Does Harden have the potential to be better than T-Mac in his prime?

Doesn't sound like much of stretch, since we've already got people in this thread who are claiming that a selfish player who took ALL the shots on a 42-40 team in 2003 was somehow better than Tim Duncan at his all-time best, when Duncan led his team to a league-leading 60-22 record and an NBA championship that year.

Some people are kind of dumb, I guess.

 

*ignores totality of the argument*

*fixates on one word or one stat instead*

*pretends that counts as argument*

 

Duncan was (still is) also a defensive force in addition to being the centerpiece of the Spurs offense.

 

Right on the target, Tracy is not a winner, he doesn't have it inside him.
He did not make his teammates better either.
For Harden, so far we don't know. It looks like he will achieve more than Tracy McGrady.

 

Look, everybody knows points per game is all that's important.

Just give the MVP trophy to whoever leads the league in scoring. Doesn't matter if he's just chucking more shots than anybody. Give it to the PPG leader. That's how this works.

oh lawd

 

We've already been through this, but you continue to ignore it: T-Mac wasn't "chucking" shots. He shot as efficiently as your Most Valuable Player - in fact, the exact same percentage, .564%.

 

It's like...we KNOW how this story plays out. The debate is over. But we're instead asked to go back in our time machines and pretend the next 9 years of Tracy McGrady's career didn't happen after 2003? Tim Duncan went right on being Tim Duncan. Kobe Bryant went right on being Kobe Bryant. And Tracy McGrady went right on losing to teams in a Chinese league.

But none of that happened? The sportswriters REALLY got that 2003 wrong, did they?

 

And T-Mac was a greater offensive force, scoring at much higher volume exactly as efficient as Duncan did on lower volume while assisting on much more of his team's baskets.

 

Funny some people said it was Artest who got us past the 1st round. I am always amazed by how people equate team success with individual success in a team sport.

I am also amazed by the fact that tinman has not complained in this thread about people talking about McGrady's Orlando days in the GARM.

 

Sounds to me like you don't know what the term even means, or else are trying to waste my time with a semantic, typical internet one-stat argument that in no way encapsulates the ways in which Tim Duncan was a better player than Tracy McGrady.

Let's try this.

What comes to mind when somebody says "volume scorer."

Spoiler: The answer shouldn't be "the MVP."

What about "defensive sieve."

Spoiler2: The answer shouldn't be "the MVP."


People have been mocked for making one-stat valuations when it comes to most PPG = MVP, and in your case I think you deserve the same treatment if you think TS% really deserves the same consideration.

 

No harder wont be better.... But he will be efficient and his team is already set up better than the Van Gundy era. But again, not even close to tmac.

 

BBeard, just ignore to be honest.

Comparing one of the greatest pf/c to a good sg/sf....heh
Having Tmac and Duncan in the same breath...heh

Scoring is not the tell all end all. Two time scoring champ (I'm a big chucker) = 0 rings (0 second round appearances lol) 0 mvp's


I was a huge Tmac supporter back in the days but to compare a prime mcgrady to prime duncan is a joke. There is nothing you can find to prove otherwise. (stats, intangibles etc) TD is a winner a champ, and screw the spurs. :grin:

 

Also people.... Luke Walton has a ring... Is he better than Mac? Common...

 

If Harden works on his game and actually cares about winning, then he's already better than Tmac.

If Harden can stay healthy, he'll be better than Tmac.

Harden will never touch Tmac in "wow, did you see that"-ness. In a playoff game against, I think, Milwaukee (Orlando not getting out of the first round, I believe), I almost literally s*** myself five times watching Tmac play. Poor Glenn Robinson could only walk away when Tmac smiled in his mug after posterizing him yet again.

And therein lies Tmac's downfall, a player so good he didn't seem to work on his game, as in, What can I do to actually be successful with my team, as opposed to just wowing the crowd?

Granted, not having Grant Hill didn't help. And having health problems can sap you of mental as well as physical strength.

But Tmac always reminded me of "Mush" in "A Bronx Tale". The mobster and his buddies at the horse track were screaming on their horse, who was well in the lead, when they suddenly overheard the perennial loser "Mush" nearby screaming on the same horse. They tore up their tickets right then and there and walked away, and, sure enough, the horse ran out of gas in the last furlough and didn't even place.

That was Tmac. Every team he was on, no matter if he was in his prime or a role player, never, ever, made it past the first round.

I don't see the problem with Harden. If he stays healthy, Morey is in a position to add to him, and can try to sidestep adding a perennially hurt player. Now watch Morey try to sign Andrew Bynum and prove me a liar.

 

well tmac had Gordan Giricek and Drew Gooden, not exactly the "big 3" type

 

Is this conversation really being had? smh..

 

tmac was also a good passer. he was the only one capable of feeding yao easy passes on a consistent basis

 

1) Efficient volume scorer
2) T-Mac wasn't a defensive sieve in 02/03, merely average.

You remarked on T-Mac's scoring efficiency. TS% directly measures scoring efficiency.

Maybe you should trace back to my original reply. Might do you some good.

 

T Mac in his prime is a VERY HIGH BAR to set for Harden. If Harden can stay focused on his game and continue to develop I don't see why he couldnt be better than T Mac in his prime.

 

A "chucker" is somebody who shoots and shoots and shoots indiscriminately, like his teammates aren't even there, and irrespective of whether the shots are falling or not. That is McGrady in a nutshell.

Pulling an advanced off of basketball reference and smugly pointing out that the shots were going in with the same frequency as they were with a legitimately great player who made his team better and won a championship that season in Duncan doesn't make McGrady "the same" as Duncan.

Following this stupid reasoning, Reggie Miller was a better player than Michael Jordan, because Miller led all players with a TS% of 65%, whereas poor MJ had a TS% of just 60%.

So obviously Reggie Miller should have won the MVP in 1991, and not Michael Jordan, right?

Because looking at the totality of a player's game would be too responsible and adult, it's better to just focus on one stat instead.