What are we going by most efficient? FG%, efG, TS%?

According to this list, McHale is only 13th all time in TS%, behind the likes of Barkley, Maxwell, Gilmore and Donaldson as well as guys picked such as Magic, STockton and Miller.

http://www.basketball-reference.com/...ct_career.html

By FG%, he's 11th, behind a bunch of greats.

http://www.basketball-reference.com/...ct_career.html

I remember SOMEONE ELSE bringing it up and asking me why I liked it, and I said that I didn't like it but it was the best defensive stat we had. I never brought it up as a means of arguing for or against a player except with Duncan. Now I could be wrong, as we've been through a lot of debates here and its possible that I'm forgetting about an instance or two when I used it. Feel free to search and show me that I'm wrong, and I'll admit it.

You act like people constantly think I am wrong? People almost always agree with me on almost every subject about basketball, this is the only 2nd time I've had people gang up against me infact. The only other time was the Boston 3 championships thread where it turned out I ended up to be a lot more correct than the people ganging up on me.

I don't think you are a bunch of third graders, but with tons of the people constantly arguing against me on this point putting words into my mouth, it wouldn't shock me if u weren't that much older.

Apparently we're going by those types of stats, but if a player got some of his FG attempts through dunks like Amare then we're not going to count those. Basically we're doing whatever we can to make McHale look great...we'll eliminate certain stats from consideration because that player dunked a lot, we'll pretend certain players wouldn't have gotten hurt in our league, we'll pretend that a player is a better rebounder than his stats showed because he was hurt by his teamates, etc.

Edit that up homey. I didn't answer him b/c it was going to be really tough to w/o naming undrafted guys.

And that takes into account his rookie year (he was only 23 so it doesn't count) where he only shot .533 and his final 2 years where he only shot .509 and .459 when he was playing on no ankle. Take these out, and his fg% is much much higher. It also doesn't take into account that his prime was only 2 years because he got hurt.

But who cares about "creating your own shot." Yes Amare needs a PG to throw him those alley oops. But guess what? In this draft hes going to have a PG perfectly capable of doing it. Unless we're playing one-on-one, I don't see why this matters at all. Basketball is a team sport. If Amare can hit a better eFG% but needs 4 teamates to do it then thats ok because he'll have 4 teamates.

On the injury thing, it seems like you guys are all changing your tune. If McHale's injury was a freak injury, then treat it as such. If it was something predictable, then again we'll treat it as such. Like we originally said (paraphrased) "just because a player got injured IRL doesn't mean he'll get injured in this."

You don't think everyone else on the list had low beginnings and probally crappy endings? Most of the guys on the list are retired or at the end of their runs.

bump

LOL, missed this earlier.

Hint: tbach24 didn't not grade his own team because he didn't think his own team was near the top. He didn't grade his own team because he realized that he'd be naturally biased and he wanted to remove bias from his posts.

I hate basketball-reference bias when you go to compare players and it will bring up the peaks of one player but show the entire career of the other. Why would they do that?

once you start throwing stuff out, cause he was this or that, it seems to defeat the purpose imho.

Again...LOL@ bolded part. You think you're so much smarter than everyone else....its funny really.

Epipen, you're killing me here. You have many valid points, but your conclusions are a bit over the top, and your arguments are not well articulated. That combined with the fact that you admit not actually seeing much of McHale's actual games, ruins any credibility you might have, despite the validity of some of your points.

I'm 26, a Celtics fan, and saw a bit of McHale, though more towards the end of his career (more '88 and on than '86).

McHale was a superior defender. Many stars including Barkley openly admitted to hating to play the C's because of the way McHale locked them down. It is tough to compare him defensively to Duncan or Garnett, as the current era is much more geared towards team defense than 1 on 1. But in any event, he was clearly a plus-plus defender, whereas Barkley and Amare were/are liabilities.

Offensively, there was no one technically better than him. He had every move, every hook, up and under, dropstep, and turnaround in the book. Extremely effective on the block, and could also succeed in the running game.

Epipen, I agree that defense is important in this format, and as such I would take him over the likes of Barkley or Amare. But to say he is more valuable than Bird or Magic ruins any credibility to the argument.

McHale's career minutes per game is 31.0 and thats factoring in only 20.1 minutes in his rookie year and 25.0 and 23.3 minutes in his last two years. Remove those non-prime years and he was averaging 33+ mpg. In the last two years Amare has averaged 32.8 and 33.9 minutes per game.

Therefore I don't think its fair to use the "but he didn't start" excuse. And if you really want to use that then just look at his stats per 36 minutes.

I already responded to this, did I not? My bumps were of things you never responded to.

I said I would take McHale over Bird or Magic but obv a case could be made (being that I def can see someone taking either over McHale and not bash it at all and I would take Bird/Magic if this was an ordinary NBA era ie. just one era not 30 years of players). I just feel that offense is so deep, that getting someone who can play BOTH elite offense and defense is at a premium.

I am glad u actually saw McHale play, and agree with me on a lot of points I made where others who didn't see him play didn't. I am also glad u said u would take him over Barkley, as I clearly would too.

no u didn't admit or deny.

But EPipen told us that anyone who actually knows basketball would agree with him. How could so may people be disagreeing with him then??? We must not know basketball.

Did u read what he said? He said he WOULD take McHale over Barkley, which is the exact point i've been arguing for the last few days and agreed on a ton of other points I made as well.

post #4027 I denied that I brought it up, although I admitted that its certainly possible that I had an argument, brought it up, and forget about doing so. I then challenged you to find me bringing it up.

My memory isn't perfect, so I'm not going to 100% deny anything; All I can do is tell you what I remember.

Again, you bring up Barkley. I havn't argued a single thing about Barkley today. I'm arguing your statement that McHale's offense is >>(thats two greater than signs) Amare's offense.

Other sideplots of this was your stance that McHale is > Barkley, Magic, and Bird in this format. The above poster agree with you on ONE of those and disagreed on TWO of those. Of course you spin that into him agreeing with you.

ok my fault I didn't see that

My stance was that I couldnt fault anyone for taking Bird/Magic over them, I personally would but I obv wouldn't bash/and would understand why they would take Bird/Magic. But I would def take McHale over Barkley.

You urself might not have argued the Barkley part, but tons of OTHERS did.