# Who's better, Vince or TMac



## trick (Aug 23, 2002)

well, to answer this question you must look at their team's success.

If this is the case, Vince definitely has the edge over TMac


----------



## p (Jul 17, 2002)

arnt there like a million of these threads???????


----------



## Im The One (Sep 1, 2002)

A million and one now



get down!!:rbanana: :wbanana: :bbanana: :rbanana: :wbanana: :bbanana:


----------



## SkywalkerAC (Sep 20, 2002)

there are many things other than team's success that one can look at to compare two players. it is one way. i'll let the season unfold on this one.


----------



## Tom (Jul 15, 2002)

TMAC is the secon best player in the league behind shack...learn this:devil:


----------



## IV (Jul 16, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Tom</b>!
> TMAC is the secon best player in the league behind shack...learn this:devil:


LOL:laugh: 

That was a good one!


----------



## c_dog (Sep 15, 2002)

Vince is better. T-Mac just scores a lot, while Vince holds his team together. Vince has charisma and leadership skills that T-Mac lacks, which is why the Raptors has been more successful than Magic.


----------



## JNice (Jul 13, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>c_dog</b>!
> Vince is better. T-Mac just scores a lot, while Vince holds his team together. Vince has charisma and leadership skills that T-Mac lacks, which is why the Raptors has been more successful than Magic.


Sorry, but that is BS.

You'd be hard pressed to find any of the so-called basketball experts who would agree Vince is a better all-around player than Tmac.

If you look at the team Tmac had around him last season, I would say Tmac and the team were very successful.


----------



## HEATLUNATIC (May 27, 2002)

Vince is AWESOME but T-Mac is BETTER!

VC's supporting cast.

A.D.
Keon
Mo-Pete
Williams
The Dream

T-Mac's supporting cast.

Miller
Armstrong
Hill - DOESNT count!

T-Mac is the 3rd best all-around baller in the league!

1. Duncan
2. K.G.
3. T-Mac

Shaq ISNT a great all-around baller,and who knows if he will be the same player he was before the toe problem?

Vince is the dopest dunker in the league,but on the defensive end of the court he CANT hang with T-Mac!


----------



## Ghost (Jun 21, 2002)

not anorther one of these threads...t-mac all the way baby...


----------



## Hollis (Jun 4, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>c_dog</b>!
> Vince is better. T-Mac just scores a lot, while *Vince holds his team together. Vince has charisma and leadership skills* that T-Mac lacks, which is why the Raptors has been more successful than Magic.


Wow. Pay attention to the bolded part and tell me you didn't mean that......And if you did, how can you explain how the Raptors GOT BETTER when he got injured?


----------



## tinygiant (Sep 10, 2002)

Ok, this misconception has got to stop. The Raptors did not "get better" after Vince was injured. They are not a better team without him. Keep in mind that he played for a number of games after he was actually injured. Before he was injured the Raptors were only a couple of games out of first place in the central and had started to string together a bit of a winning streak. 
When Vince went down at the end of the season, this is what really happened. The Raptors played well against a bunch of sub-par teams. Most of the wins in that steak were against teams that were nowhere near the playoffs. Antonio Davis always starts a season slow and gets better by the end of the year. This happened last year as well. Morris Peterson was injured for a number of games during the season and was finally finding his game by the end of the season as well. Also, the Dream started to fit in a little bit better. These things didn't have to do with Vince's absence, they would have happened anyway. But in the playoffs it was clear that the Raps missed Carter. They had trouble scoring important baskets against the Pistons and lost in the final game. Obviously Vince excells at this and I don't think that there is anyone who watches the Raptors regularly who would believe that they wouldn't have done better in the playoffs if Vince had been there.
But I guess this year we'll see what happens.


----------



## Hollis (Jun 4, 2002)

how many games did they lose in a row? like 13?


----------



## nyknicks888 (Oct 4, 2002)

T-MAC DEFINETELY, as said before by Tom, "LEARN THis" T-Mac is one of the best in the league, much better than vince....T-MAc in the top 5, Vince barely to not in the top 10....:mrt: that think vince is better.


----------



## TheRifleman (May 20, 2002)

I like them both! 

Vince is a pure shooter (his shot is a thing of beauty!) as well as a pure scorer and those kinds of players are rare in this league. His defense is good enough, but not anywhere close to the "D" of TMac. He gets lost on rotations sometimes and TMac almost never is out of position on defense.


----------



## c_dog (Sep 15, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>mduke</b>!
> Wow. Pay attention to the bolded part and tell me you didn't mean that......And if you did, how can you explain how the Raptors GOT BETTER when he got injured?


You're going to base Carter's skill on that 13 game losing streak WHILE he was playing with an injury? If you've been watching Vince for the past 3 years or so, you'd know he's way better than T-Mac.

Magic have some pretty decent players too, like Miller and Garrity. Mo-Pete, A.Will, Keon, AD are only good because VC brings out their best as their leader.


----------



## JerryWest (Jun 24, 2002)

Carter is better offensively, Tmac is better defensively...


----------



## 3PeatComplete (Jul 11, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>KennethTo</b>!
> Carter is better offensively, Tmac is better defensively...


I agree with that. But all-around, I'd say T-Mac's better.


----------



## R-Star (Jun 13, 2002)

I would say Vince. T-Mac has yet to take his team anywhere. And Vinces supporting cast is not any better than McGradys. If T-Mac can take his team far into the playoffs then I might change my mind. As good of a player as he is, he has yet to prove he can be a leader, which IMO is a very overlooked quality in players today.


----------



## ChiBron (Jun 24, 2002)

What t-mac's team has lacked is a solid big man who can give u a double-double or atleast come close to that every night. Carter has had that in Antonio Davis, an all star during the year Raptors made the 2nd round.

People underestimate the importance of a solid big man. T-mac, a 2 guard, lead the magic in rebounding last year, a good idea of how bad the magic frontcourt is and what kind of energy t-mac has to spend at both ends of the floor every night.


----------



## Hollis (Jun 4, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>c_dog</b>!
> 
> 
> You're going to base Carter's skill on that 13 game losing streak WHILE he was playing with an injury? If you've been watching Vince for the past 3 years or so, you'd know he's way better than T-Mac.
> ...


You're acting like I said TMac was better, which I didn't.


----------



## TheRifleman (May 20, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>SPMJ</b>!
> What t-mac's team has lacked is a solid big man who can give u a double-double or atleast come close to that every night. Carter has had that in Antonio Davis, an all star during the year Raptors made the 2nd round.
> 
> People underestimate the importance of a solid big man.<b> T-mac, a 2 guard, lead the magic in rebounding </b>last year, a good idea of how bad the magic frontcourt is and what kind of energy t-mac has to spend at both ends of the floor every night.


THAT was very well said and lest people forget, Antonio set picks for years so that Reggie Miller could make those clutch shots. He does the same for Vince. 

Sad to say, but anybody who thinks Pat Garrity is even close to A.Davis in overall BBall IQ hasn't watched any Magic games. He is the most pitiful excuse for a Power Forward anybody could have! He can shoot wide open shots when TMac is doubled and triple teamed - and that is ALL he can do!

A good-to-excellent big man is always important for any swing man to have and that has been the case historically in the NBA for as long as they've had the NBA.


----------



## SKLB54 (Oct 13, 2002)

*are you kidding me?*

TMAC, you gotta be kiddin me here


----------



## Nobull1 (Oct 6, 2002)

*Tmac*

Anymore questions?


----------



## 7thwatch (Jul 18, 2002)

How about we pretend that Tmac and Carter switch teams. The Raptors would be just as good, but the Magic would suffer a lot b/c Carter would not bring the defense and rebounding they need. 

I vote for Tmac.


----------



## STING (May 29, 2002)

Well I'm going to take this opportunity to just BREAK THANGS DAAHN NAH

PPG:

Advantage T-Mac

RPG:

Advantage T-Mac

APG: 

Advantage T-Mac

FG%:

Advantage T-Mac

3PT%

Advantage Vince

I'll just leave it at that and let you decide who I think is better


----------



## c_dog (Sep 15, 2002)

Their stats are pretty damn close, even if T-Mac does happen to be slightly higher in most of the categories.

I think Vince has yet to reach his prime, unlike McGrady, and when he does, he'll be putting higher numbers than McGrady. They're pretty even right now.


----------



## STING (May 29, 2002)

Vince is two years older than McGrady, how could McGrady already be in his prime at the age of 23 while Vince Carter isn't at the age of 25?


----------



## 7thwatch (Jul 18, 2002)

On the contrary I think it is McGrady, the younger of the two, who has more room to grow. I think they will both get better but I see no reason for thinking Carter will improve more than McGrady will (other than that he has more areas that need to be improved upon, of course)


----------



## 7thwatch (Jul 18, 2002)

my last post was directed at C_dog not Sting. Sorry when I posted yours had not appeared yet.


----------



## STING (May 29, 2002)

No problem  We agree on things


----------



## c_dog (Sep 15, 2002)

McGrady has been in the league longer, despite being younger. He has established himself as a player and he won't get much better. He's in his early prime.

Vince has only been in the NBA for 4 years, so he still has to gain more experience before he finally reaches his prime.


----------



## BEEZ (Jun 12, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>c_dog</b>!
> McGrady has been in the league longer, despite being younger. He has established himself as a player and he won't get much better. He's in his early prime.
> 
> Vince has only been in the NBA for 4 years, so he still has to gain more experience before he finally reaches his prime.


This statement makes no sense at all. If anything him being younger gives him the advantage. Where and how do you even believe this statement


----------



## IV (Jul 16, 2002)

being younger isn't much of an advantage o disadvantage is this case. But Tmac is better than Vince.


----------



## 33 (Nov 18, 2002)

T-Mac is tied for best in the league. Him and Kobe. Vince is not even a top 15 player IMO


----------



## BEEZ (Jun 12, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>33</b>!
> T-Mac is tied for best in the league. Him and Kobe. Vince is not even a top 15 player IMO


agreed


----------



## Pinball (Aug 3, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>33</b>!
> T-Mac is tied for best in the league. Him and Kobe. Vince is not even a top 15 player IMO


Vince can get back to being a top 10 player but I don't think he's ever going to be as good as Kobe and McGrady. He has way too many deficiencies in his game and they haven't been remedied thus far.


----------



## tinygiant (Sep 10, 2002)

BEEZ, I'm not entirely sure what prompted you to pick up this thread again after almost 2 months, but I have to disagree with both you and 33. I think he is clearly in the top 15 and probably still top ten, despite the injuries.


----------



## BEEZ (Jun 12, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>tinygiant</b>!
> BEEZ, I'm not entirely sure what prompted you to pick up this thread again after almost 2 months, but I have to disagree with both you and 33. I think he is clearly in the top 15 and probably still top ten, despite the injuries.


I restarted this because the entire debate has been TMAC and KOBE and I wanted to see what the general consensus is regarding TMAC and Vince. By the way I can give you 10 players easily better than Vince. I can name 2 shooting guards better than Vince


----------



## tinygiant (Sep 10, 2002)

By all means continue then. And I'll try to work up my top 15 as well. I'd be extremely surprised if VC isn't in there. I think you're probably right though. There probably are 2 SGs better than Vince. In fact, I think there are 3. But the shooting guard position is just that strong in the NBA right now.


----------



## tinygiant (Sep 10, 2002)

Ok, BEEZ. You might be right. I'm not sure that I have him in the top 10 anymore. But he's still top 15 for me.
The players I have above him are, in no particular order:
Shaq
Duncan
AI
KG
Kobe
Webber
Kidd
McGrady
Nowitzki
Payton

After that I would probably have Vince. Although right now Pierce might be ahead of him too. I think once he gets back into the swing of things completely after his injuries, he will once again be better than PP.


----------



## Canadiana (Dec 8, 2002)

I would say Tracy McGrady... but attitude wise... I would take anyone over TMac... his team was down by 30 points and he was on the bench laughing and having a ball of a time with that tub of lard... Kemp!

That's not the right attitude if you want to win!


----------



## BEEZ (Jun 12, 2002)

SHAQ
TMAC
KOBE
AI
PIERCE
DUNCAN
KG
KIDD
Francis
PAYTON
NOWITSKI
CWEBB
Baron Davis
Stackhouse
NASH????
Finley


----------



## tinygiant (Sep 10, 2002)

I guess we just disagree BEEZ. It would probably be difficult to elucidate our opinions on the differences between Vince and a few of the others without resorting to the "what? you're crazy!" kind of arguments that often get started here. So I will just say this:
If Vince is healthy (or even a slightly injured Vince like we had for most of last year) I would definitely take him Stackhouse and Finley, because while similar players, I think that Vince is more versitile and can be counted on more to be "the man". Over Francis because he is still at this point too erratic in my opinion and, although very talented, doesn't thrill me as a guy with a lot intelligent decision-making. Over Nash because, as much as I love the guy (he's probably my 2nd favorite player, soon to be number 1) he is not a number 1 option kind of guy. I think he needs to play with other good players to be effective. And over Baron Davis, even though this one is the closest, because I think Vince has more to offer overall.
Just my thoughts...


----------

