If I were a big man wishing to improve my post game, I would want to have McHale teach me. If I were a coach and I must run a play where the ball goes into the post, I would choose Hakeem to be that post player. If I were starting a team and had a choice between Hakeem and McHale... wait, that's not what this thread is about. So why are there posts talking about how McHale never won a championship without Bird?
Judging by offensive efficiency, though, McHale was much more efficient (in terms of points scored per possession used), so I think McHale's use of a larger variety of moves does make a difference. During Hakeem's most efficient year, he had an TS% of .577 and an ORtg of 114. McHale's most effienct year had him with a TS% of .656 and an ORtg of 126. Both of them, of course, used a large # of possessions and scored a ton of points. However, objectively, it would seem that McHale was harder to be stopped from scoring than Hakeem was.
I'm a big fan of Mchale, but we also need to factor in that Hakeem was the main scorer in his team his entire career, defense would focus mainly on him. Kevin had better teammates and therefor the defense couldn't focus on him as much as on Hakeem.
Agreed. McHale had Larry Bird and other talented players around him. However, even when Bird missed almost all of the 88/89 season, Kevin McHale still managed a TS% of .608 and a ORtg of 120 while leading the Celtics in scorign with 22.5 points a game in 37 mpg (Robert Parish, Danny Ainge and a young Reggie Lewis were the other main scorers on that team that won 42 games despite the loss of Bird). The guy was simply an exceptionally efficient low-post scorer.
The 86 finals was one heck of a series. So much talent on the same court. <iframe width="425" height="349" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/NPOT-liQ25o" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
