How would McHale fare in today's game?

[joeb]

7 ft tall, deceptively quick, very long arms, can guard 3s, 4s, and 5s, more post moves than you could imagine, good shot blocker, could hit the outside shot (with more range later in his career), good rebounder, fundamentally sound (did you ever see McHale get an offensive rebound and bring the ball down??? NOPE), came to play especially in big games...

...He's in the HoF for a reason, he's an MVP candidate every year if he's playing now (injuries aside of course).

I was at the game against Detroit on a Sunday afternoon in 1985 when he went for 56...I think Kent Benson fouled out on purpose. Should also point out that late in the game Bird made a point of getting him the ball, chided him after for not getting 60, then within a week or two got 60 for himself against the Hawks.

Kevin McHale is simply one of the best to ever play the game

[Fafnir]

Amazing how a guy who's career averages are around Glen Davis's, Brook Lopez's, and David West's is a rebounder in the hazy mists of time.

[arctic 3.0]

i modeled my own game after McHale, didn't translate to my 5'10 frame after highschool

[Inside-Out]

i modeled my own game after McHale, didn't translate to my 5'10 frame after highschool

Ditto.

My HS coach was from CT and was a Knicks fan...chewed me out constantly for anything resembling an unconventional move.  He was a go-up-straight guy.  We were lucky to win 4 games in a season.  Terrible coach, but a good guy.

[TripleOT]

If McHale came up in todays NBA, I'm sure about a couple of things

1) He would have made 8-10 times his career earnings.

2) Besides being a dominant low post scorer, he would have the threeball in his arsenal.  In the two season where he chose to take some threes, McHale shot 36%.  I saw him at a basketball camp drain like 20 threes in a row from the top in warm ups.  the guy had a great shooting eye. 

3) it's scary to thin about his potential at both ends with today's physical condition and weight training.  he had shoulders like a giant coat rack, long arms, and could get down in a defensive stance to take away shooting angles from SGs and PGs on switches.  (Remember Andrew Toney getting shut down on the final possession of game 6 in the classic Philly series 1981?)

[dysgenic]

It's weird, I guess I'm on an island on this one, but I think Kevin McHale is one of the most overrated Celtics.  I am NOT saying that he wasn't a great player, he was.  But I thought Dennis Johnson was a better player and I thought his defense especially was overrated.

dys

[Jon]

I have to say, it drives me crazy when people suggest that the old time Celtics couldn't dominate today's game.  And it's not just because they're old C's, it's because it defies logic. 

I was listening to the Big Show on WEEI about a month ago and these idiots are literally going on about how neither Larry Legend, nor Bill Russell could compete in today's game because of how unathletic Larry was and how undersized Russ was. 

However, this fails to take into account two very key things:

1) While there may be more athletic and bigger players today on average, this is still very much a game of skill where skilled players dominate. 

What the idiots on the Big Show failed to note was that Dirk Nowitzki, another unathletic white guy, had just dominated the league and won an NBA title.  They also ignored the fact that as recently as 8 years ago, the Detroit Pistons won the NBA title with the dominantly defensive Ben Wallace in the middle, who was generously listed at 6-9 (probably closer to 6-7 without including the 'fro) and 240 lbs.  And that was against the Lakers and Shaq!

So to suggest that either one of them couldn't dominate today is just preposterous. 

2) People act like all these players played in a vacuum, when in reality we have ways of measuring how they competed against more "modern" players.  For instance, MJ clearly dominated something like today's game all the way up to the early 2000s.  If the '80s were subpar to today's game, why did MJ get better as he got older, rather than worse? 

Same with Kareem.  Kareem came into the league the year after Russell retired (a year Russ led the C's to a title).  He dominated right away, but he continued to dominate all the way up to his late 30s in the late '80s.  If players in Russell's time couldn't compete in today's game, why didn't Kareem's game go to hell when he started to have to play "modern competition"?  And in the inverse is also true: if the play in the late '60s, early '70s was so bad, and Kareem was so ahead of his time, why didn't Kareem score 70 ppg and single-handily lead his teams to the title every year? 

And it all applies to McHale as well.  People who say he's too skinny or not athletic enough are ignoring that the best power forwards of the past decade+ (Duncan, KG, Stoudemire, etc.) have all been quite thin.  More importantly, no one ever accused Duncan of out muscling or out jumping anyone en route to 4 NBA titles. 

So there's no reason to think that Kevin McHale, with his massive amount of skill couldn't do the same thing too. 

[dark_lord]

mchale is one of those players, that no matter what era he played in, he would be outstanding.

[CelticsFanNC]

mchale is one of those players, that no matter what era he played in, he would be outstanding.

  Agree'd.

   Almost any superstar in the shot clock era would find a way to be successful in any other era.  

  Guys today have better training methods, dietitians, and other modern conveniences that would benefit old timers coming forward tremendously.  Guys are stronger, faster and quicker partially because of the advances in training of athletes.  Bill Russell was a world class athlete without all of these advances so he'd be all that much better with them at his disposal.  Injuries that ended careers in the 1970's would be a surgery, few months rehab and back to work today.

  People who say Larry Bird couldn't dominate today only need to look at Dirk, Kevin Love, Tim Duncan or our very own Paul Pierce to see dominant players who aren't overly athletic.  Bird's BBIQ was through the roof so he would embarrass a whole lot of these superior athletes.  He might struggle to defend a bit but he'd find a way because he worked so hard, had an endless motor and was such a perfectionist.  He passed and shot as well or better then anyone in today's game.  He was also a master of the fundamentals of the game like boxing out.   Those skills translate to any era.

  Kevin McHale would be an All-Star in today's NBA.  He'd have no problem scoring 20-25ppg on these guys who jump for every up fake because he was the master.  His low post arsenal would have these young superior athletes grasping at straws on how to defend him.   The guy invented or perfected most of the low post moves they try to teach mostly in vain to today's BIGs.  He was also a truly great defender who dfended all three front court positions in his day and could defend the 4 and 5 today IMO.

  Superior athletes don't always make superior basketball players which is why guys with great BBIQ's and polished skill sets who aren't overly athletic like Steve Nash, Paul Pierce, Kevin Love, Tim Duncan and Dirk Nowitzki can thrive in today's NBA.

 If you think these superstars of today who aren't superior athletes are more skilled or had higher BBIQ's then Bird or McHale did, think again.

[thirstyboots18]

Don't forget, if McHale, Bird, or any of the  superstars of previous generations had been playing today, they would also have had access to the more advanced medical and training facilities, so that advantage can not be st  used again them. As great as they were then, with the knowledge we have now, think how much better they might have been...and their careers might have been extended, too. 

[dysgenic]

I have to say, it drives me crazy when people suggest that the old time Celtics couldn't dominate today's game.  And it's not just because they're old C's, it's because it defies logic. 

I was listening to the Big Show on WEEI about a month ago and these idiots are literally going on about how neither Larry Legend, nor Bill Russell could compete in today's game because of how unathletic Larry was and how undersized Russ was. 

However, this fails to take into account two very key things:

1) While there may be more athletic and bigger players today on average, this is still very much a game of skill where skilled players dominate. 

What the idiots on the Big Show failed to note was that Dirk Nowitzki, another unathletic white guy, had just dominated the league and won an NBA title.  They also ignored the fact that as recently as 8 years ago, the Detroit Pistons won the NBA title with the dominantly defensive Ben Wallace in the middle, who was generously listed at 6-9 (probably closer to 6-7 without including the 'fro) and 240 lbs.  And that was against the Lakers and Shaq!

So to suggest that either one of them couldn't dominate today is just preposterous. 

2) People act like all these players played in a vacuum, when in reality we have ways of measuring how they competed against more "modern" players.  For instance, MJ clearly dominated something like today's game all the way up to the early 2000s.  If the '80s were subpar to today's game, why did MJ get better as he got older, rather than worse? 

Same with Kareem.  Kareem came into the league the year after Russell retired (a year Russ led the C's to a title).  He dominated right away, but he continued to dominate all the way up to his late 30s in the late '80s.  If players in Russell's time couldn't compete in today's game, why didn't Kareem's game go to hell when he started to have to play "modern competition"?  And in the inverse is also true: if the play in the late '60s, early '70s was so bad, and Kareem was so ahead of his time, why didn't Kareem score 70 ppg and single-handily lead his teams to the title every year? 

And it all applies to McHale as well.  People who say he's too skinny or not athletic enough are ignoring that the best power forwards of the past decade+ (Duncan, KG, Stoudemire, etc.) have all been quite thin.  More importantly, no one ever accused Duncan of out muscling or out jumping anyone en route to 4 NBA titles. 

So there's no reason to think that Kevin McHale, with his massive amount of skill couldn't do the same thing too. 

I have to admit, this is a great post and you make some compelling arguments.  Actually, you kind of turned me around a little on this one.  I do think low post defense is MUCH better now than it was then, but McHale had such great moves that he could score on anyone.  However, the zone defenses of today would make it much harder for him to catch the ball in the right spot.  I guess I've always had a bias against McHale for some reason...something about his game, I just didn't love him like everyone else did.  I LOVED DJ, I LOVED Parish.  McHale to me just wasn't the defender everyone said he was and he has a knack for turning the ball over at the wrong time.  Also, later in his career he was a bit out of shape and that doesn't sit well with me.
But like I said, no one can deny that he was a great player. 

dys

[33_Larry Legend_33]

It's weird, I guess I'm on an island on this one, but I think Kevin McHale is one of the most overrated Celtics.  I am NOT saying that he wasn't a great player, he was.  But I thought Dennis Johnson was a better player and I thought his defense especially was overrated.

dys

Yeah, I guess him being FIRST TEAM NBA ALL DEFENSIVE TEAM for 3 years and SECOND TEAM NBA ALL DEFENSIVE TEAM for 3 years over the span of 7 years makes his defense overrated.

Wow...just wow.  Posts like cause one to shake their head in disbelief... 

[dysgenic]

It's weird, I guess I'm on an island on this one, but I think Kevin McHale is one of the most overrated Celtics.  I am NOT saying that he wasn't a great player, he was.  But I thought Dennis Johnson was a better player and I thought his defense especially was overrated.

dys

Yeah, I guess him being FIRST TEAM NBA ALL DEFENSIVE TEAM for 3 years and SECOND TEAM NBA ALL DEFENSIVE TEAM for 3 years over the span of 7 years makes his defense overrated.

Wow...just wow.  Posts like cause one to shake their head in disbelief... 

Great players can be overrated.  If they are rated higher by most people relative to how good they actually are, they are overrated.  Even if the 2nd best player to ever play the game was rated as the best player, that would make that player overrated.
Again- I am not saying McHale was not a great player- he was.

[BballTim]

I have to say, it drives me crazy when people suggest that the old time Celtics couldn't dominate today's game.  And it's not just because they're old C's, it's because it defies logic.  

I was listening to the Big Show on WEEI about a month ago and these idiots are literally going on about how neither Larry Legend, nor Bill Russell could compete in today's game because of how unathletic Larry was and how undersized Russ was.  

However, this fails to take into account two very key things:

1) While there may be more athletic and bigger players today on average, this is still very much a game of skill where skilled players dominate.  

What the idiots on the Big Show failed to note was that Dirk Nowitzki, another unathletic white guy, had just dominated the league and won an NBA title.  They also ignored the fact that as recently as 8 years ago, the Detroit Pistons won the NBA title with the dominantly defensive Ben Wallace in the middle, who was generously listed at 6-9 (probably closer to 6-7 without including the 'fro) and 240 lbs.  And that was against the Lakers and Shaq!

So to suggest that either one of them couldn't dominate today is just preposterous.  

2) People act like all these players played in a vacuum, when in reality we have ways of measuring how they competed against more "modern" players.  For instance, MJ clearly dominated something like today's game all the way up to the early 2000s.  If the '80s were subpar to today's game, why did MJ get better as he got older, rather than worse?  

Same with Kareem.  Kareem came into the league the year after Russell retired (a year Russ led the C's to a title).  He dominated right away, but he continued to dominate all the way up to his late 30s in the late '80s.  If players in Russell's time couldn't compete in today's game, why didn't Kareem's game go to hell when he started to have to play "modern competition"?  And in the inverse is also true: if the play in the late '60s, early '70s was so bad, and Kareem was so ahead of his time, why didn't Kareem score 70 ppg and single-handily lead his teams to the title every year?  

And it all applies to McHale as well.  People who say he's too skinny or not athletic enough are ignoring that the best power forwards of the past decade+ (Duncan, KG, Stoudemire, etc.) have all been quite thin.  More importantly, no one ever accused Duncan of out muscling or out jumping anyone en route to 4 NBA titles.  

So there's no reason to think that Kevin McHale, with his massive amount of skill couldn't do the same thing too.  

  Those clips of Bird and McHale aren't in black and white. He played against the likes of MJ, Nique, Pippen, Hakeem, Drexler, Isiah, Dr J, Barkley, KJ and a host of others who were athletically equivalent to today's players.

[dysgenic]

Tempting for sure, I but I wouldn't do it without at least one of the #1 draft picks.  With one of them, I'm not sure if I'd do it, but I'd have to think long and hard.  Is Rondo a better player than Gasol right now (debatable)?  Is he younger (yes)?
Does he have a better contract (yes)?  Does Gasol make us a championship team (probably not, but possibly)?

Tough one.