Over the last few days there has been much ado about Tracy McGrady and where and if he’s going to play. Media outlets have run with the story, in my opinion unfairly, how he is more trouble than he’s worth at this point in his career. There has been much hand-wringing around his departure from Houston and his “character issues”.
Given the typical media rush to judgement on this sort of thing I decided to take a rational look at the numbers for Tracy McGrady and see if a team should risk giving him the minimum NBA salary.
These are the Facts:
As the Table shows, T-Mac was at one point in his career a .300 WP48 player before injuries reduced his effectiveness.- The last three years have in essence been lost to him due to multiple injuries (back,shoulder & knee). His knee injuries typically have a 2 year recovery time
- As recently as 2009 he was an above average player at SF.
- In limited action last year T-Mac was a below average player
Now there are three possible rational conclusions to reach:
- Scenario A:T-Mac is done an effective NBA player
- Scenario B:T-Mac can contribute as an outstanding role or bench player (around .100 WP48)
- Scenario C:T-Mac can recover to be an effective starter who can help a winning team (around .150 WP48 or greater)
If this was twenty years ago, scenario A would be a heavy favorite with B being possible and C unlikely. But it isn’t. Medical science has come a long way and there is a reasonable expectation that T-Mac recovers 80% + of his effectiveness. Why do I think this ? Let’s look at exhibit A:
Grant Hill much like T-Mac was once a >.300 WP48 player before injuries derailed his career. His catastrophic injury cost him the 2004 season. But as we can see his later career neatly fits into scenario B (role & bench player). I honestly believe that T-Mac can come back and at least deliver as much as an average player at his position and given his low cost (veteran minimum) there are many teams that could take a risk on him. Given his age, he may at best still have a few above average seasons left in him and at worst give you some effective minutes.
As for the fit with the Bulls, let’s take a look at the shooting guards and small forwards currently on their roster:
The Bulls if one assumes that Brewer starts at SG and Deng at SF have two above average players at those positions. Korver is a decent backup and T-Mac would also have to start in this role. I think he could be effective but at the end of the day the Bulls hopes lie with Brewer and Deng. So while I do think he’s definitely worth a shot on a team in need of low priced veterans who can score (are you listening Celtics) I don’t think he’s a good fit for the Bulls.
Arturo's Silly Little Stats v2.0 
nerdnumbers
07/27/2010
Arturo,
I know we’re planning on making guesses on the outcome of the season. Here’s a possible idea for one of your upcoming posts. Which player will be the biggest X-Factor is guesses. A healthy Chandler, Oden McGrady in the West could literally shift a team several playoff spots. A few ignored “bench players” in Balkman or Blair (with his WP48 and the alternatives he was woefully underplayed) could shift teams as well.
Anyway I would love to see a healthy T-Mac on Boston. I would also love Denver to trade Melo to Boston for Rondo. . . .
arturogalletti
07/27/2010
Andres,
I’ve got the analysis for four posts in the can (Hint: One musn’t forget the past when looking at the future). I can do the x-factor post after the prof. does the underrated/overrated posts. I’m hoping to do one on players who could be posed to make the leap (football outsiders style) and I could include all large source of variation.
I would love to see T-Mac in Boston simply because we have minutes for him. We can rest Pierce and Allen. As for Rondo, my precious, can’t have my precious.
Chicago Tim
07/28/2010
Hmm. Maybe the Bulls should offer the unguaranteed minimum simply to keep McGrady from joining Boston! But that would be cruel.
Actually, this is exactly what I was trying to say in one of my comments to an earlier post. Thanks for backing it up with statistics!
But would the Celtics be better off with McGrady than with a player who already knows their system, Eddie House?
TBall
07/28/2010
Last year, the C’s only backup SF with 100 minutes played and a WP48 above 0 was Michael Finley. They need an effective backup to Pierce to be competitive in the games in which Pierce is unavailable. Unfortunately, they just signed Marquis Daniels to camp in that void again.
jbrett
07/28/2010
Arturo,
It seems to me that in recent years, the SF spot has been LeBron and a bunch of average guys; for that reason alone, it would make sense to take a flyer on McGrady. If he returns to even close to his old form, he could easily vault to top five or ten at the position; if he doesn’t, you got him on the cheap.
In the same vein, Chicago Tim brought up the idea, over at WoW, that the player who outperforms his position by the most (or perhaps the highest # of standard deviations) is actually more valuable than players with higher raw production but similarly productive performers at their positions. Any thoughts on 1) how to define Most Valuable? and 2) who over the last 30-odd years has been the most above his peers? Have to think MJ or Magic, but I’m willing to be surprised.
arturogalletti
07/28/2010
jbrett,
I would think Magic without looking at the data but it would be interesting to see. I would be curious about Barkley and Rodman too. So Std Devs above the mean versus position then maybe add that over time? Sound like a cool post for friday.