If cuttino were 6'7" ?

thacabbage · Feb 15, 2000

Freak, it's not the number of years you have been in the league. The body just tends to break down as you get older. Taller players can rely on their size when they lose that athleticism, while smaller guys, like Isiah, can't.

Right now, Cuttino Mobley is giving his all-out 100% effort, and has maximized his potential. He is not going to get that much better than where he is at right now. It's not like he is some athletically extreme player who still hasn't mastered his fundamentals and is still developing. He has fully developed, and he has everything down. He will not get that much better.

Tracy McGrady on the other hand is just scraping the surface of where his ability can take him. He is straight out of high school and is just now learning the ropes and fundamentals of the game. He is relying pretty much on his athletic ability at this point. Wait until he learns how to play the game, and starts getting regular minutes.

Little O · Feb 15, 2000

The famous trade Cuttino for McGrady argument rears its head again.

I really don't understand the debate completely though.

People who advocate obtaining McGrady at the cost of Mobley argue that

a) Mobley is out of control --this is very difficult to rebuttle, since often Mobley is out of control. But basketball is a learning process. Things take time. Kobe was once out of control pretty much all of the time too, but has just recently begun to show that he can play under control. Giving up on someone for this reason, I do not think is a good enough argument alone. And personally I think McGrady has not always been under control either. Remember McGrady does have an extra year of experience (at the pro level) than Mobley has.
b) McGrady plays better defense (or at least blocks more shots) --If you compare Mobley and McGrady's stats, you will notice that Mobley averages more steals while McGrady averages more blocks. This is very difficult to argue about statistically since Mobley and McGrady play different positions and McGrady by virtue of his position will have more opportunities for blocks than Mobley will. Numerous announcers (not saying they know anything) have both said that each of these player plays good defense.
c) our weakness is at small forward --no denying that, but by trading Mobley, will our weakness become our bench? McGrady will ask for a lot of money over the summer and that will make it very difficult to obtain good bench help. Right now we do not have a low post threat and that is a more pressing need than another perimeter/slasher. It seems that a low post scorer is a larger threat.
d) McGrady has so much potential --I will talk about that below.
e) McGrady is younger --It's been argued above that age might not matter as much as we might think. I think that years of NBA play also will determine how long a player plays. Just because you are young doesn't mean you will become good either and stay that way. Look at Shawn Kemp. Excellent player when he was younger but now... ???
f) McGrady is a better shooter --Of course McGrady is. If all of your shots are mostly dunks, your percentage ought to be really high too. If you look at their statistics, Mobley shoots 6X as many threes as McGrady. And I would consider the three a more difficult shot than a dunk. This is not to say that Mobley should be excused since a lot of these threes are ill advised, but he does have to shoot the threes because a) he needs to keep the defense honest and b) Rudy I imagine wants him to take them in the context of the offense.

MCGRADY HAS MORE POTENTIAL???

I am not so sure.

What is potential? --That is difficult to answer. But I think we can all agree that at its core it is the ability to improve.

If you look at Mobley's and McGrady's ( I am discounting McGrady's first year for the sake of space) statistics below, you will notice I have calculated the percentage of improvement or lack of. I know that there are other things that could have affected their stats, like changes in position, but for now we will discount that.

The first thing to consider is the percentage of change in minutes between the two. McGrady's
minutes have increased by nearly 20% while Mobley's have increased by only 4%. This means that
McGrady has had more opportunities this year to produce, which means that naturally we would
expect his production to increase. On the other hand, Mobley's minutes have not increased by
that much, yet his percentage increases in nearly all categories match McGrady's.

If potential is the ability to improve, it seems that Mobley has just as much as McGrady, if not
more due to the fact that Mobley has not seen the second factor of increased minutes enter
the picture also.

This is just my opinion though. I am sure there are a lot of intangibles out there to be argued
about, but statistically speaking. McGrady is not really better than Mobley.

<TABLE BORDER CELLSPACING=1 BORDERCOLOR="#000000" CELLPADDING=2 WIDTH=100%><TR><TD WIDTH="11%" VALIGN="TOP" COLSPAN=2 HEIGHT=17>Tracy McGrady</TD><TD VALIGN="TOP" HEIGHT=17></TD><TD VALIGN="TOP" HEIGHT=17></TD><TD VALIGN="TOP" HEIGHT=17></TD><TD VALIGN="TOP" HEIGHT=17></TD><TD VALIGN="TOP" HEIGHT=17></TD><TD VALIGN="TOP" HEIGHT=17></TD><TD VALIGN="TOP" HEIGHT=17></TD><TD VALIGN="TOP" HEIGHT=17></TD><TD VALIGN="TOP" HEIGHT=17></TD><TD VALIGN="TOP" HEIGHT=17></TD><TD VALIGN="TOP" HEIGHT=17></TD><TD VALIGN="TOP" HEIGHT=17></TD><TD WIDTH="11%" VALIGN="TOP" COLSPAN=2 HEIGHt=17>REBOUNDS</TD><TD VALIGN="TOP" HEIGHT=17></TD><TD VALIGN="TOP" HEIGHT=17></TD></TR><TR><TD VALIGN="TOP" HEIGHT=17>YR</TD><TD VALIGN="TOP" HEIGHT=17>TM</TD><TD VALIGN="TOP" HEIGHT=17>G</TD><TD VALIGN="TOP" HEIGHT=17>MIN</TD><TD VALIGN="TOP" EIGHT=17>FGA</TD><TD VALIGN="TOP" HEIGHT=17>PCT</TD><TD VALIGN="TOP" HEIGHT=17>FTA</TD><TD VALIGN="TOP" HEIGHT=17>PCT</TD><TD VALIGN="TOP" HEIGHT=17>3PA*</TD><TD VALIGN="TOP" HEIGHT=17>PCT</TD><TD VALIGN="TOP" HEIGHT=17>BLK</TD><TD VALIGN="TOP" HEIGHT=17>ST</TD><TD VALIGN="TOP" HEIGHT=17>TO</TD><TD VALIGN="TOP" HEIGHT=17>PF</TD><TD VALIGN="TOP" HEIGHT=17>OFF</TD><TD VALIGN="TOP" HEIGHT=17>TOT</TD><TD VALIGN="TOP" HEIGHT=17>AST</TD><TD VALIGN="TOP" HEIGHT=17>PTS</TD></TR><TR><TD VALIGN="TOP" HEIGHT=17>98-99</TD><TD VALIGN="TOP" HEIGHT=17>Tor</TD><TD VALIGN="TOP" HEIGHT=17>49</TD><TD VALIGN="TOP" HEIGHT=17>22.6</TD><TD VALIGN="TOP" HEIGHT=17>7.9</TD><TD VALIGN="TOP" HEIGHT=17>43.6</TD><TD VALIGN="TOP" HEIGHT=17>3.2</TD><TD VALIGN="TOP" HEIGHT=17>72.6</TD><TD VALIGN="TOP" HEIGHT=17>35</TD><TD VALIGN="TOP" HEIGHT=17>22.9</TD><TD VALIGN="TOP" HEIGHT=17>1.3</TD><TD VALIGN="TOP" HEIGHT=17>1.1</TD><TD VALIGN="TOP" HEIGHT=17>1.6</TD><TD VALIGN="TOP" HEIGHT=17>1.9</TD><TD VALIGN="TOP" HEIGHT=17>2.4</TD><TD VALIGN="TOP" HEIGHT=17>5.7</TD><TD VALIGN="TOP" HEIGHT=17>2.3</TD><TD VALIGN="TOP" HEIGHT=17>9.3</TD></TR><TR><TD VALIGN="TOP" HEIGHT=17>99-00</TD><TD VALIGN="TOP" HEIGHT=17>Tor</TD><TD VALIGN="TOP" HEIGHT=17>44</TD><TD VALIGN="TOP" HEIGHT=17>27</TD><TD VALIGN="TOP" HEIGHT=17>11.5</TD><TD VALIGN="TOP" HEIGHT=17>46.9</TD><TD VALIGN="TOP" HEIGHT=17>4.6</TD><TD VALIGN="TOP" HEIGHT=17>67.6</TD><TD VALIGN="TOP" HEIGHT=17>30</TD><TD VALIGN="TOP" HEIGHT=17>20</TD><TD VALIGN="TOP" HEIGHT=17>1.9</TD><TD VALIGN="TOP" HEIGHT=17>1</TD><TD VALIGN="TOP" HEIGHT=17>2.2</TD><TD VALIGN="TOP" HEIGHT=17>2.4</TD><TD VALIGN="TOP" HEIGHT=17>1.7</TD><TD VALIGN="TOP" HEIGHT=17>5.1</TD><TD VALIGN="TOP" HEIGHT=17>2.8</TD><TD VALIGN="TOP" HEIGHT=17>14.1</TD></TR><TR><TD VALIGN="TOP" BGCOLOR="#ffffff" HEIGHT=17> </TD><TD VALIGN="TOP" BGCOLOR="#ffffff" HEIGHT=17></TD><TD VALIGN="TOP" GCOLOR="#ffffff" HEIGHT=17>G</TD><TD VALIGN="TOP" BGCOLOR="#ffffff" HEIGHT=17>MIN</TD><TD VALIGN="TOP" BGCOLOR="#ffffff" HEIGHT=17>FGA</TD><TD VALIGN="TOP" BGCOLOR="#ffffff" HEIGHT=17>PCT</TD><TD VALIGN="TOP" BGCOLOR="#ffffff" HEIGHT=17>FTA</TD><TD VALIGN="TOP" BGCOLOR="#ffffff" HEIGHT=17>PCT</TD><TD VALIGN="TOP" BGCOLOR="#ffffff" HEIGHT=17>3P*</TD><TD VALIGN="TOP" BGCOLOR="#ffffff" HEIGHT=17>PCT</TD><TD VALIGN="TOP" BGCOLOR="#ffffff" HEIGHT=17>BLK</TD><TD VALIGN="TOP" BGCOLOR="#ffffff" HEIGHT=17>ST</TD><TD VALIGN="TOP" BGCOLOR="#ffffff" HEIGHT=17>TO</TD><TD VALIGN="TOP" BGCOLOR="#ffffff" HEIGHT=17>PF</TD><TD VALIGN="TOP" BGCOLOR="#ffffff" HEIGHT=17>OFF</TD><TD VALIGN="TOP" BGCOLOR="#ffffff" HEIGHT=17>TOT</TD><TD VALIGN="TOP" BGCOLOR="#ffffff" HEIGHT=17>AST</TD><TD VALIGN="TOP" BGCOLOR="#ffffff" HEIGHT=17>PTS</TD></TR><TR><TD VALIGN="TOP" BGCOLOR="#ffffff" HEIGHT=17>Totals</TD><TD VALIGN="TOP" BGCOLOR="#ffffff" HEIGHT=17></TD><TD VALIGN="TOP" BGCOLOR="#ffffff" HEIGHT=17>157</TD><TD VALIGN="TOP" BGCOLOR="#ffffff" HEIGHT=17>22.1</TD><TD VALIGN="TOP" BGCOLOR="#ffffff" HEIGHT=17>8.2</TD><TD VALIGN="TOP" BGCOLOR="#ffffff" HEIGHT=17>45.3</TD><TD VALIGN="TOP" BGCOLOR="#ffffff" HEIGHT=17>3</TD><TD VALIGN="TOP" BGCOLOR="#ffffff" HEIGHT=17>70.1</TD><TD VALIGN="TOP" BGCOLOR="#ffffff" HEIGHT=17>106</TD><TD VALIGN="TOP" BGCOLOR="#ffffff" HEIGHT=17>26.4</TD><TD VALIGN="TOP" BGCOLOR="#ffffff" HEIGHT=17>1.3</TD><TD VALIGN="TOP" BGCOLOR="#ffffff" HEIGHT=17>0.9</TD><TD VALIGN="TOP" BGCOLOR="#ffffff" HEIGHT=17>1.5</TD><TD VALIGN="TOP" BGCOLOR="#ffffff" HEIGHT=17>1.8</TD><TD VALIGN="TOP" BGCOLOR="#ffffff" HEIGHT=17>1.9</TD><TD VALIGN="TOP" BGCOLOR="#ffffff" HEIGHT=17>4.9</TD><TD VALIGN="TOP" BGCOLOR="#ffffff" HEIGHT=17>2.1</TD><TD VALIGN="TOP" BGCOLOR="#ffffff" HEIGHT=17>9.7</TD></TR><TR><TD VALIGN="TOP" HEIGHT=17></TD><TD VALIGN="TOP" HEIGHT=17></TD><TD VALIGN="TOP" HEIGHT=17></TD><TD VALIGN="TOP" HEIGHT=17></TD><TD VALIGN="TOP" HEIGHT=17></TD><TD VALIGN="TOP" HEIGHT=17></TD><TD VALIGN="TOP" HEIGHT=17></TD><TD VALIGN="TOP" HEIGHT=17></TD><TD VALIGN="TOP" HEIGHT=17></TD><TD VALIGN="TOP" HEIGHT=17></TD><TD VALIGN="TOP" HEIGHT=17></TD><TD VALIGN="TOP" HEIGHT=17></TD><TD VALIGN="TOP" HEIGHT=17></TD><TD VALIGN="TOP" HEIGHT=17></TD><TD VALIGN="TOP" HEIGHT=17></TD><TD VALIGN="TOP" HEIGHT=17></TD><TD VALIGN="TOP" HEIGHT=17></TD><TD VALIGN="TOP" HEIGHT=17></TD></TR><TR><TD VALIGN="TOP" EIGHT=17></TD><TD VALIGN="TOP" HEIGHT=17></TD><TD VALIGN="TOP" HEIGHT=17></TD><TD VALIGN="TOP" HEIGHT=17>19.47%</TD><TD VALIGN="TOP" HEIGHT=17>45.57%</TD><TD VALIGN="TOP" HEIGHT=17>7.57%</TD><TD VALIGN="TOP" HEIGHT=17>43.75%</TD><TD VALIGN="TOP" HEIGHT=17>-6.89%</TD><TD VALIGN="TOP" HEIGHT=17>-14.29%</TD><TD VALIGN="TOP" HEIGHT=17>-12.66%</TD><TD VALIGN="TOP" HEIGHT=17>46.15%</TD><TD VALIGN="TOP" HEIGHT=17>-9.09%</TD><TD VALIGN="TOP" HEIGHT=17>37.50%</TD><TD VALIGN="TOP" HEIGHT=17>26.32%</TD><TD VALIGN="TOP" HEIGHT=17>-29.17%</TD><TD VALIGN="TOP" HEIGHT=17>-10.53%</TD><TD VALIGN="TOP" HEIGHT=17>21.74%</TD><TD VALIGN="TOP" HEIGHT=17>51.61%</TD></TR><TR><TD VALIGN="TOP" HEIGHT=17></TD><TD VALIGN="TOP" HEIGHT=17></TD><TD VALIGN="TOP" HEIGHT=17></TD><TD VALIGN="TOP" HEIGHT=17></TD><TD VALIGN="TOP" HEIGHT=17></TD><TD VALIGN="TOP" HEIGHT=17></TD><TD VALIGN="TOP" HEIGHT=17></TD><TD VALIGN="TOP" HEIGHT=17></TD><TD VALIGN="TOP" HEIGHT=17></TD><TD VALIGN="TOP" HEIGHT=17></TD><TD VALIGN="TOP" HEIGHT=17></TD><TD VALIGN="TOP" HEIGHT=17></TD><TD VALIGN="TOP" HEIGHT=17></TD><TD VALIGN="TOP" HEIGHT=17></TD><TD VALIGN="TOP" HEIGHT=17></TD><TD VALIGN="TOP" HEIGHT=17></TD><TD VALIGN="TOP" HEIGHT=17></TD><TD VALIGN="TOP" HEIGHT=17></TD></TR><TR><TD WIDTH="11%" VALIGN="TOP" COLSPAN=2 HEIGHT=17>Cuttino Mobley</TD><TD VALIGN="TOP" HEIGHT=17></TD><TD VALIGN="TOP" HEIGHT=17></TD><TD VALIGN="TOP" HEIGHT=17></TD><TD VALIGN="TOP" HEIGHT=17></TD><TD VALIGN="TOP" HEIGHT=17></TD><TD VALIGN="TOP" HEIGHT=17></TD><TD VALIGN="TOP" HEIGHT=17></TD><TD VALIGN="TOP" HEIGHT=17></TD><TD VALIGN="TOP" HEIGHT=17></TD><TD VALIGN="TOP" HEIGHT=17></TD><TD VALIGN="TOP" HEIGHT=17></TD><TD VALIGN="TOP" HEIGHT=17></TD><TD WIDTH="11%" VALIGN="TOP" COLSPAN=2 HEIGHT=17>REBOUNDS</TD><TD VALIGN="TOP" HEIGHT=17></TD><TD VALIGN="TOP" HEIGHT=17></TD></TR><TR><TD VALIGN="TOP" HEIGHT=17>YR</TD><TD VALIGN="TOP" HEIGHT=17>TM</TD><TD VALIGN="TOP" HEIGHT=17>G</TD><TD VALIGN="TOP" HEIGHT=17>MIN</TD><TD VALIGN="TOP" HEIGHT=17>FGA</TD><TD VALIGN="TOP" HEIGHT=17>PCT</TD><TD VALIGN="TOP" HEIGHT=17>FTA</TD><TD VALIGN="TOP" HEIGHT=17>PCT</TD><TD VALIGN="TOP" HEIGHT=17>3PA*</TD><TD VALIGN="TOP" HEIGHT=17>PCT</TD><TD VALIGN="TOP" HEIGHT=17>BLK</TD><TD VALIGN="TOP" HEIGHT=17>ST</TD><TD VALIGN="TOP" HEIGHT=17>TO</TD><TD VALIGN="TOP" HEIGHT=17>PF</TD><TD VALIGN="TOP" HEIGHT=17>OFF</TD><TD VALIGN="TOP" HEIGHT=17>TOT</TD><TD VALIGN="TOP" HEIGHT=17>AST</TD><TD VALIGN="TOP" HEIGHT=17>PTS</TD></TR><TR><TD VALIGN="TOP" HEIGHT=17>98-99</TD><TD VALIGN="TOP" HEIGHT=17>Hou</TD><TD VALIGN="TOP" HEIGHT=17>49</TD><TD VALIGN="TOP" HEIGHT=17>29.7</TD><TD VALIGN="TOP" HEIGHT=17>8.3</TD><TD VALIGN="TOP" HEIGHT=17>42.5</TD><TD VALIGN="TOP" HEIGHT=17>2.2</TD><TD VALIGN="TOP" HEIGHT=17>81.8</TD><TD VALIGN="TOP" HEIGHT=17>148</TD><TD VALIGN="TOP" HEIGHT=17>35.8</TD><TD VALIGN="TOP" HEIGHT=17>0.5</TD><TD VALIGN="TOP" HEIGHT=17>0.9</TD><TD VALIGN="TOP" HEIGHT=17>1.6</TD><TD VALIGN="TOP" HEIGHT=17>2</TD><TD VALIGN="TOP" HEIGHT=17>0.4</TD><TD VALIGN="TOP" HEIGHT=17>2.3</TD><TD VALIGN="TOP" HEIGHT=17>2.5</TD><TD VALIGN="TOP" HEIGHT=17>9.9</TD></TR><TR><TD VALIGN="TOP" HEIGHT=17>99-00</TD><TD VALIGN="TOP" HEIGHT=17>Hou</TD><TD VALIGN="TOP" HEIGHT=17>50</TD><TD VALIGN="TOP" HEIGHT=17>30.9</TD><TD VALIGN="TOP" HEIGHT=17>11.9</TD><TD VALIGN="TOP" HEIGHT=17>41</TD><TD VALIGN="TOP" HEIGHT=17>4.2</TD><TD VALIGN="TOP" HEIGHT=17>83.7</TD><TD VALIGN="TOP" HEIGHT=17>177</TD><TD VALIGN="TOP" HEIGHT=17>33.3</TD><TD VALIGN="TOP" HEIGHT=17>0.3</TD><TD VALIGN="TOP" HEIGHT=17>1.2</TD><TD VALIGN="TOP" HEIGHT=17>2.1</TD><TD VALIGN="TOP" HEIGHT=17>2</TD><TD VALIGN="TOP" HEIGHT=17>0.7</TD><TD VALIGN="TOP" HEIGHT=17>3.1</TD><TD VALIGN="TOP" HEIGHT=17>2.7</TD><TD VALIGN="TOP" HEIGHT=17>14.4</TD></TR><TR><TD VALIGN="TOP" BGCOLOR="#ffffff" HEIGHT=17> </TD><TD VALIGN="TOP" BGCOLOR="#ffffff" HEIGHT=17></TD><TD VALIGN="TOP" BGCOLOR="#ffffff" HEIGHT=17>G</TD><TD VALIGN="TOP" BGCOLOR="#ffffff" HEIGHT=17>MIN</TD><TD VALIGN="TOP" BGCOLOR="#ffffff" HEIGHT=17>FGA</TD><TD VALIGN="TOP" BGCOLOR="#ffffff" HEIGHT=17>PCT</TD><TD VALIGN="TOP" BGCOLOR="#ffffff" HEIGHT=17>FTA</TD><TD VALIGN="TOP" BGCOLOR="#ffffff" HEIGHT=17>PCT</TD><TD VALIGN="TOP" BGCOLOR="#ffffff" HEIGHT=17>3PA*</TD><TD VALIGN="TOP" BGCOLOR="#ffffff" HEIGHT=17>PCT</TD><TD VALIGN="TOP" BGCOLOR="#ffffff" HEIGHT=17>BLK</TD><TD VALIGN="TOP" BGCOLOR="#ffffff" HEIGHT=17>ST</TD><TD VALIGN="TOP" BGCOLOR="#ffffff" HEIGHT=17>TO</TD><TD VALIGN="TOP" BGCOLOR="#ffffff" HEIGHT=17>PF</TD><TD VALIGN="TOP" BGCOLOR="#ffffff" HEIGHT=17>OFF</TD><TD VALIGN="TOP" BGCOLOR="#ffffff" HEIGHT=17>TOT</TD><TD VALIGN="TOP" BGCOLOR="#ffffff" HEIGHT=17>AST</TD><TD VALIGN="TOP" BGCOLOR="#ffffff" HEIGHT=17>PTS</TD></TR><TR><TD VALIGN="TOP" BGCOLOR="#ffffff" HEIGHT=17>Totals</TD><TD VALIGN="TOP" BGCOLOR="#ffffff" HEIGHT=17></TD><TD VALIGN="TOP" BGCOLOR="#ffffff" HEIGHT=17>99</TD><TD VALIGN="TOP" BGCOLOR="#ffffff" HEIGHT=17>30.3</TD><TD VALIGN="TOP" BGCOLOR="#ffffff" HEIGHT=17>10.1</TD><TD VALIGN="TOP" BGCOLOR="#ffffff" HEIGHT=17>41.6</TD><TD VALIGN="TOP" BGCOLOR="#ffffff" HEIGHT=17>3.2</TD><TD VALIGN="TOP" BGCOLOR="#ffffff" HEIGHT=17>83</TD><TD VALIGN="TOP" BGCOLOR="#ffffff" HEIGHT=17>325</TD><TD VALIGN="TOP" BGCOLOR="#ffffff" HEIGHT=17>34.5</TD><TD VALIGN="TOP" BGCOLOR="#ffffff" HEIGHT=17>0.4</TD><TD VALIGN="TOP" BGCOLOR="#ffffff" HEIGHT=17>1.1</TD><TD VALIGN="TOP" BGCOLOR="#ffffff" HEIGHT=17>1.9</TD><TD VALIGN="TOP" BGCOLOR="#ffffff" HEIGHT=17>2</TD><TD VALIGN="TOP" BGCOLOR="#ffffff" HEIGHT=17>0.6</TD><TD VALIGN="TOP" BGCOLOR="#ffffff" HEIGHT=17>2.7</TD><TD VALIGN="TOP" BGCOLOR="#ffffff" HEIGHT=17>2.6</TD><TD VALIGN="TOP" BGCOLOR="#ffffff" HEIGHT=17>12.2</TD></TR><TR><TD VALIGN="TOP" HEIGHT=17></TD><TD VALIGN="TOP" HEIGHT=17></TD><TD VALIGN="TOP" HEIGHT=17></TD><TD VALIGN="TOP" HEIGHT=17></TD><TD VALIGN="TOP" HEIGHT=17></TD><TD VALIGN="TOP" HEIGHT=17></TD><TD VALIGN="TOP" HEIGHT=17></TD><TD VALIGN="TOP" HEIGHT=17></TD><TD VALIGN="TOP" HEIGHT=17></TD><TD VALIGN="TOP" HEIGHT=17></TD><TD VALIGN="TOP" HEIGHT=17></TD><TD VALIGN="TOP" HEIGHT=17></TD><TD VALIGN="TOP" HEIGHT=17></TD><TD VALIGN="TOP" HEIGHT=17></TD><TD VALIGN="TOP" HEIGHT=17></TD><TD VALIGN="TOP" HEIGHT=17></TD><TD VALIGN="TOP" HEIGHT=17></TD><TD VALIGN="TOP" HEIGHT=17></TD></TR>
<TR><TD VALIGN="TOP" HEIGHT=17></TD><TD VALIGN="TOP" HEIGHT=17></TD><TD VALIGN="TOP" HEIGHT=17></TD><TD VALIGN="TOP" HEIGHT=17>4.04%</TD><TD VALIGN="TOP" HEIGHT=17>43.37%</TD><TD VALIGN="TOP" HEIGHT=17>-3.53%</TD><TD VALIGN="TOP" HEIGHT=17>90.91%</TD><TD VALIGN="TOP" HEIGHT=17>2.32%</TD><TD VALIGN="TOP" HEIGHT=17>19.59%</TD><TD VALIGN="TOP" HEIGHT=17>-6.98%</TD><TD VALIGN="TOP" HEIGHT=17>-40.00%</TD><TD VALIGN="TOP" HEIGHT=17>33.33%</TD><TD VALIGN="TOP" HEIGHT=17>31.25%</TD><TD VALIGN="TOP" HEIGHT=17>0.00%</TD><TD VALIGN="TOP" HEIGHT=17>75.00%</TD><TD VALIGN="TOP" HEIGHT=17>34.78%</TD><TD VALIGN="TOP" HEIGHT=17>8.00%</TD><TD VALIGN="TOP" HEIGHT=17>45.45%</TD></TR></TABLE>

[This message has been edited by Little O (edited February 15, 2000).]

gr8-1 · Feb 15, 2000

I think the general consensus here is that even if cuttino grows 4 inches (if there were a magic pill for that, please give it to me also) and he still maintains his skill (not really a given, considering you arent likely to be as skilled when you are taller, tracy mcgrady is more athletic, and a better skilled player.

I like cuttino alot, but i would love for the rockets to get mcgrady to fill our 3 spot. this is our biggest weakness, according to most of you.

Take the question a step further, is there a player in this years draft that is as talented at the 3 as mcgrady ? Morris peterson ? terrence morris (if he is coming out) ? Anybody else ? I dont think morris or peterson will be as successful as tracy.

------------------
"Don't they get cable in Canada ?" Keith olbermann, after watching hakeem block terry catledge's shot 5 times.

Da Man · Feb 15, 2000

"This is just my opinion though. I am sure there are a lot of intangibles out there to be argued
about, but statistically speaking. McGrady is not really better than Mobley."

Wrong. If you flat out take the statistics straight up, McGrady clearly has better statistics in every category except free throwing shooting %, 3P%, and steals. The steals category is barely noticeable if you make adjustments that Mobley averages 4 more minutes a game. Then the steal differential would be less than 0.1. Big deal. Potential is not the ability to improve. A better definition would be somewhere along the lines of how good can a player become. Hence, McGrady can get much better, Mobley can get marginally better, which isn't too bad.

Little O · Feb 15, 2000

Except that, if you look at the stats, Mobley scores more points, and averages less turnovers. So Mobley deos better in a few categories more. You can't argue that the extra four minutes will produce more production because it could also produce less (i.e. more fouls and more turnovers). The only categories where McGrady does better truly is in FG pct, blocks, and rebounds, and assists (but not by much).

All right, I will concede that the ability to improve is not the only definition of potential, but if a player never reaches their potential, then they are worthless.

Anyways, if we are going to say what a player can become, please tell me how you can say that McGrady has a higher ceiling than Mobley. Where do you see this? Is this just a feeling or can you actually back it up? Or is it the highlight reels of McGrady dunking on ESPN?

TheFreak · Feb 15, 2000

DaMan, DaCabbage --

I simply disagree. I'm talking about a player reaching his peak. A player coming into the league at an early age is going to reach his peak before someone like Cuttino. That doesn't mean that they're going to have more good years. A big man may very well be able to play longer than a small guy, but at reduced effectiveness. Robert Parish and Kareem were a joke their last few years in the league, just like Hakeem almost is now. This is because size can always be effective at least in some small way, for instance in clogging up the lane and contesting shots (see Thomas Hamilton), while a guard that's lost all his quickness really can't help in other ways. In that respect, I agree with Da Man, however that's not really what I'm saying. Somebody said that Cuttino would reach his peak at 28, and I disagree with that. McGrady will probably reach his peak at around 27, Mobley at maybe 31. McGrady will also retire before Mobley will. The total number of years they play will be close to even, IMO. Jordan's domination at age 35 had everything to do with his 2-year hiatus, I firmly believe that.

I'd also like to respond to a few of Cab's points:

Right now, Cuttino Mobley...is not going to get that much better than where he is at right now.

C'mon now. He's in his first full season as a pro! I know you don't really believe that Cab. I know I don't need to run down a list of guards that improved significantly after their first few years in the league. John Stockton comes to mind. Heck, look at Sam Cassell. Super sub his first couple of years, now he's probably the best point guard in the Eastern Conference (he was also a 24 year-old rookie <gasp!>). You yourself said that Cab. Cuttino still has a ton of room to improve, and he will get much better.

It's not like he is some athletically extreme player who still hasn't mastered his fundamentals and is still developing. He has fully developed, and he has everything down. He will not get that much better.

I know you don't really believe that! Make it right Cab, c'mon!

Tracy McGrady on the other hand is just scraping the surface of where his ability can take him. He is straight out of high school and is just now learning the ropes and fundamentals of the game. He is relying pretty much on his athletic ability at this point. Wait until he learns how to play the game, and starts getting regular minutes.

This is kind of like the Kevin Garnett vs. Tim Duncan argument. Remember that a college season is usually only about 30 games. When Tim Duncan was in college, getting his 'seasoning', Garnett was in the big leagues, getting approximately 160 games of on-the-job training (which would you rather have, 120 college games, or 160 pro games?). Yet he's still not as good as Duncan. Once again, it has nothing to do with age. McGrady's played about 160 games in his career so far, he's not 'straight out of high school'. If anybody has more room to improve, it's Cuttino, since he's played in about half the NBA games that McGrady's played in.

Cabbage, you know I love you, please don't take any of this personally. Just trying to have a friendly discussion.

gr8-1 · Feb 15, 2000

Little O, Potential in that tracy is 5 inches taller, is quicker, may develop a better jump shot, and is much more athletic. Really, I think tracy does have a higher ceiling.

My theory on the TO's : how much point does the cat play ? i dont think he plays very much, with francis and drew doing the ballhandling. Mcgrady plays a point forward type of game. Mcgrady also takes it to the whole more then cat, thus the potential for TO's may be greater.
I know cat has the ISo play, but he shoots many more jumpers then mcgrady.

The freak, If I were pete rose (a bettin' man), and we polled the GM's in the nba, I think, if given the choice, more then half would pick garnett over duncan. I would. There is no substitute for athleticism, although i love duncan's smooth , controlled game, I htink KG brings more to the table.

------------------
"Don't they get cable in Canada ?" Keith olbermann, after watching hakeem block terry catledge's shot 5 times.

gr8-1 · Feb 15, 2000

one more thing. parish and jabbar faded towards the end becuz they rely on a finesse type game. I think you lose quickness before strength as you get older. thus, a guy like shaq may be able to play well into his late 30's.

Besides, jabbar and parish retired in their 40's, and they smoked alot. lol.

------------------
"Don't they get cable in Canada ?" Keith olbermann, after watching hakeem block terry catledge's shot 5 times.

Da Man · Feb 15, 2000

I'm not sure if Jabbar skills were too bad in his last few years. I think he did win 87 finals MVP in his 2nd to last year.

We can't really compare Duncan/Garnett with Mobley and McGrady. For one, Duncan and Garnett are both 24. They've played relatively the same number of games during the time Garnett declared early and Duncan entered the NBA. Their talent and production level are rather close according to most GM's. Just like how you made the point about Garnett playing 160 games in the pros and Duncan playing 120 games in college and Garnett still wasn't better. McGrady only played 64 games in the pros before Mobley entered the league with 120 games in college under his belt. Also, the fact that Mobley has already played over 220 games since he left high school and McGrady only playing 157 games since high school, don't you think McGrady is going to improve his game by a substantial margin with over 60 more games. Of course. The fact that McGrady produces better overall numbers right now with fewer games played since high school and 5 years younger in life, I think you can be safe in saying that theoretically McGrady has the higher potential ceiling.

"Somebody said that Cuttino would reach his peak at 28, and I disagree with that. McGrady will probably reach his peak at around 27, Mobley at maybe 31. McGrady will also retire before Mobley will. The total number of years they play will be close to even, IMO. Jordan's domination at age 35 had everything to do with his 2-year hiatus, I firmly believe that."

Age has a lot to do with when an athlete reaches his peak. What good guard ever reached their peak in their early 30's. (Actually, you could probably argue Cassell is at his peak now and he's 30 i believe) Don't tell me Michael Jordan cuz I guarantee you the Michael Jordan from the 1st Bulls' Championship would have killed the Michael Jordan in the last Bulls' Championship. I can't think of a good guard at the age of 31 being at in his prime. And I'm willing to bet McGrady doesn't retire before Mobley. Just think of the logistics. If McGrady decides to retire at 35, which is pretty early, that means Mobley won't retire until he's 40. I don't think so. He's a slightly undersized 6'4", skinny 2 guard who relies on his quickness for his points. Common! Unless you have outstanding shooting abilities, a guard that relies on his athleticism to be successful is not going to last long. Who's the last guard overall to ever play until their 40th birthday?

I just can't see how you can discount the sheer age factor. If I've been playing basketball since I was 5 and a guy 5 years younger than me has been playing since he was 5,yet he's a better player than me as of this moment. In all probability, that younger guy is probably going to be the better player in the longer run. 5 more years of playing basketball for that young man will surely make a difference in his game. Give McGrady 5 years and see what happens.

Will · Feb 15, 2000

If Cuttino were 6'7" . . .

. . . I'd be 6'4".

sir scarvajal · Feb 17, 2000

I don't think Mobley's talent ceiling (if based on being 6"4" and good--but not phenomenal--quickness) is that much of an issue here. In this respect his "talent" isn't much different than that of Dumars, Hornecek or more old schoolers like Sidney Moncrief or a Dennis Johnson. If we think Mobley will have a career like any of these four guys I would do what it takes to keep him even if it puts a squeeze on SA, which it would. I don't think a guy performing at this level will sit on the bench in his peak. Further, there have been plenty of super-athletic guys (Kenny Walker, Gerald Wilkens, Richard Dumas, Chris Morris) in the mold of McGrady that I would never trade for if I would lose one of the players I mentioned above in the Mobley mold. Being a great basketball player takes a lot more than a 6' 8" frame, quickness, and mad hopes (takes mental and physical toughness, shooting touch, etc.)--though the former abilities are really, really nice to have.

Overall, I am not convinced either way that McGrady or Mobley will have the better individual career, there are so many factors in play that we really don't know more than an educated guess. Still, if I thought I could keep McGrady for the long-haul (THIS IS A BIG IF), I would pull a Mobley (+ extra) for McGrady trade. Mainly I feel this way because of position. If Mobley continues to improve it will be hard to keep Francis, him and SA happy, let alone nearly impossible to keep them happy and have a fine frontcourt in these days of salary cap. And I think SA can be only a part time player at SF (I don't think this is a long-term solution either), he just doesn't have the size to play the Garnetts, Rahims and Odoms out there.

So rather than possibly losing Mobes or SA which would likely happen if Mobley continues to imporve (and if he doesn't improve than we made a good trade anyway), if I could I would rather place my bets on putting Francis, Anderson & McGrady in the starting small positions for the future. I would not be surprised if we lose a touch of offensive punch (Mobley may always be the tougher individual to guard, this is not far-fetched), but even if this is true I think there is a good chance it would be more than offset by having a ferocious base defense grounded on aggressive wing play of Steve-SA-TMac (all relatively quick, tall, long and strong for their positions) with Cato and TMac and maybe another rebounding/defensive 4/5) also cleaning up the middle. Personally, I think Mobley can be a great player, and T-Mac can be a great player, but I just like how T-Mac might be able to compliment our guys better. If I am Toronto however, I see a lot of duplicity in Carter and T-Mac, and have concerns about T-Mac staying. Mobley would be one of the first guys I might try to get (probably also ask for Drew or Thomas or a future pick in addition), especially if I might T-Mac for nothing.

Oh, I didn't mention the if Mobes was 6'7" thing because he isn't,-- and I think it is a good enough debate even though he is three inches shorter.

[This message has been edited by sir scarvajal (edited February 17, 2000).]

gr8-1 · Feb 17, 2000

good point sir scarvajal. but, mcgrady is a totally different player then guys like gerald wilkins (pure scorer), kenny walker (athletic leaper), and richard dumas (drug problems.

None of these guys can handle the ball as well as Mcgrady. He simply brings alot more to the table. There arent many 6'8" guys (yet ) that can do what Mcgrady does.

But you are correct, we really cant gauge who will have a better career, but my money would be on tracy. I would be overjoyed if Cat had a dumars like career.

------------------
"Don't they get cable in Canada ?" Keith olbermann, after watching hakeem block terry catledge's shot 5 times.

Houston Rocks · Feb 18, 2000

If Hakeem was 8 foot 8 inches, do you think that it would matter?

verse · Feb 18, 2000

have to chime in here....

potential is a simple equation IMO:

talent + work ethic = POTENTIAL CEILING

TALENT: cuttino

you'd think tracy has more talent than cuttino does, what with the rim rattlers and all. but, talent, IMO, is a matter of the positive impact a person has on a game with the ball in his hands. if you want to talk "athleticism (rim rattlers and highlight films)" it'd be mcgrady. however, "talent" is more than hops. it's the impact you have on the GAME not the rim.

both cuttino and mcgrady present matchup problems for other teams. cuttino's lightning quick first step and tracy's ability to shoot over his man are both effective. however, the reason to go with cuttino over tracy, is if you take the strong points of their offense (cuttino = penetrating, shooting & running; mcgrady = posting smaller players, shooting & running), cuttino is the player who creates more havoc on the court. every time he touches the ball, at least 2 players have to defend him. that is, when he isn't hoisting up ill-advised j's (same goes for t-mac).

WORK ETHIC: cuttino

easy. cuttino has improved his game to the point of being a serious weapon on the court. this while undergoing a position change from pg to sg, and a role change from starter to instant-offense-off-the-bench.

mcgrady's main criticism throughout his career has been his work ethic. previous coaches have said that he doesn't work hard in practice, nor does he try to improve his game. in other words, he's relying almost completely on talent. now that may excite some people to think "wow, how good will he be when he starts to work hard." but for me, you're asking for a migraine. work ethic is like the aforementioned "talent": either you have it or you don't.

the only way people acquire work ethic is when that which they value is taken away from them. well, in the nba, where you make $8-10 million per, it's hard to take something away.

POTENTIAL CEILING:

MOBLEY has more desire in this game. that weighs in like a heavyweight in bball. how many times have you guys seen a scrappy team beat a talented team? why? because they flat out wanted it more. i think cat wants it more than t-mac.

t-mac wants the maximum salary in his new contract. what for? what have you shown the ability to do, other than shoot 40% from the field on a team with vinsanity "double-team/half-man-half-amazing" carter? he's made it apparent that he doesn't plan on being a raptor his entire career. does this sound like a dedicated, hard worker to you?

don't get me wrong, i love t-mac's athleticism. it is gr8er than cat's. it is close to vince's. but his heart, from what i've seen, isn't.

that said, i'd take him on my team in a heartbeat. i'd roll the dice in the free agent market on t-mac every day and 2X on sunday. however, for the reason's listed, along with the unmentioned relationship between francis/mobes/cato, i don't think a mobes for tmac trade is a "no brainer."

so, would i trade tmac for mobes???

reluctantly, yes.

why? not because he's so much more "talented" or has a "higher potential". only because he's a big 2 guard. and with a small pg and a smallish sf (anderson) i'd like to see more size in our backcourt.

mobes, IMO, will be just as good, if not a better player than tmac. but not on this rocket's team.

it's not always as easy as "take the most talented or highest potential player." you have to build for comparative team need.

sorry so lengthy

[This message has been edited by verse (edited February 18, 2000).]

[This message has been edited by verse (edited February 18, 2000).]

Forums

If cuttino were 6'7" ?

thacabbage Contributing Member

Little O Contributing Member

gr8-1 Contributing Member

Da Man Contributing Member
Supporting Member

Little O Contributing Member

TheFreak Contributing Member

gr8-1 Contributing Member

gr8-1 Contributing Member

Da Man Contributing Member
Supporting Member

Will Clutch Crew
Supporting Member

sir scarvajal Member

gr8-1 Contributing Member

Houston Rocks Member

verse Contributing Member

Share This Page

About ClutchFans

Rockets Content

Support ClutchFans!

If cuttino were 6'7" ?

thacabbage Contributing Member

Little O Contributing Member

gr8-1 Contributing Member

Da Man Contributing Member Supporting Member

Little O Contributing Member

TheFreak Contributing Member

gr8-1 Contributing Member

gr8-1 Contributing Member

Da Man Contributing Member Supporting Member

Will Clutch Crew Supporting Member

sir scarvajal Member

gr8-1 Contributing Member

Houston Rocks Member

verse Contributing Member

Share This Page

Da Man Contributing Member
Supporting Member

Da Man Contributing Member
Supporting Member

Will Clutch Crew
Supporting Member