's why there more dominating big men like Shaq, Hakeem, Robinson, Ewing, Mourning, etc...

Uh...because the perimeter players now as a whole are much better than they were in the 90's. Better handles, more range, superior slashers etc. Guys like Chris Mullin, Sprewell, Glen Rice, Mitch Richmond can be great scorers then...but Kobe and T-Mac wouldnt be even better? The height of stupidity.

[Legends66NBA7]

Uh...because the perimeter players now as a whole are much better than they were in the 90's. Better handles, more range, superior slashers etc. Guys like Chris Mullin, Sprewell, Glen Rice, Mitch Richmond can be great scorers then...but Kobe and T-Mac wouldnt be even better? The height of stupidity.

That's your opinion.

[andgar923]

I'd take tmac in his prime >>> Kobe, Bron and Wade

[disel]

Tmac had a scerosis type bone structure. His high school coach told him there is noway he can play in the nba for more then 4 years. Dude exceeded expectations.

[The_Yearning]

On game days, T-Mac would usually sleep for the whole day until 2 hours before game time. Or maybe 3-4 if he wanted to get a meal in.

That is why dude be looking so lethargic with the droopy eyes...

He would lull you to sleep and just elevate out of nowhere on his jumpshot... I would say his jumpshot is the most unguardable shot in NBA history... you can't block or contest it effectively... if he missed the shot it was because of his shot nothing to do with his defender.

[Big#50]

Prime TMAC was the shit. Dude was very, very hard to stop. He could take it to the rim, lift up and shoot over you. He was strong as hell. Him and Kobe are very close when it comes to prime play. I'd choose TMAC for the simple fact that he was longer, stronger and more team oriented.

[LBJFTW]

The dude was Vince Carter's cousin. Of course he's going to have GOAT like potential.

[chips93]

people saying t-mac had unrealised potential because of injuries are missing the point a little.

i think if t0mac had kobe's mentality, his work ethic, then that would have made as much of a difference as him actually staying healthy.

both sonny vacarro and jeff van gundy pretty explicitly said hat mcgrady wasnt a very hard worker, that the game came so easily to him that he never had to work hard, so he could have been a lot better just by working as hard as other elite all time players.

[Dragonyeuw]

people saying t-mac had unrealised potential because of injuries are missing the point a little.

i think if t0mac had kobe's mentality, his work ethic, then that would have made as much of a difference as him actually staying healthy.

both sonny vacarro and jeff van gundy pretty explicitly said hat mcgrady wasnt a very hard worker, that the game came so easily to him that he never had to work hard, so he could have been a lot better just by working as hard as other elite all time players.

A better work ethic wasn't going to overcome the fact that Tmac's body was destined to breakdown prematurely. His back issue was a genetic defect that was never going to allow him a full career. Whatever gap in ability that existed between Kobe and Tmac back in the early-mid 2000's ( and from my POV, the gap was pretty small to negligible; Tmac was every bit as talented but simply didn't apply his gifts on both ends like Kobe did) was destined to widen as Kobe improved year over year while Tmac's growth as a player was stunted by unavoidable injuries.

I don't believe his apex as a player was in 2003; at 23 there's no reason to think he wouldn't have continued to improve if his body hadn't betrayed him. So no, while it's only speculation on my end I have no doubt a healthy Tmac would have improved on his 2003 campaign, which on an individual level was pretty damn special.

[AlphaWolf24]

A better work ethic wasn't going to overcome the fact that Tmac's body was destined to breakdown prematurely. His back issue was a genetic defect that was never going to allow him a full career. Whatever gap in ability that existed between Kobe and Tmac back in the early-mid 2000's ( and from my POV, the gap was pretty small to negligible; Tmac was every bit as talented but simply didn't apply his gifts on both ends like Kobe did) was destined to widen as Kobe improved year over year while Tmac's growth as a player was stunted by unavoidable injuries.

I don't believe his apex as a player was in 2003; at 23 there's no reason to think he wouldn't have continued to improve if his body hadn't betrayed him. So no, while it's only speculation on my end I have no doubt a healthy Tmac would have improved on his 2003 campaign, which on an individual level was pretty damn special.


Wrong on so many levels.....

work ethic and maintaining peak health on the offseason absolutley helps your body heal and avoid injurys...

Kobe Bryant keeps in peak shape year round on top of doingbasketball workouts...I clearly remember TMAC saying when the season is over he doesn't touch a basketball or enter a a gym.....he uses the offseason to basically do nothing and party.

on top of having a poor work ethic he never shown the ability to have the mental fortitude to play through injuries like Kobe has shown...


Kobe's ability to play peak basketball for so long and become a 5X Champion is not just blind luck.....he forged it through hard work and a iron will....

:facepalm @ You saying TMAC is just unlucky he has a achy back:lol ..I remember watching him chucking up shots like nothing...but on defense he would grimmace and act like his back was a wittle achy....until he got the ball then he was suddenly ok again...

He should have kept in shape year round instead of getting fat and lazy.




next

[AlphaWolf24]

ShaqAttack3234]T-Mac was past his prime after his first season in Houston, the decline was noticeable. He wasn't nearly as explosive, he relied on jumpers more and his shot had gotten flatter so '06 and '07 aren't representative of T-Mac's potential when healthy.

TMAC was not past his prime in Houston....he just had to play in a system with one of the best centers in the league....that's the point most of you guy's are missing...TMAC was putting up great Numbers but his teams were horrible....and even when he had great teams (Houston) he still ruined chemistry and failed to make any post season impact.


T-Mac vs Kobe is definitely debatable in 2003. I have T-Mac over Kobe due to a more consistent season and the fact that his team overachieved while Bryant's underachieved and his playoff play was more on par with his regular season than Kobe's. Though Kobe at his best was arguably the best player during the regular season and they were pretty much equal in terms of ability.


So the Lakers "underachieved" after coming off of 3 straight NBA Finals and losing to the NBA Champions..:roll: that's funny.....after all TMAC on a scrub team in the EAST (who would have never sniffed the postseason in the West) chokes again....but somehow his team overachieved???....

anyone with a oz. of basketball knowlege could see Kobe was far and away a better allaround player and a much better defensive player....


Either way, it's too close, imo to call one inferior to the other that season.

NO I can clearly state Kobe was far and away a better player then TMAC...I knew it then and I sure know it now.


Same with 2002, even though I agree that Kobe was better. Due to how close they were individually and T-Mac's horrible team going 43-33 when he played(1-5 without him). Hard to expect much more out of that team considering they were mediocre defensively and had no business being a top 7 offensive team. The latter was due to T-Mac carrying them, check out their offense with him out or even just his teammates he had, and even Mike Miller missed 19 games.

yet even when he played on Great teams he still had similar results...except when he was injured his teams did better without him...

see how your basketball math fails yet again???


As I said, I give Kobe the edge due to his clutch play in the playoffs, while T-Mac has never proven himself in the clutch in later rounds. Not necessarily his fault, but I still feel like going over someone where that ability isn't an unknown and T-Mac could've played better down the stretch in the Hornets series, iirc.


:blah :blah :blah Dude choked and Quit everywhere he went....



Yeah, the fact that T-Mac peaked at only 23 makes me wonder. On the other hand, his health seemed similar enough that you'd think he'd have come closer to that season in 2004 and 2005 if he was really going to get better. Though motivation was a problem in 2004. It's hard to imagine him getting much better than 2003, but how many players peak at 23?

And yeah, 32 ppg on 46 FG%/56 TS% is even more amazing considering the era. You just didn't see many efficient high volume seasons from '98-'04.



Yao was in foul trouble a lot during that series, iirc and he wasn't at a superstar level yet. Very good center, but still improving. T-Mac to carry that '05 Rocket team a lot to get to 50+ wins. And he played very well during that series vs Dallas. I could easily see '05 Kobe losing as well.

As far as work ethic? You're right that part of it was T-Mac getting a chance to show his skills more, but his skills also improved very noticeably his first half dozen years in the league, particularly his jump shot. And you can't become as good as T-Mac was in Orlando(particularly in 2003) without a work ethic.

I won't argue that he had some issues as far as work ethic, though I think that became more of a problem later. As Jeff Van Gundy said, a better work ethic could've possibly prevented some injuries, and he didn't look as lean or in as good shape his last few years with Houston

Just more of your B.S......Played with arguably the best Center in the NBA for 2 - 4 years and still failed miserably with a great team , Poor work ethic and lack of motivation shortened his career and a couple seasons where he put great numbers on notorious horrible teams....

GTFO...don't ever compare Kobe DA GAWD to a BUM like TMAC!...


and to all these Kids blinded by flashy moves.....TMAC is like Adrian Dantley....I don't here anyone comparing him to the GOAT's of the 80's



next

[Dave3]

people saying t-mac had unrealised potential because of injuries are missing the point a little.

i think if t0mac had kobe's mentality, his work ethic, then that would have made as much of a difference as him actually staying healthy.

both sonny vacarro and jeff van gundy pretty explicitly said hat mcgrady wasnt a very hard worker, that the game came so easily to him that he never had to work hard, so he could have been a lot better just by working as hard as other elite all time players.
Hard work can only take you so far, but what you're born with is always going to be your limit. If you're born with a congenital condition, your range for excellence is going to be lower than someone born without the condition.

For example, in psychology you learn that people are born with an IQ range, not an IQ. A child can be born and his range might be anywhere between 120-135, and how much he exercises his brain and feeds it he can land anywhere on the spectrum. It's the same thing for physical ability. Your genetics don't predestine you completely, but they do limit your range of success. Someone like Iverson is as successful as he ever could have been talent wise because he was born smaller than other NBA players, whereas other players didn't work as hard with what they had and despite having bodies better suited for success, they didn't succeed as much.

Tmac did as well as you could expect with what he had. None of us can make assumptions about his back not hurting him because we don't know. What place would I have to say "oh he wasn't in any actual pain because he played well"? What if he could have played better? You have posters on here pretending to be doctors when I'm sure they barely can get through high school (Jacks3 and Alphawolf, but that's expected I guess from trolls. Fact is doctors said the condition would limit him and he wouldn't play more than 4 years of professional basketball. He's played 12. He hasn't been healthy throughout them, but tripling doctor's predictions with your own work is hardly what I'd call lazy. It's his congenital condition that limited what people saw of his hard work, not the other way around.

[AlphaWolf24]

Hard work can only take you so far, but what you're born with is always going to be your limit. If you're born with a congenital condition, your range for excellence is going to be lower than someone born without the condition.

For example, in psychology you learn that people are born with an IQ range, not an IQ. A child can be born and his range might be anywhere between 120-135, and how much he exercises his brain and feeds it he can land anywhere on the spectrum. It's the same thing for physical ability. Your genetics don't predestine you completely, but they do limit your range of success. Someone like Iverson is as successful as he ever could have been talent wise because he was born smaller than other NBA players, whereas other players didn't work as hard with what they had and despite having bodies better suited for success, they didn't succeed as much.

Tmac did as well as you could expect with what he had. None of us can make assumptions about his back not hurting him because we don't know. What place would I have to say "oh he wasn't in any actual pain because he played well"? What if he could have played better? You have posters on here pretending to be doctors when I'm sure they barely can get through high school (Jacks3 and Alphawolf, but that's expected I guess from trolls. Fact is doctors said the condition would limit him and he wouldn't play more than 4 years of professional basketball. He's played 12. He hasn't been healthy throughout them, but tripling doctor's predictions with your own work is hardly what I'd call lazy. It's his congenital condition that limited what people saw of his hard work, not the other way around.


so your a Doctor then??....

ok Doc.....answer this....Does keeping in peak shape year round (rest , combined with exercise and healthy diet, on top of Basketball workouts) help your body fight off injuries?....or is it better to party and do nothing for 4 months?


Plus you act like Kobe never got injured....he has dusty knees and Crypt keeper fingers...

except his heart is 10X's bigger then TBAC...your right...some people are born with limits...TBAC was born with no cajones....


next

[Dave3]

so your a Doctor then??....

ok Doc.....answer this....Does keeping in peak shape year round (rest , combined with exercise and healthy diet, on top of Basketball workouts) help your body fight off injuries?....or is it better to party and do nothing for 4 months?


Plus you act like Kobe never got injured....he has dusty knees and Crypt keeper fingers...

except his heart is 10X's bigger then TBAC...your right...some people are born with limits...TBAC was born with no cajones....


next
Ok.

[Jacks3]

Kobe>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>T-Mac

[Dragonyeuw]

Wrong on so many levels.....

work ethic and maintaining peak health on the offseason absolutley helps your body heal and avoid injurys...

Kobe Bryant keeps in peak shape year round on top of doingbasketball workouts...I clearly remember TMAC saying when the season is over he doesn't touch a basketball or enter a a gym.....he uses the offseason to basically do nothing and party.

on top of having a poor work ethic he never shown the ability to have the mental fortitude to play through injuries like Kobe has shown...


Kobe's ability to play peak basketball for so long and become a 5X Champion is not just blind luck.....he forged it through hard work and a iron will....

:facepalm @ You saying TMAC is just unlucky he has a achy back:lol ..I remember watching him chucking up shots like nothing...but on defense he would grimmace and act like his back was a wittle achy....until he got the ball then he was suddenly ok again...

He should have kept in shape year round instead of getting fat and lazy.




next

If the reports are correct that Tmac had a genetic condition (Scoliosis) which is a curving of the spine, then I fail to see how work ethic is going to overcome that. YES, Tmac didn't exactly have a good work ethic, but even if you took Kobe's and injected it into Tmac, was he overcoming a curved spine? I would agree that keeping yourself in peak condition avoids the usual spread of injuries that crop up in athletes. I don't think I've made any point that Kobe lacked any sort of iron will or outstanding work ethic, so not sure why you went on that rant. Kobe has an amazing work ethic that's contributed to long term excellence. And, Kobe has actually had more than his share of injuries. One of his defining attributes is playing through them, not avoiding them altogether.

[King24]

kobe is better. always was.


/thread

[D.J.]

so your a Doctor then??....

ok Doc.....answer this....Does keeping in peak shape year round (rest , combined with exercise and healthy diet, on top of Basketball workouts) help your body fight off injuries?....or is it better to party and do nothing for 4 months?


Plus you act like Kobe never got injured....he has dusty knees and Crypt keeper fingers...

except his heart is 10X's bigger then TBAC...your right...some people are born with limits...TBAC was born with no cajones....


next


There's already a post with a link from a doctor describing McGrady's genetic condition. But of course, you probably think the doctor is full of sh*t.

[chips93]

Hard work can only take you so far, but what you're born with is always going to be your limit. If you're born with a congenital condition, your range for excellence is going to be lower than someone born without the condition.

For example, in psychology you learn that people are born with an IQ range, not an IQ. A child can be born and his range might be anywhere between 120-135, and how much he exercises his brain and feeds it he can land anywhere on the spectrum. It's the same thing for physical ability. Your genetics don't predestine you completely, but they do limit your range of success. Someone like Iverson is as successful as he ever could have been talent wise because he was born smaller than other NBA players, whereas other players didn't work as hard with what they had and despite having bodies better suited for success, they didn't succeed as much.

Tmac did as well as you could expect with what he had. None of us can make assumptions about his back not hurting him because we don't know. What place would I have to say "oh he wasn't in any actual pain because he played well"? What if he could have played better? You have posters on here pretending to be doctors when I'm sure they barely can get through high school (Jacks3 and Alphawolf, but that's expected I guess from trolls. Fact is doctors said the condition would limit him and he wouldn't play more than 4 years of professional basketball. He's played 12. He hasn't been healthy throughout them, but tripling doctor's predictions with your own work is hardly what I'd call lazy. It's his congenital condition that limited what people saw of his hard work, not the other way around.


id actually never heard that his back condition was congenital and so serious, so if thats the case, then that changes things a bit.

but regardless of health, his own coach jeff van gundy, and the mogul of amateur basketball, sonny vacarro both said that he didnt work very hard. i think vacarro said that he had more potential than any player he had ever seen. so whether or not he could have played through the pain, that im not disputing, because as you say, only t-mac knows, and theres no reason to think he lieing, when two high profile people like JVG and vacarro both question your work ethic, you've got to believe that there's some truth to that.

[Dave3]

id actually never heard that his back condition was congenital and so serious, so if thats the case, then that changes things a bit.

but regardless of health, his own coach jeff van gundy, and the mogul of amateur basketball, sonny vacarro both said that he didnt work very hard. i think vacarro said that he had more potential than any player he had ever seen. so whether or not he could have played through the pain, that im not disputing, because as you say, only t-mac knows, and theres no reason to think he lieing, when two high profile people like JVG and vacarro both question your work ethic, you've got to believe that there's some truth to that.
Just one extra thing to note, it's not just about playing through the pain, but also being limited physically by the scoliosis. I don't know too much about the condition but I'm pretty sure its limit on athletes is more than just pain, but possibly flexibility or strength etc. Not sure though.

I'd like to see when those people mentioned Tmac's work ethic though. Very curious about that.

[The_Yearning]

The reason T-Mac stopped working so hard was because by the time T-Mac got to Houston, his back was already on their last limbs and he had to put the whole team on his back...

It eventually gave out. Van Gundy has never coached a more talented player than McGrady.

[chips93]

The reason T-Mac stopped working so hard was because by the time T-Mac got to Houston, his back was already on their last limbs and he had to put the whole team on his back...

It eventually gave out. Van Gundy has never coached a more talented player than McGrady.

maybe

but given the fact that van gundy obviously knows more than you, or I, or any fan, i feel he has a more valid opinion on this than any of us.

[ZaoMing]

Peak Tmac> Peak kobe

[Jacks3]

01/03/06/07/08 Kobe> Any version of T-mac.

[eliteballer]

You are way, way overstating T-Mac's physical condition. NBA teams have their own medical staffs. The insurance companies which insure the contracts have their own medical staffs. They routinely find conditions on players way more obscure than scoliosis.

...yet we are to believe a high school coach knew more than them:oldlol:

Fact is...T-macs health issues didnt really start until he added a lot of weight in Houston which his body couldnt handle, and the injuries which really did him in were his knees.

[ShaqAttack3234]

TMAC was not past his prime in Houston....he just had to play in a system with one of the best centers in the league....that's the point most of you guy's are missing...TMAC was putting up great Numbers but his teams were horrible....and even when he had great teams (Houston) he still ruined chemistry and failed to make any post season impact.

:roll: Watch T-Mac from '06 on and tell me he was the same player that he was in Houston. The point is that when T-Mac was in his prime, he had scrub teams, except for 2005, and even then his team wasn't THAT good and he played very well in the playoffs.


So the Lakers "underachieved" after coming off of 3 straight NBA Finals and losing to the NBA Champions..:roll: that's funny.....after all TMAC on a scrub team in the EAST (who would have never sniffed the postseason in the West) chokes again....but somehow his team overachieved???....

yes, the '03 Magic overachieved, that team was so horrible that I doubt they'd have even won 20 games without T-Mac, and they had no business winning more than 1 game max vs Detroit. For proof, look at game 2 when T-Mac scored 46 on 16/26 shooting and the rest of his team scored 31 points on 11/42 shooting.

And yes, the '03 Lakers underachieved. No way should that team have only won 50 games with 2 of the top 5 players in the league. A lot of that wasn't Kobe's fault and more of the blame falls on Shaq and an aging supporting cast, but Kobe has to get some blame as well.

He did play unbelievably well after December and carried the Lakers a lot, but he didn't play as well in the playoffs and certainly could've played better in the Spurs series.


anyone with a oz. of basketball knowlege could see Kobe was far and away a better allaround player and a much better defensive player....

Kobe was a better defensive player, but he wasn't making some huge impact at that end consistently in 2003, as was usually the case when he was scoring a ton, he didn't consistently play his best defense. He would step up and play great defense at times, but then again, so did T-Mac. So defense isn't that big of an issue here.

Their scoring ability was close, and on his best night, Bryant was an even better scorer, but T-Mac was more consistent and efficient and did so without anyone to take pressure off of him and keep defenses from focusing entirely on him.

T-Mac was every bit as good of a passer and playmaker, if not better and rebounding was pretty much a wash.


NO I can clearly state Kobe was far and away a better player then TMAC...I knew it then and I sure know it now.

Oh well, if YOU can state it then I guess that's all that matters.


yet even when he played on Great teams he still had similar results

The version of T-Mac we saw in Orlando didn't have great teams so that's irrelevant to how good T-Mac was in his prime Orlando years.


...except when he was injured his teams did better without him...

Really? Hm, well lets see.

2006 Rockets
With McGrady- 27-20
Without McGrady- 7-28

2007 Rockets
With McGrady- 50-21
Without McGrady- 2-9

2008 Rockets
With McGrady- 46-20
Without McGrady- 9-7

Yeah, they were much better without him. :facepalm



Just more of your B.S......Played with arguably the best Center in the NBA for 2 - 4 years and still failed miserably with a great team

Yao was the best center for just 2 years(2007 and 2008) and by that point, T-Mac wasn't the same player that he was in his prime. Not only that, but Yao missed 34 games in 2007 and then 27 games + the playoffs in 2008.


and to all these Kids blinded by flashy moves.....TMAC is like Adrian Dantley....I don't here anyone comparing him to the GOAT's of the 80's


Ironic coming from some clown whose biggest argument is always the word of the "casual fan". :roll:


01/03/06/07/08 Kobe> Any version of T-mac.

This statement can be corrected in two ways.


06/07/08 Kobe> Any version of T-mac.

or...


01/03/06/07/08 Kobe> Any version of T-mac except 03.

[juju151111]

:roll: Watch T-Mac from '06 on and tell me he was the same player that he was in Houston. The point is that when T-Mac was in his prime, he had scrub teams, except for 2005, and even then his team wasn't THAT good and he played very well in the playoffs.



yes, the '03 Magic overachieved, that team was so horrible that I doubt they'd have even won 20 games without T-Mac, and they had no business winning more than 1 game max vs Detroit. For proof, look at game 2 when T-Mac scored 46 on 16/26 shooting and the rest of his team scored 31 points on 11/42 shooting.

And yes, the '03 Lakers underachieved. No way should that team have only won 50 games with 2 of the top 5 players in the league. A lot of that wasn't Kobe's fault and more of the blame falls on Shaq and an aging supporting cast, but Kobe has to get some blame as well.

He did play unbelievably well after December and carried the Lakers a lot, but he didn't play as well in the playoffs and certainly could've played better in the Spurs series.

.

Kobe was a better defensive player, but he wasn't making some huge impact at that end consistently in 2003, as was usually the case when he was scoring a ton, he didn't consistently play his best defense. He would step up and play great defense at times, but then again, so did T-Mac. So defense isn't that big of an issue here.

Their scoring ability was close, and on his best night, Bryant was an even better scorer, but T-Mac was more consistent and efficient and did so without anyone to take pressure off of him and keep defenses from focusing entirely on him.

T-Mac was every bit as good of a passer and playmaker, if not better and rebounding was pretty much a wash.



Oh well, if YOU can state it then I guess that's all that matters.



The version of T-Mac we saw in Orlando didn't have great teams so that's irrelevant to how good T-Mac was in his prime Orlando years.



Really? Hm, well lets see.

2006 Rockets
With McGrady- 27-20
Without McGrady- 7-28

2007 Rockets
With McGrady- 50-21
Without McGrady- 2-9

2008 Rockets
With McGrady- 46-20
Without McGrady- 9-7

Yeah, they were much better without him. :facepalm




Yao was the best center for just 2 years(2007 and 2008) and by that point, T-Mac wasn't the same player that he was in his prime. Not only that, but Yao missed 34 games in 2007 and then 27 games + the playoffs in 2008.



Ironic coming from some clown whose biggest argument is always the word of the "casual fan". :roll:



This statement can be corrected in two ways.



or...
:applause:

[lilojmayo]

I think the reason we embrace him so much and even overrate him at times is because assuming he wasn't injury prone and didn't play with such bad talent no question dude would have at least a ring. Nobody realizes this guy arguably was better than PRIME Kobe. Kobe is now moving into talks as the 2nd best SG ever and moving up the GOAT list. Imagine if Tracy could stay healthy, was on a great team and worked as hard as Kobe? He would of been right there next to Kobe right now as the 2nd best SG's ever.

Tracy was a bigger Kobe who was a superior playmaker and IMO smarter all around player. Tracy also could block shots on a regular basis.

How exactly is Tmac overrated? He is the most talented basketball player ever, that underachieved in his NBA career due to injuries and some say work ethic.

[millwad]

How exactly is Tmac overrated? He is the most talented basketball player ever, that underachieved in his NBA career due to injuries and some say work ethic.

Haha, Liloj, easy homeby!

[RRR3]

How exactly is Tmac overrated? He is the most talented basketball player ever, that underachieved in his NBA career due to injuries and some say work ethic.
:applause: :applause: :applause:

[chips93]

How exactly is Tmac overrated? He is the most talented basketball player ever, that underachieved in his NBA career due to injuries and some say work ethic.

this

except it depends on if you consider a good mentality a 'talent'