Peak DWade or Peak TMac?

[ShaqAttack3234]

2002-03 McGrady
32.1 PPG
6.5 RPG
5.5 APG
1.7 SPG
0.8 BPG
45.7% from the field
38.6% from downtown
56.4 TS%
50.5 eFG%
30.3 PER
116 offensive rating
104 defensive rating


2008-09 Wade
30.2 PPG
5.0 RPG
7.5 APG
2.2 SPG
1.3 BPG
49.1% from the field
31.7% from downtown
57.4 TS%
51.6 eFG%
30.4 PER
115 offensive rating
105 defensive rating

I think that while looking at the numbers, it's also important to factor in that the league was tougher defensively in 2003. '98-'04 was without question tougher defensively than the league has been before or since, imo.

2003 league averages
Defensive rating- 103.6
ppg- 95.1
FG%- 44.2%
eFG%- 47.4%
TS%- 51.9%

2009 league averages
Defensive rating- 108.3
ppg- 100
FG%- 45.9%
eFG%- 50%
TS%- 54.4%

The differences are too big to ignore, imo, bigger than Wade's advantages in eFG% which is 52% vs 51% and TS% which is 57% vs 56%. Then you have McGrady's edge of 32 ppg vs 30 ppg.

McGrady's scoring season was not only more impressive statistically, but watching the 2 seasons, McGrady seemed more complete and unstoppable as a scorer in 2003 than Wade in 2009 due to his height advantage of 3-4 inches, at least equal athleticism, superior shooting ability(both off the dribble and catch and shoot) and I think he was a better off the ball player.

McGrady has the advantage as a rebounder(yes mainly due to his height advantage, but because they played the same position, the advantage can't be used against him).

Assist numbers favor Wade(though he was more turnover prone, but I don't actually think he was a better passer. T-Mac also averaged 6.5 apg in 2007 when he didn't have the same athleticism and without looking like he could make any passes that he couldn't in 2003 which proves that assist numbers don't necessarily reflect passing ability.

I think 06 Wade was better than 09 Wade..Not by stats but he had much more agressive playing style both on defense and offense.

Because of that agression in early years I'll go with Wade.Since injury he has a lot "out of focus" games even if he scores high.

I disagree, he played aggressively in 2009 at both ends, and added to his game. He never shot the ball as well as he did in 2009 in any other season. He played the best basketball of his life in the 2006 ECF and Finals, but as far as overall ability as a player and consistency over a season, I'd take 2009 Wade over 2006 Wade.

I doubt 2006 Wade would've even gotten the 2009 Heat to the playoffs.

[RRR3]

More efficient in 2003 than Kobe? I agree; however he's never been more efficient than 2006-2008 Kobe which is what I thought we were debating.



Kobe dragged a cast of clowns into the postseason too; in a deeper/better conference faring much better (talking about individual play here).

It's close but it's clear that Kobe was better when you take into account the other aspects I've posted (defense, postseason-play, supporting casts, etc).

Okay, first of all, T-Mac's 2002-03 supporting cast is worse than ANYTHING Kobe has ever played with. Secondly, although Kobe was certainly a better defender, the gap was not that large in some years (particularly) in 2000-01, 2004-05, and 2006-07. McGrady's size did make him a more versatile defender, though as I said, Kobe was the better defender. Finally, when Kobe has been on teams that are anywhere close to as bad as McGrady's team in 2002-03, he has achieved the exact same results: a first round exit (and blowing a 3-1 lead one year, same as T-Mac) or missing the playoffs completely. And in those brief postseasons, he did not play any better than McGrady did in his years with Orlando.

[RRR3]

Game over.

Not really, but at least catch24 is making his case in a respectful manner, and not just being an immature dickhead.

[NugzHeat3]

I'd take Wade but its really close. TMac was simply amazing that year, shame he couldn't sustain that level of play or even come close to it.

Stats are roughly a wash when you factor in rule changes but the intangibles give Wade the edge as far as I am concerned.

[RRR3]

Here's another way to look at it:
I don't think any version of Kobe (or Wade for that matter) could have done more than what T-Mac did on the Magic in 2002-03. There's certainly a good case to be made that he could have produced very similar results, but I fail to see how he would do more with that shitty team. We often hear about LeBron leading a terrible team to finals in 2007, but T-Mac's cast in 2002-03 makes LeBron's team look like the ****ing showtime Lakers.

[catch24]

Okay, first of all, T-Mac's 2002-03 supporting cast is worse than ANYTHING Kobe has ever played with.

What I'm saying is that Kobe's cast was nearly as atrocious AND that he fared better in a tougher Western Conference (5+ teams won 50+ games while in the EC, just two teams barely scratched 50).

I do agree that the defense isn't some monumental gap, but it's significant enough to point out when you're comparing players.

Finally, when Kobe has been on teams that are anywhere close to as bad as McGrady's team in 2002-03, he has achieved the exact same results

But played better. Like I said, his supporting cast wasn't exactly top drawer either.

[NugzHeat3]

Here's another way to look at it:
I don't think any version of Kobe (or Wade for that matter) could have done more than what T-Mac did on the Magic in 2002-03. There's certainly a good case to be made that he could have produced very similar results, but I fail to see how he would do more with that shitty team. We often hear about LeBron leading a terrible team to finals in 2007, but T-Mac's cast in 2002-03 makes LeBron's team look like the ****ing showtime Lakers.

Quality of supporting cast doesn't make a player better or worse. Its the level of play they play at or sustain. Supporting cast matters when you bring team results into account because players normally have no control over who they play with.

Kobe, TMAC or Wade weren't going to win it all if they replace Iverson on the 2001 Sixers but they would have performed better and they would have an easier time getting to the finals instead of going 7 games with Milwaukee and Toronto. Does that mean Iverson is as good as any of them? No.

[RRR3]

What I'm saying is that Kobe's cast was nearly as atrocious AND that he fared better in a tougher Western Conference (5+ teams won 50+ games while in the EC, just two teams barely scratched 50).

I do agree that the defense isn't some monumental gap, but it's significant enough to point out when you're comparing players.



But played better. Like I said, his supporting cast wasn't exactly top drawer either.

In the years when Kobe had a poor supporting cast, he played no better than McGrady did in the playoffs with Orlando.

[RRR3]

Quality of supporting cast doesn't make a player better or worse. Its the level of play they play at or sustain. Supporting cast matters when you bring team results into account because players normally have no control over who they play with.

Kobe, TMAC or Wade weren't going to win it all if they replace Iverson on the 2001 Sixers but they would have performed better and they would have an easier time getting to the finals instead of going 7 games with Milwaukee and Toronto. Does that mean Iverson is as good as any of them? No.

True, and a good point. I'm not saying this proves anything on my part, it was just something to consider. I would also say that Iverson in 2001 had a better supporting cast than T-Mac on the Magic, Kobe in the post-Shaq pre-Twin Towers years, and Wade post-Shaq pre-Big 3 years.

[catch24]

In the years when Kobe had a poor supporting cast, he played no better than McGrady did in the playoffs with Orlando.

I'd take 28/6/5 on 50%FG/59%TS/55%eFG and 33/5/4 on 46%FG/56%TS/50%eFG with better defense against a better team over 32/7/5 on 45%/56%TS/50%eFG any day.

[NugzHeat3]

True, and a good point. I'm not saying this proves anything on my part, it was just something to consider. I would also say that Iverson in 2001 had a better supporting cast than T-Mac on the Magic, Kobe in the post-Shaq pre-Twin Towers years, and Wade post-Shaq pre-Big 3 years.

I agree. That's why I was saying the quality of the supporting cast can often skew things when comparing individuals.

I like using the 2001 Iverson example because people act as if other star wings couldn't have produced similar results. They were never going to beat LA in the finals but a finals appearance isn't out of the question.

[kaiiu]

If you're a sucker for deep shooting range, and guys who can make bad shots you take McGrady. If you value efficiency and winning, you'll side with Wade's brand of basketball(as most coaches and top tier basketball executives would).

What the hell has Wade done without a good team around him?

[kaiiu]

Tmac and it aint even close. Tmac was a top 5 player in his prime with all those stars back then. Wade wouldnt even be relevant if he played in the early 2000s

[RRR3]

I'd take 28/6/5 on 50%FG/59%TS/55%eFG and 33/5/4 on 46%FG/56%TS/50%eFG with better defense against a better team over 32/7/5 on 45%/56%TS/50%eFG any day.

Those are the regular season numbers, not the playoff numbers and it has often been said thatKobe's defense was not as good in those years as it was in his earlier years. I am not saying it was or wasn't, I am just putting that out there.

[catch24]

Those are the regular season numbers, not the playoff numbers and it has often been said thatKobe's defense was not as good in those years as it was in his earlier years. I am not saying it was or wasn't, I am just putting that out there.

These are both players numbers from the postseason.