The Inevitability of Comment

by Xiane on Dec 29, 2009 1:42 PM CST

I find myself in a strange position once again. I know I probably shouldn't bring up mundane details after OaL's rather nice eulogy for McGrady The Rocket, and Tom's fine piece of writing suggesting a healthy mental outlook. But... But... Well, you know I'd have to write something about this eventually. I tried to resist, I promise. So, I'm in an odd position as I don't dislike McGrady as much as the "haters" and I don't find as much to admire in him as his supporters. I'm on the record as saying I find the evidence I have seen to be more suggestive of malice on the part of McGrady in certain cases than otherwise. I also believe his ego remains in 2002-3 while his body is in 2010 and I find that childish and unattractive, at best. Understanding does not compel approval. You are free to disagree, and many have.

For whatever reason, and despite his obvious talent and high career peak, I don't find McGrady as tragic or grand a figure, or story, as those mentioned in OaL's "Requiem for a TMac". We get to pick our favorites in this - for every Jeff Bagwell, there is a Karl Malone, who I will never like, but who is viewed (at least in Utah) as a figure of epic sporting tragedy. I of course, find Malone's supposed failures a fine and instructive example of cosmic justice rather than the process of pure randomness. Is that fair? Probably not. Is it wrong? Who's to say?

I think that following sports is slightly hollow if we regard every champion as simply a sort of lottery winner (how could Jordan really be THAT lucky?), and every non-champion as a worthy, but unfortunate, contender. It may be rational, and perhaps even correct, but I would suggest it doesn't answer certain core, and perhaps irrational, desires of sport.

Back To McGrady - I also honestly hoped that the Rockets and McGrady could reach a productive sort of detente this season. I wished that they might discover an accord that was mutually, and maximally beneficial to both sides. I honestly thought their interests were closely aligned. Once again it appears that McGrady's actions have dispelled that belief. (I'm not going to keep writing - 'of course we don't and can't know everything' just assume this dislaimer everywhere.) Despite earning income like a major enterprise, McGrady is an individual, and perhaps a less rational actor. Leaving aside the idea its probably best just to say "these things happen" and walk away because, well, yes they do for whatever reason, and with whatever culpability you may or may not choose to assign - what exactly has McGrady gained from this most recent incident?

I would say, at best, nothing. At worst, he remains a Rocket, away from the team, and his contract expires at season's end with him playing all of 47 minutes, despite being capable of playing more. I view this as a very real possibility after this latest incident. I don't believe that scenario was on the table before the Christmas Incident, and I think (for whatever it is worth) that it is now. McGrady's stated aim is to be a player, to get minutes, to prove he's not done, to resume his career and try to regain his former glory. Do we agree on this? If we do, I think we either have to say that he's not acting to further that interest, or that his possible underlying motives and stated aim are inconsistent. How does NOT playing assigned minutes, and demanding a trade help him do that? Did he think Houston wasn't shopping him already? Did he think putting an "All Inventory Must Go!" sign above his head would INCREASE the probability that Houston would get a deal that would work for them? Wouldn't it tend to get Houston ridiculous firesale offers, or trades that made the team worse for a long time (AKA Any Knicks Deal)?

I honestly think that McGrady has, whatever his reasons, greatly increased the chance that he will remain a Rocket and, if his current course continues, not play. There could be a great reconciliation right around the corner, but I would guess that the Rockets would rather keep McGrady, and wait for his contract to simply expire, than take a bad deal. By requesting a trade, and absenting himself from the team, I think McGrady lowered, rather than improved, his chance of getting what he's said he wanted.

Tweet Comment 10 comments | 1 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

I think that following sports is slightly hollow if we regard every champion as simply a sort of lottery winner (how could Jordan really be THAT lucky?), and every non-champion as a worthy, but unfortunate, contender. It may be rational, and perhaps even correct, but I would suggest it doesn’t answer certain core, and perhaps irrational, desires of sport.

Well, that’s not quite my contention. My point is that luck – simply being in the right place at the right time, but this may also include injuries, playoff matchups, etc – plays a much larger role than people give it credit for.

If Jordan isn’t quite as lucky, then maybe he ends up looking more like Kobe, Duncan, Dr. J, etc.: one of the greatest, but not other-worldly (it should be noted that I think this is about how he looks to most people. Even if he didn’t win quite as many championships, then the John Hollingers and Dean Olivers of the world would probably recognize his greatness).
If Jordan isn’t quite as good, he’d probably look about the same as those mentioned above: two or three championships, but no “three-peats.”
But if Jordan isn’t quite as good, and if he isn’t quite as lucky, then maybe he ends up looking like Barkley, Malone, or Gerving: fantastic player, but things never come together for him. Maybe (gasp!) he even gets labeled a “choker” or “selfish.”
That’s my point – the narratives we attach to players is obviously based on abilities. Jordan didn’t get to be Jordan purely by luck (unless you want to say physical ability is luck, and from many perspectives it is, but we’re going to skip that). But those narratives also rely a lot on random chance.
What would have happened if Tracy and Kobe’s birthdates were switched, and Kobe entered in ‘97, while Tracy entered in ’96? What would have happened if the Kobe-Shaq era were the T-Mac/Shaq era? Both players lives would be very, very different. No, this isn’t to say they’d just “switch.” Tracy’s a very different person from Kobe.
So before we say, “This player’s career was a failure,” we need to look at why it was a failure, beyond the obvious, and then appreciate that player’s accomplishments for what they are. In Tracy’s case, his accomplishments lie in being the 2nd generation of the Pippen-like swingmen: wing players who could do everything pretty well, but who could score better than anyone. He was the LeBron prototype, if you will. And his tragedies make those accomplishments all the more stark.

The Dream Shake

by Only_A_Lad on Dec 29, 2009 2:11 PM CST reply actions

Fair point.

I wasn’t really trying to make your argument into a straw man, as to just reference it. Sorry if I didn’t do it justice.

And of course luck/randomness plays a huge role. The Bulls never met the Rockets in the finals, the Rockets never met the Bulls. This is sheer chance, and unfortunate, I think for Hakeem and the Rockets’ legacy.

I’m not even prepared to call TMac’s career a failure, except inasmuch as it didn’t reach the heights his talent and accomplishment suggested it could. I’m really not assigning moral blame for that either, as I don’t think there is any on the performance side of things. I’ve really tried to confine my McGrady remarks more to the business side of his behavior rather than the sporting one.

I think the last 10-15 years in basketball has seen a number of fascinating category-breaking players – not only have we had the super-swingmen, we’ve also seen bigs-with-range and a few almost unclassifiable players like Yao and LeBron. (The most unclassifiable player to me remains Magic Johnson, however.)

Also, an aside on Kobe. I know much has been made on “Kobe won a championship without Shaq!” Well, ok. But he did have 3 All-Star 7 footers, in the place of Shaq – it’s not like the difficulty level rose somehow.

by Xiane on Dec 29, 2009 3:27 PM CST up reply actions

I wasn’t really trying to make your argument into a straw man, as to just reference it. Sorry if I didn’t do it justice.

No, it’s a fair enough criticism. It’s frequently alleged (mostly by the stereotyped old baseball writers) that sabermetricians and other stats-analysts reduce the game to “mere chance.” Hopefully, this clears up some of what we (and by “we” I mean those of us who are analytical fellow-travelers, rather than actual statisticians) mean here.

Also, an aside on Kobe. I know much has been made on "Kobe won a championship without Shaq!" Well, ok. But he did have 3 All-Star 7 footers, in the place of Shaq – it’s not like the difficulty level rose somehow.

Of course. Pau Gasol’s greatness gets pushed aside when writers make that statement. But teams are made up of a lot more than just the best two players (and his other teammates have rarely been stunningly good), and Kobe’s stats (as well as virtually everyone’s assessment of him) show him to be the greatest wing player in the game over the past decade (that’s not a statement on the silly Kobe v. Lebron “debate,” which to me is clearly decided in James’ favor and has been for some time; I’m just talking about overall production).
But that’s the thing, right? Kobe gets Pau in a ridiculously lopsided deal, and now he’s seen as unquestionably one of the greatest of all time. Nobody can criticize him at all, because of one championship earned without Shaq. Luck played a big part in how the narrative changed (rightly or wrongly).

The Dream Shake

by Only_A_Lad on Dec 29, 2009 3:47 PM CST up reply actions

The Hardwood Paroxysm post on T-mac is amazing as well.

http://www.hardwoodparoxysm.com/2009/12/29/have-respect-he-was-legend/

Don’t look back at his bad back, his micro-fractured knees and his inability to get out of the first round when his team wasn’t helping him out. Remember him for the incredible player he was. Hope that he can come back for a new team and help them win some games. We don’t want to remember our stars fading into obscurity. And I certainly don’t want to remember this Tracy McGrady as the player I reflect on.

by VBG on Dec 29, 2009 7:11 PM CST reply actions

What did the Rockets gain?

I agree with your analysis — McGrady gain nothing, not minutes and not a greater likelihood of being traded. But what in the world did the Rockets gain by not giving him a few more minutes, especially after Budinger was hurt? What would it hurt if McGrady played 15 min? Would it possibly take away some of the time that Ariza has to throw up brick after brick after brick? What if Tmac never did work back into form? Would the Rockets be any worse off than they are right now (1st round cannon fodder)? Tmac might return (10% chance of it) and if he returns to form, he is MUCH MUCH better than Trevor Ariza can ever possibly be. Trevor Ariza cannot shoot a basketball! A shooting guard that cannot shoot the ball is not worth much.

by Gulder_Roy on Dec 30, 2009 6:54 AM CST reply actions

That's a good point

I’m not sure the Rockets think they gained anything. I believe this was more of a “player minutes will not be determined by player complaints” sort of thing. As principles for teams go, that’s one you have to stick to I think. Chris Paul may be able to get a coach dismissed, and to partly run the show, but McGrady is not in that position.

I think you have to view players in total, and while Ariza’s 3pt barrage is going wide of the mark, it must be something he’s told to do, because his history suggests a player who will play as instructed. So while Tracy, if healthy, is obviously the choice, McGrady as he is now, isn’t. There’s no guarantee that vast improvement will come with more minutes. I would have liked to have seen if it would or not.

I honestly think that McGrady’s unwillingness to accept his new role, and new reality (of having no leverage) meant that seeing what he can do became impossible for the Rockets. There is no way that a team built on unselfish, egoless, play can give in to increased PT demands from McGrady. The incident in the fall should have made that obvious to him, but apparently not. He remains tone deaf, and has not accomplished his purpose in the bargain.

I’m not sure the Rockets view themselves as cannon fodder anyway, and if they do, they are certainly not going to act that way. Who’s to say they are? Their record against good teams suggests that unless the matchup is bad, they have a shot. There are a couple of teams that Houston just can’t beat, but how is that position different from most playoff teams?

by Xiane on Dec 30, 2009 8:35 AM CST up reply actions

Cannon Fodder? Are you kidding me?

The Rockets last year were the only team to take the Lakers to 7 games. Sure, they lost game 7 badly, but Utah, Denver, and Orlando couldn’t even get THAT far (to force a game 7). To think that this team with no superstars had enough HUSTLE and HEART to go toe-to-toe with the eventual NBA Champs says something.

I would not have minded maybe working T-Mac in a little in the 3 quarter as well as the 1st, but its not up to me. I trust Adelman, and I damn sure trust Morey. I know its been said before, but didn’t he get Scola from the Spurs for a bag of chips?

by bigalshouseoflove on Dec 30, 2009 10:00 AM CST reply actions

So far...

they’ve split the 2 games with the supposedly 2 best teams in the league (Lakers & Cavs), with one game beating either team by 10. The Rockets are far from a pushover, and have the chance to beat most teams in a 7 game series.

T-Mac is like a chemical added to the solution that is the team. If he was the right one, he could’ve blended perfectly, but he refused to be the right one.

by bigalshouseoflove on Dec 30, 2009 10:09 AM CST reply actions

The lesson for everyone in all this is…

… that just because a man can sink a jump shot better than most doesn’t make him a genius.

When healthy, T-Mac is one helluva b-ball player. But that doesn’t make him another Einstein.

Yet, he seems to believe that he is still worth every penny of that big salary he’s getting this season and the truth is he is not… not even close… at all.

Right now there are guys playing for minimum who are much more productive than he is currently.

But you’ll never get McGrady to ever believe that. In his mind, he is the same guy he was back when he was leading the NBA in scoring. He believes he just needs to “knock the rust off”. But he is merely a shell of what he once was. He doesn’t want to believe he’ll need at least a year of playing limited minutes in order to make it all the way back… that is, if he will ever manage to make it all the way back.

Look, I hope that he will heal and make a comeback. But I think the Rockets need to move on and I am glad that it looks certain that they will.

T-Mac needs a fresh start, too. Things just didn’t work out in Houston for either him or the Rockets.

Time for both parties to move on…

I had to stop arguing with drunks, Steeler fans, and all other fools.
It was making my brick wall jealous...

by steeler-hater on Dec 31, 2009 7:12 AM CST reply actions

Tracy will never get all the way back to being 25.

I’m often amazed that guys who make that much aren’t better advised. How can his agent think this course of action is prudent? Or is his agent just happy to get 2.3 million off TMac this year and say “yes” to anything?

by Xiane on Dec 31, 2009 2:15 PM CST reply actions