Tony Parker>Gervin..

[apalisoc_9]

Just had a heated argument with 67 year old spurs fan...:lol

both Parker>Gervin
Manu> Gervin..

old faggots, prove me wrong.

[hater]

Duncan > Parker >> Admiral >>> girvin >>>> ****** >>> Ginobili

[exstatic]

Kori - PLEASE pink this ass so he can't start threads.

[BillMc]

Kori - PLEASE pink this ass so he can't start threads.

+1

[Nathan89]

Did you watch a lot of Gervin games?

[Spurs 4 The Win]

Gervin>>>Parker, not really even a debate here, and I love what Parker has done for us

[Malik Hairston]

:lmao George Gervin would be worse than Belinelli in today's game, tbh..

[Sean Cagney]

:lmao George Gervin would be worse than Belinelli in today's game, tbh..

He did play in a different Era and he was great in that era so what is the point of saying in todays game? You could do this in any sport and say athletes got better which is true.

[Spurs 4 The Win]

:lmao George Gervin would be worse than Belinelli in today's game, tbh..

http://i0.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/newsfeed/000/190/651/tumblr_lpyw2pNhaZ1r0w4bgo1_500.jpg?1319478951

[ezau]

Gervin would get shutdown by a prime Bowen and a 23-year old Kawhi :lol

[scanry]

Duncan > Five 0 > Parker > Manu > Kwahi > Gervin > Ellliott tbh.

Kwahi could surpass Parker & Manu if Pop sticks around for a few years.

[Aztecfan03]

Duncan >> Admiral > Gervin >>> Parker >> Ginobili

[scanry]

Kwahi is the reason why the Spurs are having the deep runs these past 3 years. We're first or second round fodder without Kwahi. That's how important the SF position has become in this era. Just ask Golden State & the Clippers.

It would been interesting to see how the 2008-10 Spurs would've looked with Leonard against them Lakers. If you add Danny Green into the mix, we beat them pretty easily.

[Spurs 4 The Win]

AztecFan has it right if you make Ginobili and Parker equal

[Malik Hairston]

There isn't really an argument for Parker over Ginobili, tbh..

[Spurs 4 The Win]

There isn't really an argument for Parker over Ginobili, tbh..

I would put Ginobili and Parker on equal footing

[Nathan89]

If you want to compare players across eras then it should be dominance/effectiveness in respect to their own era. Who gives a shit if Gervin would be worse than Belinelli today.

[100%duncan]

How bout this?

TD>DRob=Manu>Parker>Kawhi>Bowen

[Spurs 4 The Win]

How bout this?

TD>DRob=Manu>Parker>Kawhi>Bowen

A lot of the retards are exposing themselves in this thread

[dabom]

Manu as good as drob? Wtf?

[ElNono]

There isn't really an argument for Parker over Ginobili, tbh..

you have to add what he's meant to the franchise on the business side too, he provided a direct conduit to the latino crowd in san anton... obviously, being a winner helps too.

[ElNono]

That said, Tony Parker is the best PG in Spurs' history, and that's no small feat for such a successful franchise. If you had to make an all-time Spurs team right now, he'll be the starting PG.

[BG_Spurs_Fan]

A lot of the retards are exposing themselves in this thread

True. In before someone puts Rodman somewhere in there.

[mudyez]

is it about level of play or importance to the franchise.

1st: duncan>admiral>parker>manu>(maybe others if you account for todays game)>gervin
2nd: duncan>admiral>gervin>parker>manu

...but withou gervin there wouldn't have been an admiral or duncan in SA anyway. Same goes for the Admiral and later Spurs.

[howbouthemspurs]

http://i5.minus.com/ib025ImKYuk5Cf.jpg

[100%duncan]

A lot of the retards are exposing themselves in this thread

:cry dont disagree with me :cry

[exstatic]

:cry dont disagree with me :cry

I'd call you a retard, too. Gervin isn't even ON your list that he responded to. Dude is in the HOF.

[Dverde]

Parker has a finals MVP and more All-Star appearances than Ginobili. Parker also didn't foul Dirk on a layup when his team was up 3.

[exstatic]

Parker has a finals MVP and more All-Star appearances than Ginobili. Parker also didn't foul Dirk on a layup when his team was up 3.

VERY difficult to make the ASG as a 6th man. Manu did it multiple times. He also made an All NBA team as a 6th man. That's unheard of.

[tmtcsc]

This discussion can begin when Parker gets selected by his peers as 1 of the 50 greatest players of all time.

[100%duncan]

I'd call you a retard, too. Gervin isn't even ON your list that he responded to. Dude is in the HOF.

So? How many rings did Gervin net the Spurs again?

How many did DRob net the Spurs?

Oh yeah that's right 3>2>0


Bbbbut nostalgia!!!! U fuken retard!!!

[exstatic]

Cojo > Westbrook

1 > 0

Daye > Durant

1 > 0

[100%duncan]

Cojo > Westbrook

1 > 0

Daye > Durant

1 > 0

"Ayres is a good player"

DOINK

[dbestpro]

Gervin would be more effective in today's quality SG starved NBA. The man could score on anybody from anywhere. Just try to remember when Duncan gets dissed 20 years from now by some snotty kid who never saw him play.

"I can see it now, PF JoJo Jones a career 10 ppg player in 2034 is better than Duncan, and Duncan could never play in our athletic game, today."

[Juggity]

It would been interesting to see how the 2008-10 Spurs would've looked with Leonard against them Lakers. If you add Danny Green into the mix, we beat them pretty easily.

I agree that the 2008-10 spurs would have been better with DG and Kawhi, but remember that the real weakness of those teams was that they were butter-soft in the paint. No splitter, no rejuvenated TD, no way to stop Bynum-Gasol or Gasol-Zbo or any team with a decent set of bigs.

[exstatic]

"Ayres is a good player"

DOINK

Moving the goalposts when confronted with your own stupid argument

DOINK

[100%duncan]

Moving the goalposts when confronted with your own stupid argument

DOINK

Who moved the goalposts when you brought in scrubs and players from another team?

Bbbuut Five Oooo! Retaaard!!! :cry

[exstatic]

Who moved the goalposts when you brought in scrubs and players from another team?

Bbbuut Five Oooo! Retaaard!!! :cry

That was a simple by example rebuttal of your "rings above HOF!" retarded argument.

[100%duncan]

That was a simple by example rebuttal of your "rings above HOF!" retarded argument.

Ok so by your retarded logic Karl Malone>Duncan?

He had more appealing stats!!! Rings dont matter!!!

[exstatic]

Ok so by your retarded logic Karl Malone>Duncan?

He had more appealing stats!!! Rings dont matter!!!

I personally don't believe that, but some would, and it's not nearly as ridiculous as Bowen > Ice.

If you look at some of the newer advanced stats, like PER and WS/48, Duncan comes out on top.

I think Duncan/Malone is at least debatable in a rational manner. Bowen/Ice is not debatable on any rational level.

[100%duncan]

I personally don't believe that, but some would, and it's not nearly as ridiculous as Bowen > Ice.

If you look at some of the newer advanced stats, like PER and WS/48, Duncan comes out on top.

I think Duncan/Malone is at least debatable in a rational manner. Bowen/Ice is not debatable on any rational level.

No because that was what you suggested by saying ring count is a retarded argument.

It's about whay you brought to the franchise more than being a better player. Remember, it's about being the better SPUR. Without Bowen, we'd be light 3. Remember when everyone here was praying that some player can come to the team with even just half of Bowen's defensive ability?

No offense to Gervin but he wasnt a winner. Funny when people make fun of stat padders that shine in meaningless games but when it's a spur player from before they get ultra defensive

[Spur-Addict]

Wow, just wow. That's all I can say about this thread.

[lefty]

:lmao George Gervin would be worse than Belinelli in today's game, tbh..
:lol there he is

[SpursFan86]

I can't tell whether some of the people in here are trolling or just being flat-out stupid.

Manu = to D-Rob? Parker > Gervin? Seriously?

[exstatic]

No because that was what you suggested by saying ring count is a retarded argument.

It's about whay you brought to the franchise more than being a better player. Remember, it's about being the better SPUR. Without Bowen, we'd be light 3. Remember when everyone here was praying that some player can come to the team with even just half of Bowen's defensive ability?

No offense to Gervin but he wasnt a winner. Funny when people make fun of stat padders that shine in meaningless games but when it's a spur player from before they get ultra defensive

Ring count, ALONE, is a retarded argument. When you compare two HOF players who were primary options for their teams like Duncan and Malone, maybe it tips the scales. When you compare a HOF, 7 time All NBA player (when there were only 1st and 2nd teams) to a defensive role player, it has no weight to tip the scales. Kerr has 5 rings and Horry 7, and neither was a better player than Ice because they were role players. Bowen was a role player. Cojo was a role player. Daye was a role player. Anyone outside of your top 2 or 3 players, depending on the team, is a role player.

[Drom John]

By WS as Spurs
193.2 Duncan
178.7 Robinson
97.4 Parker
94.8 Ginobili
85.1 Gervin

By VORP
78.8 Duncan
74.8 Robinson
41.6 Ginobili
26.6 Parker
22.7 Gervin

For combined seasons; played in the NBA/BAA; in the regular season; from 1946-47 to 2014-15; playing for the San Antonios Spurs (Tex/Dal); requiring Minutes Played >= 1000; sorted by descending Win Shares Per 48 Minutes.
.250 Robinson
.211 Duncan
.208 Ginobili
.182 Splitter
.181 Barry
.176 Leonard
.167 Gervin
.166 Anderson, Derek
.156 Gilmore
.156 Mills
.155 Turkoglu
.153 Rodman
.152 Porter
.150 Parker

Personally, I prefer these in the order presented.

[SpursFan86]

You can't just use a single metric and act like it ends the argument right there.

John Stockton has more WS than Duncan. Chris Paul is 4th all-time in WS/48 ahead of guys like Kareem and Duncan. Hakeem Olajuwon is 43rd all-time in WS/48...are we going to start arguing that Hakeem isn't even a top 25 player of all-time? I sure as hell hope not.

[Old School 44]

To compare players across eras is tough. The game is just too different. To count rings is also a dumb argument because you don't win a title by yourself. Gervin didn't get to play with Duncan.

i will say this for those who never seen him play. Ice was an incredible scorer, an off the charts shotmaker . He pioneered the big, long 2 guard. The body control knifing through defenders, the ball spins off the glass with either hand and the iconic "finger roll". I remember when they asked players of his era who would they pay to see, the Iceman was at the top of many of their lists. Definitely worth the price of admission.

[SpursFan86]

And to the people arguing about rings...answer me this:

If you surrounded Gervin with Prime Duncan, Prime Manu, and Popovich, do you really think he'd still have 0 rings? Championships are a team accomplishment. Malone and Barkley have 0 rings, but you'd be dumb to argue that Tony Parker is better than them.

[Diego20]

Duncan > Parker >> Admiral >>> girvin >>>> ****** >>> Ginobili


Parker > Admiral?

:lmao:lmao

Never go full retard

[dabom]

Manu is also higher than parker.

[TVI]

Lol...trolls...

[Spurs 4 The Win]

How bout this?

TD>DRob=Manu>Parker>Kawhi>Bowen

Lets be honest here, you clearly started watching in about 2005 if you actually believe this pile of shit you put here, it is embarrassing you have such little knowledge about Spurs history that you would even think to put Kawhi, Bowen, Manu, and Parker ahead of Gervin and to put Manu as an equal to DRob is :lol

[Nathan89]

:lmao George Gervin would be worse than Belinelli in today's game, tbh..

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/1338152-legends-of-the-nba-25-best-players-of-the-80s

This list has Gervin as the 13th best 80s player. Where would you put Belinelli?

[MB20]

Duncan>Robinson>Gervin>Parker=Manu>Elliott=Bowen=Kawhi

[Malik Hairston]

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/1338152-legends-of-the-nba-25-best-players-of-the-80s

This list has Gervin as the 13th best 80s player. Where would you put Belinelli?

If you put Belinelli in the 80s, he would be the equivalent of Larry Bird, tbh..

I tried to watch a game from the 80s the other day, I literally almost vomited, tbh..I had to watch an Isis beheading to settle my stomach..

[Malik Hairston]

Spurs All-Time Team
PG Tony Parker
SG Manu Ginobili
SF Kawhi Leonard
PF Tim Duncan
C David Robinson

PG Patty Mills
SG Danny Green
SF Bruce Bowen
SF Sean Elliott
PF Robert Horry
PF Boris Diaw
C Tiago Splitter

Avery Johnson vs. Cory Joseph and Malik Rose vs. Jeff Ayres would be interesting arguments, tbh..

[apalisoc_9]

^

MVPATTY!!

[ajh18]

These arguments of how old-school players would never be good in today's game are very questionable to me. I agree the overall talent level has risen greatly, as has athleticism. But it's unfair to the greats of old to simply state that they couldn't compete with today's more athletic players, because much of that can be attributed to increases in sports medicine, conditioning, and a more advanced understanding of basketball through new metrics.

If you took Gervin from the 80s and dropped him in today's game, would he struggle? Yes, most definitely. But that's like asking what would happen to a modern star like Russel Westbrook if you took away all the gains in athleticism he's gotten through weightlifting, nutrition, legal supplements, etc. He would be much, much worse.

Gervin "in today's game" would be brought up under today's training regimens and nutritional programs. The real question then is whether his skill, bball iq, and body would allow him to succeed under those conditions. I tend to think if guys like Durant and Steph Curry - who are not traditional physical prototypes for the NBA - can have so much success today, so could a Gervin if he grew up today.

[Nathan89]

If Jordan died in 1990 this guy would say Belinelli was just as talented tbh.

[spurraider21]

If you put Belinelli in the 80s, he would be the equivalent of Larry Bird, tbh..
ur taking this shtick to new heights :lol

[ohmwrecker]

:lol Harlem

Gervin excelled in an era where defense was nowhere near the level it is today. That being said, I think he would still be a good player in today's game. He had a really long stride, terrific handles and his finger roll release would still confuse shot blockers. Plus, there's not much competition in the sg position these days.

[Malik Hairston]

If Jordan died in 1990 this guy would say Belinelli was just as talented tbh.

Nope, Dad Killer was ahead of his time in regards to his athleticism/build..that's part of the reason he's considered GOAT, he was fortunate to have played in an era where he was noticeably more physically gifted than his counterparts..

Guys like Dad Killer/David Robinson/Olajuwon wouldn't have a problem playing in future eras, their athleticism would translate well..David Robinson is arguably the most impressive physical specimen the NBA has seen in the modern era..

Larry Bird, though?:lmao..

[Malik Hairston]

IMO, the absolute ceiling for 70s/80s players, if everything went right:

Dominique Wilkins = Demar DeRozan
Charles Barkley = Kevin Love
Kevin McHale = Jonas Valenciunas
Mark Price = Jose Calderon
George Gervin = Swaggy P
Moses Malone = Andre Drummond
Julius Erving = Rudy Gay
Bill Walton = Roy Hibbert
Wes Unseld = Greg Monroe
Isiah Thomas = Tony Parker

[Nathan89]

Nope, Dad Killer was ahead of his time in regards to his athleticism/build..that's part of the reason he's considered GOAT, he was fortunate to have played in an era where he was noticeably more physically gifted than his counterparts..

Guys like Dad Killer/David Robinson/Olajuwon wouldn't have a problem playing in future eras, their athleticism would translate well..David Robinson is arguably the most impressive physical specimen the NBA has seen in the modern era..

Larry Bird, though?:lmao..

You would say the same shit if we were talking about Steve Nash if he had played in the 1980s.

[Nathan89]

If Dirk played in the 80s he would be getting compared to Matt Bonner right now.:lmao

[Nathan89]

80s Steve Nash would be a modern day Steve Blake.:lol

[Spurs 4 The Win]

Spurs All-Time Team
PG Tony Parker
SG Manu Ginobili
SF Kawhi Leonard
PF Tim Duncan
C David Robinson

PG Patty Mills
SG Danny Green
SF Bruce Bowen
SF Sean Elliott
PF Robert Horry
PF Boris Diaw
C Tiago Splitter

Avery Johnson vs. Cory Joseph and Malik Rose vs. Jeff Ayres would be interesting arguments, tbh..

I always knew you were a bad poster but this really takes the cake

[spurraider21]

You would say the same shit if we were talking about Steve Nash if he had played in the 1980s.


If Dirk played in the 80s he would be getting compared to Matt Bonner right now.:lmao
:lol truth bombs

[Sec24Row7]

Importance of players to a franchise

Gervin>Robinson>Duncan

Spurs don't EXIST without Gervin

Spurs don't STAY in San Antonio without Robinson

Spurs Aren't GREAT without Duncan

[SpursFan86]

Nathan89

You're getting trolled

[Malik Hairston]

You would say the same shit if we were talking about Steve Nash if he had played in the 1980s.

Maybe, but he didn't play in the 80s, so it's a moot point..

[spurraider21]

Importance of players to a franchise

Gervin>Robinson>Duncan

Spurs don't EXIST without Gervin

Spurs don't STAY in San Antonio without Robinson

Spurs Aren't GREAT without Duncan
:lmao

[ElNono]

Spurs All-Time Team
PG Tony Parker
SG Manu Ginobili
SF Kawhi Leonard
PF Tim Duncan
C David Robinson

PG Patty Mills
SG Danny Green
SF Bruce Bowen
SF Sean Elliott
PF Robert Horry
PF Boris Diaw
C Tiago Splitter

Avery Johnson vs. Cory Joseph and Malik Rose vs. Jeff Ayres would be interesting arguments, tbh..


I always knew you were a bad poster but this really takes the cake

What's the counterargument though, other than "you suck", etc...

[Spurs 4 The Win]

What's the counterargument though, other than "you suck", etc...

Lol, Gervin (HOF) isnt even on the list, no counterargument needed, he is obviously trolling though

[100%duncan]

Lets be honest here, you clearly started watching in about 2005 if you actually believe this pile of shit you put here, it is embarrassing you have such little knowledge about Spurs history that you would even think to put Kawhi, Bowen, Manu, and Parker ahead of Gervin and to put Manu as an equal to DRob is :lol

Really? :lmao

But Im an old fuck I know more!!!

[100%duncan]

IMO, the absolute ceiling for 70s/80s players, if everything went right:

Dominique Wilkins = Demar DeRozan
Charles Barkley = Kevin Love
Kevin McHale = Jonas Valenciunas
Mark Price = Jose Calderon
George Gervin = Swaggy P
Moses Malone = Andre Drummond
Julius Erving = Rudy Gay
Bill Walton = Roy Hibbert
Wes Unseld = Greg Monroe
Isiah Thomas = Tony Parker
TRILL SHIT RIGHT HERE

:lmao

[Nathan89]

Maybe, but he didn't play in the 80s, so it's a moot point..

Just putting you shit take in perspective.

[Spurs 4 The Win]

Really? :lmao

But Im an old fuck I know more!!!

As some have stated Duncan>Robinson>Gervin>Manu=Parker

[100%duncan]

As some have stated Duncan>Robinson>Gervin>Manu=Parker

:lol

Putting one of the best backcourts of all time behind a man who won nothing. Yall make fun of Rockets esp harden etc being shit in the playoffs bbbut when its Gervin your vaginas bleed :lol

[SpursFan86]

Manu is pretty safely ahead of Parker. There's really no argument for Parker outside of him giving you far more games and minutes than Manu. Manu is so much better on a per-minute basis though.

[Malik Hairston]

5EjHZJL6Jj8

:lol what is this garbage, tbh?..

[100%duncan]

Importance of players to a franchise

Gervin>Robinson>Duncan

Spurs don't EXIST without Gervin

Spurs don't STAY in San Antonio without Robinson

Spurs Aren't GREAT without Duncan

:rollin

So the first person on Earth who probably just scratched
his balls till he died means more than the people who actually did something to improve this place?

:rollin

[Arcadian]

That's actually a tough one. I generally take forwards (or tall shooting guards) over PGs, but I generally prefer modern players over pre-1980 players. In this case, I think Gervin's game could hold up in today's game, and his body has the potential to be conditioned by today's standards. I give the nod to Gervin, arguably a top 5 all-time shooting guard in his prime.

[apalisoc_9]

^

LMAOL

College teams nowadays would probably beat the Gervin spurs by 30...Just awful.

[Malik Hairston]

^

LMAOL

College teams nowadays would probably beat the Gervin spurs by 30...Just awful.

:lol college is a given, tbh..

I'd say it's a toss-up between NBA players of that era vs. modern day WNBA players IMO..

Look at that Gervin mixtape I posted a few posts above..compare it to this:

IVTWv1L00gs

[DarrinS]

^

LMAOL

College teams nowadays would probably beat the Gervin spurs by 30...Just awful.

:lol

[SpursFan86]

Bill Russell would be a skinnier DeJuan Blair in today's league tbh

[apalisoc_9]

Bill Russell would be a skinnier DeJuan Blair in today's league tbh

Russel wouldn't even make our highschool team.

[Malik Hairston]

Bill Russell would be a skinnier DeJuan Blair in today's league tbh

Russell was defensive-minded and a good passer, though..

Blair is an underrated passer, but his defensive IQ is historically bad IMO..

If I'm being generous and accepting that some of his traits could translate to today's game(ignoring his mostly White American competition, lack of opposing teams, shitty FG% for a big man and stacked team), Russell would be Amir Johnson in today's game..

[ElNono]

Lol, Gervin (HOF) isnt even on the list, no counterargument needed, he is obviously trolling though

thanks


5EjHZJL6Jj8

:lol what is this garbage, tbh?..

interesting... lots of white folk in that vid...

[SpursFan86]

Jerry West = Kirk Hinrich, yes?

[Arcadian]

College teams nowadays would probably beat the Gervin spurs by 30...Just awful.

We're doing hypothetical individual player comparisons. If Gervin was 25 years old today and lived a 21st century life with 21st century training, I have no reason to believe he wouldn't be equally as effective as he was in 1977 (which is to say, very).

[Nathan89]

Maybe, but he didn't play in the 80s, so it's a moot point..

Admitting the margin of error in you assessments is the difference between Dirk and Bonner:lmao

[Malik Hairston]

^^ Damn, nigga, just take the L..

You quoted my post, left, returned an hour later and quoted the same post with a second reply..

It's not a big deal, every person is entitled to their own opinion..so, I can respect yours, although it's a stretch IMO..it's evident that you're very biased towards certain players, but that's cool, I appreciate your fanaticism for your team..not everybody can be objective..shit, even I'm biased sometimes, I admit:lol..

[ajh18]

We're doing hypothetical individual player comparisons. If Gervin was 25 years old today and lived a 21st century life with 21st century training, I have no reason to believe he wouldn't be equally as effective as he was in 1977 (which is to say, very).

This was exactly the point I tried to make earlier. When comparing players of different eras you have to normalize for context.

[Nathan89]

^^ Damn, nigga, just take the L..

You quoted my post, left, returned an hour later and quoted the same post with a second reply..

It's not a big deal, every person is entitled to their own opinion..so, I can respect yours, although it's a stretch IMO..it's evident that you're very biased towards certain players, but that's cool, I appreciate your fanaticism for your team..not everybody can be objective..shit, even I'm biased sometimes, I admit:lol..

I figure you'd stop but you didn't tbh. Just not sure how you can trust any of you player assessment if the margin of error is so large.

[AlexJones]

5EjHZJL6Jj8

:lol what is this garbage, tbh?..

He'd have a shot at beating Chandler Parsons in 1-on-1.

[cd021]

Kwahi is the reason why the Spurs are having the deep runs these past 3 years. We're first or second round fodder without Kwahi. That's how important the SF position has become in this era. Just ask Golden State & the Clippers.

It would been interesting to see how the 2008-10 Spurs would've looked with Leonard against them Lakers. If you add Danny Green into the mix, we beat them pretty easily.

Thats not exactly true. Some of the credit goes to Green, and Splitter and Duncan not playing like he was 50 like he did against the Griz in the 11 postseason. Our defense went from average to elite in the span of a season and has stayed that way for the 3rd straight season.

[Nathan89]

^ And Diaw.

[midnightpulp]

George Gervin is the 3rd greatest Spur of all-time.

He was the franchise player for 11 straight seasons, and in that time, led the Spurs to the playoffs every time but once, made the Conference Finals 3 times (where his teams had the unfortunate luck to run into the Showtime Lakers twice), led the league in scoring 4 times, and led playoff scoring 6 times.

Whether or not Tony Parker is a better player in a vacuum because he plays in the modern age is irrelevant. Parker has never had to carry the load of an entire franchise as its best player, and if he did, it's very, very doubtful he'd lead the Spurs as successfully as Gervin did.

The only fair way to compare players across eras is to compare what they achieved in their own particular era. Gervin was consistently a top 5-10 NBA player in his era, a legitimate superstar player at his peak, finishing 2nd in MVP voting in back-to-back years and top 5 in voting for four straight years. Parker has only flirted with superstar status and never finished higher than 5 in MVP voting. Furthermore, Gervin has several statistically impressive playoff runs. Parker is usually solid in the post-season but often disappears/chokes or has a marginal impact, and has yet have run that you can call impressive.

The Spurs have had only 3 franchise-superstar-MVP caliber players in their history. Players you can build around (relative to the era). And they are: Tim Duncan, David Robinson, and George Gervin.

Parker is in the 2nd tier of Spur greats with Johnny Moore, Mike Mitchell, Artis Gilmore, Manu Ginobili, etc.

I'd also take the "DNA challenge" with Gervin vs. Parker, meaning if George Gervin was born in 1982, he'd be a better player than Tony Parker is right now.

[TheGreatYacht]

George Gervin is the 3rd greatest Spur of all-time.

He was the franchise player for 11 straight seasons, and in that time, led the Spurs to the playoffs every time but once, made the Conference Finals 3 times (where his teams had the unfortunate luck to run into the Showtime Lakers twice), led the league in scoring 4 times, and led playoff scoring 6 times.

Whether or not Tony Parker is a better player in a vacuum because he plays in the modern age is irrelevant. Parker has never had to carry the load of an entire franchise as its best player, and if he did, it's very, very doubtful he'd lead the Spurs as successfully as Gervin did.

The only fair way to compare players across eras is to compare what they achieved in their own particular era. Gervin was consistently a top 5-10 NBA player in his era, a legitimate superstar player at his peak, finishing 2nd in MVP voting in back-to-back years and top 5 in voting for four straight years. Parker has only flirted with superstar status and never finished higher than 5 in MVP voting. Furthermore, Gervin has several statistically impressive playoff runs. Parker is usually solid in the post-season but often disappears/chokes or has a marginal impact, and has yet have run that you can call impressive.

The Spurs have had only 3 franchise-superstar-MVP caliber players in their history. Players you can build around (relative to the era). And they are: Tim Duncan, David Robinson, and George Gervin.

Parker is in the 2nd tier of Spur greats with Johnny Moore, Mike Mitchell, Artis Gilmore, Manu Ginobili, etc.

I'd also take the "DNA challenge" with Gervin vs. Parker, meaning if George Gervin was born in 1982, he'd be a better player than Tony Parker is right now.
Parker is one of the best PG's ever and he's doing it in the golden era of PG's

Gervin played in an era of 400 Mike Dunleavys

[apalisoc_9]

Parker is one of the best PG's ever and he's doing it in the golden era of PG's

Gervin played in an era of 400 Mike Dunleavys


:lmao

[midnightpulp]

Parker is one of the best PG's ever and he's doing it in the golden era of PG's

Gervin played in an era of 400 Mike Dunleavys

Too bad there's nothing statistically that supports that.

Parker is basically this era's Kevin Johnson, with less passing acumen and athleticism.

:lol "Golden era of PGs."

In no era before has the point guard been less important than ever to team success.

[Arcadian]

George Gervin is the 3rd greatest Spur of all-time.

He was the franchise player for 11 straight seasons, and in that time, led the Spurs to the playoffs every time but once, made the Conference Finals 3 times (where his teams had the unfortunate luck to run into the Showtime Lakers twice), led the league in scoring 4 times, and led playoff scoring 6 times.

Whether or not Tony Parker is a better player in a vacuum because he plays in the modern age is irrelevant. Parker has never had to carry the load of an entire franchise as its best player, and if he did, it's very, very doubtful he'd lead the Spurs as successfully as Gervin did.

The only fair way to compare players across eras is to compare what they achieved in their own particular era. Gervin was consistently a top 5-10 NBA player in his era, a legitimate superstar player at his peak, finishing 2nd in MVP voting in back-to-back years and top 5 in voting for four straight years. Parker has only flirted with superstar status and never finished higher than 5 in MVP voting. Furthermore, Gervin has several statistically impressive playoff runs. Parker is usually solid in the post-season but often disappears/chokes or has a marginal impact, and has yet have run that you can call impressive.

The Spurs have had only 3 franchise-superstar-MVP caliber players in their history. Players you can build around (relative to the era). And they are: Tim Duncan, David Robinson, and George Gervin.

Parker is in the 2nd tier of Spur greats with Johnny Moore, Mike Mitchell, Artis Gilmore, Manu Ginobili, etc.

I'd also take the "DNA challenge" with Gervin vs. Parker, meaning if George Gervin was born in 1982, he'd be a better player than Tony Parker is right now.

Well said. This guy is correct.

[midnightpulp]

I also find "he wouldn't be able to compete in this era" a nonsensical proposition, as well.

People who make that claim act like a player would be incapable of evolving and adjusting his game to modern standards.

Take Duncan. If he had a devastating injury in '05 and had to retire, you'd have people saying he wouldn't flourish in the modern space and pace era. He'd be too slow and unathletic. His iso-post up game would be too antiquated to be effective. His defense would be marginalized by the emergence of the stretch 4. Etc, etc. (these same arguments are now being used toward Shaq).

And for a while (09-11) it very looked like Duncan was becoming something of a dinosaur. But he lost weight, worked on his jumper, improved his FT shooting, and by virtue of his basketball IQ, is still once of the best overall defensive players in the league. And his per 100 numbers are still around the same now as when he was in his prime.

[Spurs 4 The Win]

Too bad there's nothing statistically that supports that.

Parker is basically this era's Kevin Johnson, with less passing acumen and athleticism.

:lol "Golden era of PGs."

In no era before has the point guard been less important than ever to team success.

Midnightpulp destroying another shitty take per par

[midnightpulp]

Midnightpulp destroying another shitty take per par

:lol I don't think Parker has even cracked the 20 in RAPM in any single season throughout his career.

He's a fine game manager, despite his penchant for heroballing and choking, and I even though I criticize him a lot, I'm still grateful Parker has been a Spur for 12 years, but he's never had to carry a load like George Gervin. Era is of no concern.

Gervin was an MVP caliber player in his era. Parker never has been.

[Galileo]

The Iceman is one of the greatest of all time. He was a 6' 7" guard who could block shots and score like the dickens. He was on shit teams yet still made the playoffs and broke .500 every year.

PS - and he scored hitting a high percentage.

[spurraider21]

And for a while (09-12) it very looked like Duncan was becoming something of a dinosaur. But he lost weight, worked on his jumper, improved his FT shooting, and by virtue of his basketball IQ, is still once of the best overall defensive players in the league. And his per 100 numbers are still around the same now as when he was in his prime.
Not to nitpick, i'd say from 09-11. the series against Phoenix in 2010 was tough to watch... Duncan was probably a net negative defensively, and in 2011 things hit rock bottom when Z-Bo and Marc got the better of him, and he really looked done. but the 11-12 season is when he turned it around imo, and his numbers rebounded quite well, we got the the WCF. that was the first of his "turning back time" seasons that we are still seeing to this day.

[apalisoc_9]

:lmao George Gervin would be worse than Belinelli in today's game, tbh..

How is this so hard to understand?

My point is very much similar..

There is no need to talk about Gervin having the same nutritional, training opportunities or being one of the top players in league in his era..

[Spurs 4 The Win]

How is this so hard to understand?

My point is very much similar..

There is no need to talk about Gervin having the same nutritional, training opportunities or being one of the top players in league in his era..

Lol apalisoc backtracking per par. Belinelli couldnt hold Gervin's jock strap.

[midnightpulp]

Not to nitpick, i'd say from 09-11. the series against Phoenix in 2010 was tough to watch... Duncan was probably a net negative defensively, and in 2011 things hit rock bottom when Z-Bo and Marc got the better of him, and he really looked done. but the 11-12 season is when he turned it around imo, and his numbers rebounded quite well, we got the the WCF. that was the first of his "turning back time" seasons that we are still seeing to this day.

Yeah, I actually meant 09-11.

Duncan was remarkable in 12. Outplaying Blake Griffin and the like.

[apalisoc_9]

Lol apalisoc backtracking per par. Belinelli couldnt hold Gervin's jock strap.

Bellineli would beat Gervin...

[midnightpulp]

How is this so hard to understand?

My point is very much similar..

There is no need to talk about Gervin having the same nutritional, training opportunities or being one of the top players in league in his era..

How can you prove that? By looking at youtube clips?

Even those youtube clips demonstrate that George Gervin in 1978 was a far better finisher than a modern Marco Belinelli.

Also judging a player's ability via highlights and youtube clips is one of the primary reasons casual fans don't think Tim Duncan is an all-time great player.

[apalisoc_9]

How can you prove that? By looking at youtube clips?

Even those youtube clips demonstrate that George Gervin in 1978 was a far better finisher than a modern Marco Belinelli.

Also judging a player's ability via highlights and youtube clips is one of the primary reasons casual fans don't think Tim Duncan is an all-time great player.

It's well documented that today's players are far more gifted with nutrition and training and that's undeniable. The 60's had the Media going crazy about wilt's 29 inch vert..:lol. Only a dumbass would think tim wasn't a great physical specimen. despite the talk of him being about fundamental, Duncan was a strong dude.

Players today are just faster, stronger, and more physical due to the advancement in sport medicine/science in general.

[Spurs 4 The Win]

It's well documented that today's players are far more gifted with nutrition and training and that's undeniable. The 60's had the Media going crazy about wilt's 29 inch vert..:lol. Only a dumbass would think tim wasn't a great physical specimen. despite the talk of him being about fundamental, Duncan was a strong dude.

Players today are just faster, stronger, and more physical due to the advancement in sport medicine/science in general.

Its funny, because when a fuckwad like yourself comes along in 40 years and tries to shit on Tim Duncan because he played back when the "players werent as good" you will be sitting there defending Tim to the death while some know nothing little kid tries to say some scrub would dominate Duncan in a 1v1 because his highlights arent as good. Lmao faggot

[apalisoc_9]

If in 40's years players start jumping from the three point line, 60 inch vert's, 400lbs bench press while all being lean..I would even tell them kids, player A would beat Manu,Tim, Tony, Lebron etc.

I know it's a different sport, but even in soccer players today can run 10 in a 100 and most run in 12...a 70's player can only dream of reaching that speed.

[midnightpulp]

It's well documented that today's players are far more gifted with nutrition and training and that's undeniable. The 60's had the Media going crazy about wilt's 29 inch vert..:lol. Only a dumbass would think tim wasn't a great physical specimen. despite the talk of him being about fundamental, Duncan was a strong dude.

Players today are just faster, stronger, and more physical due to the advancement in sport medicine/science in general.

Kawhi only has a 25" no step vertical and a running 32" vertical, and it doesn't stop him from being the league's best perimeter defender and rebounder for his position.

The 29" vertical was Wilt's no step figure. 1" lower than Dwight Howard's. Combine that with Wilt's freakish length, and he's an impressive specimen in any era.

Of course training and the like has come a long way, but all the training in the world still hasn't made a player like Marco Belinelli more athletic and coordinated than George Gervin.

And we know from watching a player like Manu all these years that you don't need all world speed and athleticism to be a great finisher (although Manu is pretty athletic, he's been playing below the rim for the past 5 years and can still finish strong).

[midnightpulp]

If in 40's years players start jumping from the three point line, 60 inch vert's, 400lbs bench press while all being lean..I would even tell them kids, player A would beat Manu,Tim, Tony, Lebron etc.

I know it's a different sport, but even in soccer players today can run 10 in a 100 and most run in 12...a 70's player can only dream of reaching that speed.

Not going to happen. Humans are pretty much maxed out on their jumping ability. The high jump world record has stood for 21 years. Long jump record has stood for 23 years. Unless there's a PED revolution, players won't get much more athletic than they are now.

[apalisoc_9]

Kawhi only has a 25" no step vertical and a running 32" vertical, and it doesn't stop him from being the league's best perimeter defender and rebounder for his position.

The 29" vertical was Wilt's no step figure. 1" lower than Dwight Howard's. Combine that with Wilt's freakish length, and he's an impressive specimen in any era.

Of course training and the like has come a long way, but all the training in the world still hasn't made a player like Marco Belinelli more athletic and coordinated than George Gervin.

And we know from watching a player like Manu all these years that you don't need all world speed and athleticism to be a great finisher (although Manu is pretty athletic, he's been playing below the rim for the past 5 years and can still finish strong).

The difference is that the world was crazy about a 29 inch vert and today it's hardly even something worth mentioning. Marco at his peak of athleticism can do back dunks, something a 70's fan would wet his pants on..marco would be considered one of the most athletic players in the 70's...It's really deceiving, but modern sport medicine allows you to play at a high physical level despite being extremely lean.

Also, the game has advanced. Euro steps, crossovers, dribble shakes etc, a 70's gervin playing in today's game would probably considered a poor dribbler.

[apalisoc_9]

Not going to happen. Humans are pretty much maxed out on their jumping ability. The high jump world record has stood for 21 years. Long jump record has stood for 23 years. Unless there's a PED revolution, players won't get much more athletic than they are now.

I was obviously exaggerating, but the point is, the time between 70's and the millenia experienced a major advancement in sport medicine, science, training etc.

Really the modern era of basketball started in the 90's, but the game back then was still raw in terms of strategy and overall game tactics.

Basketball has advanced the same way technology and our means of living has advanced..I don't know why people forget this and find it hard to accept...

[midnightpulp]

The difference is that the world was crazy about a 29 inch vert and today it's hardly even something worth mentioning. Marco at his peak of athleticism can do back dunks, something a 70's fan would wet his pants on..marco would be considered one of the most athletic players in the 70's...It's really deceiving, but modern sport medicine allows you to play at a high physical level despite being extremely lean.

Also, the game has advanced. Euro steps, crossovers, dribble shakes etc, a 70's gervin playing in today's game would probably considered a poor dribbler.

I don't know if a mention in the Sporting News qualifies as "the world going crazy," but you can bet that modern scouts and front offices would go crazy for a player measuring 7'1" with a 7'8" wingspan who can jump 29" from a standing position.

As I said, Howard's vert is only 1" higher and he's 2 inches shorter with a markedly smaller wingspan. JaVale McGee? Has a 27" standing vert. DeAndre Jordan? 26" standing vert.

You can knock Wilt's fundamentals and the like, but one thing he doesn't lack in comparison to today's players is athleticism and build.

[apalisoc_9]

I don't know if a mention in the Sporting News qualifies as "the world going crazy," but you can bet that modern scouts and front offices would go crazy for a player measuring 7'1" with a 7'8" wingspan who can jump 29" from a standing position.

As I said, Howard's vert is only 1" higher and he's 2 inches shorter with a markedly smaller wingspan. JaVale McGee? Has a 27" standing vert. DeAndre Jordan? 26" standing vert.

You can knock Wilt's fundamentals and the like, but one thing he doesn't lack in comparison to today's players is athleticism and build.

Sure you can look at it that way, but was there any player outside of wilt that can jump more than 30?

It was a big deal not because he was a bigman that can jump 29 inch, but because there was no one around that can..Big difference.

[midnightpulp]

Sure you can look at it that way, but was there any player outside of wilt that can jump more than 30?

It was a big deal not because he was a bigman that can jump 29 inch, but because there was no one around that can..Big difference.

Bill Russell, for one. His highest high jump was 6'9" compared to Wilt's personal best of 6'6".

Where's the proof it was a big deal because Wilt was the only NBA player capable of that mark? Does the article explicitly state something like, "Chamberlain is the only basketball player in the world who can jump that high?"

I'm sure with an hour of googling, I can find NBA players of that era who out high jumped Wilt in their high school/college track and field days.

[TheGreatYacht]

Why can't the old timers just admit that Gervin's awkward ass wouldn't be as great in today's league? He couldn't shoot 3's, wouldn't be able to guard Top 10 SF's, players are more athletic and stronger, you won't be facing Mike Dunleavy and Aaron Gray every night, there's zones, etc.

Name me some top tier defenders this dude had to face...

[apalisoc_9]

Bill Russell, for one. His highest high jump was 6'9" compared to Wilt's personal best of 6'6".

Where's the proof it was a big deal because Wilt was the only NBA player capable of that mark? Does the article explicitly state something like, "Chamberlain is the only basketball player in the world who can jump that high?"

I'm sure with an hour of googling, I can find NBA players of that era who out high jumped Wilt in their high school/college track and field days.

Why does the article need to explicitly tell it? It's already implied...Otherwise, why mention it..If 30 players can jump 29 and above, why even mention something as ordinary as jumping over 29?

You don't see modern media making a big deal out of a no name player jumping over 40's..

oh yeah, find me three players that can do these in the 60's to the 70's...spend the hour doing that.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hz25jYng2LA

[midnightpulp]

I was obviously exaggerating, but the point is, the time between 70's and the millenia experienced a major advancement in sport medicine, science, training etc.

Really the modern era of basketball started in the 90's, but the game back then was still raw in terms of strategy and overall game tactics.

Basketball has advanced the same way technology and our means of living has advanced..I don't know why people forget this and find it hard to accept...

You're being a bit hyperbolic again, and seem to be equating advancements in human athletic ability (enhanced through training, sports medicine, etc) to the advancements in other technologies (computing, communications, etc), where they advance exponentially.

In reality, human athletic ability has advanced very, very slowly.

For example, the 100m World Record in 1911 was 10.5 seconds. Today, it's 9.58 seconds. All the sports medicine, technology, in depth analysis of strategy, equipment, and nutrition advancements over the past 103 years have only contributed to a 10% increase in human speed. And as I said, other world records like the high jump and long jump have stagnated. Hell, no long jumper in the 2012 Olympics could even come close to the mark set in 1968.

The reason basketball looks so much more "athletic" today is because of specific rule changes that have been implemented to speed the game up and open up offense, better cameras that broadcast at smoother frame rates, and the advancements in strategy and fundamentals you've mentioned.

Athletically, players today aren't much more athletic than players of the 70s. Are they more athletic? Sure. But only marginally so.

[apalisoc_9]

Do you know how big of a difference 10.5 to 9.5 is? That's not a marginal difference, that's a significant difference.

That's almost 10 meters..

I used to run the 100 at 11.7..If I am off a second against the best runner in the past and here I am arguing with you in spurstalk about it..That's gotta be a big deal.

[Spurs 4 The Win]

You're being a bit hyperbolic again, and seem to be equating advancements in human athletic ability (enhanced through training, sports medicine, etc) to the advancements in other technologies (computing, communications, etc), where they advance exponentially.

In reality, human athletic ability has advanced very, very slowly.

For example, the 100m World Record in 1911 was 10.5 seconds. Today, it's 9.58 seconds. All the sports medicine, technology, in depth analysis of strategy, equipment, and nutrition advancements over the past 103 years have only contributed to a 10% increase in human speed. And as I said, other world records like the high jump and long jump have stagnated. Hell, no long jumper in the 2012 Olympics could even come close to the mark set in 1968.

The reason basketball looks so much more "athletic" today is because of specific rule changes that have been implemented to speed the game up and open up offense, better cameras that broadcast at smoother frame rates, and the advancements in strategy and fundamentals you've mentioned.

Athletically, players today aren't much more athletic than players of the 70s. Are they more athletic? Sure. But only marginally so.

Midnightpulp with the goods per par

[midnightpulp]

Why does the article need to explicitly tell it? It's already implied...Otherwise, why mention it..If 30 players can jump 29 and above, why even mention something as ordinary as jumping over 29?

You don't see modern media making a big deal out of a no name player jumping over 40's..

oh yeah, find me three players that can do these in the 60's to the 70's...spend the hour doing that.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hz25jYng2LA

Game wasn't played above the rim back then. Dunking and showboating were considered "classless." But then once dunking was acceptable, you had Dr. J dunking from the FT line, Darryl Dawkins shattering back boards, and David Thompson posterizing people a few years later.

And yes, the "art" of dunking has advanced, but not due to any massive increase in athleticism.

[Galileo]

Hey you morons, if there was a 6'7" guard in the NBA draft who had the skills of George Gervin, he'd be a surefire # 1 overall pick in most seasons unless there was a dominating big man.

[midnightpulp]

Do you know how big of a difference 10.5 to 9.5 is? That's not a marginal difference, that's a significant difference.

That's almost 10 meters..

I used to run the 100 at 11.7..If I am off a second against the best runner in the past and here I am arguing with you in spurstalk about it..That's gotta be a big deal.

A 10% increase over a hundred years is not that rapid of a progression, especially when you consider all those "amazing" sports medicine and nutritional advancements. Maybe if was 10% in a year.

And FWIW, that's before black people ran the 100m.

[apalisoc_9]

A 10% increase over a hundred years is not that rapid of a progression, especially when you consider all those "amazing" sports medicine and nutritional advancements. Maybe if was 10% in a year.

And FWIW, that's before black people ran the 100m.

why do you continue using 10% as if it even matters..a player who jumps even a few inches lower, runs at 0.5 meters slower can be the difference between making it to the league or not making it..really if we go by your numbers, Gervin won't be even able to make it to the pros..probably not even college ball.

[dabom]

Beli is a fuking scrub in any era yoU
fucking twat.

[apalisoc_9]

Hey you morons, if there was a 6'7" guard in the NBA draft who had the skills of George Gervin, he'd be a surefire # 1 overall pick in most seasons unless there was a dominating big man.

He wouldn't even be in the draft because no college team would pick a player that can't even dribble well enough.

[dabom]

How would today's players dowiyh no 3point shot. Defenses can pack the paint aND MIddle easier. Harder toscOre<br type="_moz">

[dabom]

100% of the league would get called for carrying. And travelling.

[Spurs 4 The Win]

He wouldn't even be in the draft because no college team would pick a player that can't even dribble well enough.
http://www.troll.me/images/futurama-fry/not-sure-if-youre-stupid-or-legaly-retarded.jpg

[TheGreatYacht]

How would today's players dowiyh no 3point shot. Defenses can pack the paint aND MIddle easier. Harder toscOre<br type="_moz">
Go home bruh, you drunk

[apalisoc_9]

Why can't the old timers just admit that Gervin's awkward ass wouldn't be as great in today's league? He couldn't shoot 3's, wouldn't be able to guard Top 10 SF's, players are more athletic and stronger, you won't be facing Mike Dunleavy and Aaron Gray every night, there's zones, etc.

Name me some top tier defenders this dude had to face...

70's defense...

:lmao

I've seen rec league players play better defense than players from the 70's...:lmao

[midnightpulp]

why do you continue using 10% as if it even matters..a player who jumps even a few inches lower, runs at 0.5 meters slower can be the difference between making it to the league or not making it..really if we go by your numbers, Gervin won't be even able to make it to the pros..probably not even college ball.

I'm using that particular figure as an example of how slowly athleticism "evolves."

In this case, speed has advanced only .10% per year. And as far as other traits, primarily jumping, they haven't advanced at all in over 40 years.

If you want to champion overall strategy, better fundamentals, and the like as the reason players today are better than players of 40 years ago, that's fine and somewhat provable through watching video (we can see how dribbling, shooting mechanics, footwork, etc have become better).

On the other hand, arguing that great players from the 70s couldn't make it today because of inferior athleticism doesn't pass scrutiny. Players today aren't naturally more athletic. Human beings don't evolve like technology. The advancements in sports science have only been responsible for a very marginal-to-zero (see: jumping) increase in athleticism over the past 50-100 years. Would Gervin struggle if he was plucked directly from 1978 and thrown against Kawhi Leonard the next day? Probably (and I'd say not because of lack of athleticism, but because of the changes in the game). But 2012 Kawhi Leonard would also struggle against 2014 Kawhi Leonard. And just like Leonard underwent strength training, a complete tear down and reworking of his shot, and further learned the nuances of the game under Gregg Popovich and experienced veterans, Gervin could similarly progress and evolve (probably quickly) to be a great player in today's game. We see players all the time who couldn't finish with their left hand adding it to their offensive arsenal the very next year. Or they couldn't shoot the 3. And here they are the next season knocking them down.

The reason I think Gervin is a better player than Parker is because he was just naturally a better basketball player. If he was born in 1982, he's a better player today than Tony.

I can't prove it and the reverse can't be proven, either.

All I do know for a stone cold fact is that Gervin was an MVP caliber player in his era, while Tony has typically stayed in that 2nd tier of stars.

And that's the only fair way to compare the two.

[Spurs 4 The Win]

70's defense...

:lmao

I've seen rec league players play better defense than players from the 70's...:lmao

Were you alive during the 70's? Im gonna bet the answer is definitely no

[midnightpulp]

70's defense...

:lmao

I've seen rec league players play better defense than players from the 70's...:lmao

But offensive schemes are also much better. Worlds better. If anything advanced the most over the NBA's history, it's offense.

38 year old Tim Duncan, for instance, wouldn't average 14 points per game in an iso-oriented, sloppy, pull up and shoot 70's style offense (don't read that as he wouldn't average 14 points in the 70's But if Pop got inspired by watching old Denver Nuggets games and suddenly decided to run that offense, 38 year old Duncan would likely struggle).

[apalisoc_9]

I'm using that particular figure as an example of how slowly athleticism "evolves."

In this case, speed has advanced only .10% per year. And as far as other traits, primarily jumping, they haven't advanced at all in over 40 years.

If you want to champion overall strategy, better fundamentals, and the like as the reason players today are better than players of 40 years ago, that's fine and somewhat provable through watching video (we can see how dribbling, shooting mechanics, footwork, etc have become better).


I can't prove it and the reverse can't be proven, either.

All I do know for a stone cold fact is that Gervin was an MVP caliber player in his era, while Tony has typically stayed in that 2nd tier of stars.

And that's the only fair way to compare the two.

I don't think we're arguing about athletic evolution. The human body can only advance so much..The point is that, the 70's were composed of players that were 0.5 slower, 2 inches shorter, jumps 3 inches lower. These are small numbers for the average joe, but is a significant number in pro sports.

What argument do you have that Gervin is naturally a better basketball player? Tony grew up in a era where basketball has become a world sports with more exposure...Another factor I may add. A factor why players are so much better nowadys..

Todays talent pool is a million times bigger than before because of media exposure, advancement in sports academia, video availability. In fact, it's a credit to all the players today..Making it to the pro now is a million times harder because jumping 40 inches, shooting 50 straight baskets, running 11 in a 100 doesn't make you an instant pro. If my track buddy lived in the 70's with his 10.98 record, he will instantly be scouted for a US run for potential...But the talent pool nowadys killed his chances.. and now he's seating at bank opening new accounts for people.

Tony Parker is faster, competes in a tougher era, made it to the pro's against a much larger talent pool and at 6'2 can dunk the ball.

Sure, Gervin might have influenced the organization in a bigger scale..But if we're talking about purely on who is the better player...It's not even close.

[midnightpulp]

I don't think we're arguing about athletic evolution. The human body can only advance so much..The point is that, the 70's were composed of players that were 0.5 slower, 2 inches shorter, jumps 3 inches lower. These are small numbers for the average joe, but is a significant number in pro sports.

What argument do you have that Gervin is naturally a better basketball player? Tony grew up in a era where basketball has become a world sports with more exposure...Another factor I may add. A factor why players are so much better nowadys..

Todays talent pool is a million times bigger than before because of media exposure, advancement in sports academia, video availability. In fact, it's a credit to all the players today..Making it to the pro now is a million times harder because jumping 40 inches, shooting 50 straight baskets, running 11 in a 100 doesn't make you an instant pro. If my track buddy lived in the 70's with his 10.98 record, he will instantly be scouted for a US run for potential...But the talent pool nowadys killed his chances.. and now he's seating at bank opening new accounts for people.

Tony Parker is faster, competes in a tougher era, made it to the pro's against a much larger talent pool and at 6'2 can dunk the ball.

Sure, Gervin might have influenced the organization in a bigger scale..But if we're talking about purely on who is the better player...It's not even close.

Where's your proof for the bolded?

I know human beings overall didn't jump 3 inches lower 40 years ago (as shown by the progression, or lack there of, in the high jump, triple jump and long jump world records)

100m times were indeed a half second slower.

Height? I don't have figures from the 1970's, but from 1986 to 2008, the average height actually declined: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NBA_league_average_height,_weight,_age_and_playing _experience


Todays talent pool is a million times bigger than before because of media exposure, advancement in sports academia, video availability. In fact, it's a credit to all the players today..Making it to the pro now is a million times harder because jumping 40 inches, shooting 50 straight baskets, running 11 in a 100 doesn't make you an instant pro. If my track buddy lived in the 70's with his 10.98 record, he will instantly be scouted for a US run for potential...But the talent pool nowadys killed his chances.. and now he's seating at bank opening new accounts for people.

Tony Parker is faster, competes in a tougher era, made it to the pro's against a much larger talent pool and at 6'2 can dunk the ball.

Sure, Gervin might have influenced the organization in a bigger scale..But if we're talking about purely on who is the better player...It's not even close.

Not to nit-pick, but a 10.98 100 time wouldn't even be competitive 100 years ago. They were running faster 100 times in 1891 :lol.

My argument for Gervin being naturally more gifted at the game is because he didn't have many shoulders of giants to stand on like today's players do. He was one of the innovators that actively evolved the game. He invented/popularized the floater, was a dynamic finisher, and could score from pretty much anywhere on the court. The fact that Gervin learned the game as effectively as he did (and this is a credit to all great players from that era) without the aid of SportVu tracking, videotape, armies of coaches tweaking his game, and other such luxuries is a testament to his ability.

If you want to compare the players in a vacuum (2014 Tony Parker vs. 1978 George Gervin), then of course Gervin loses that battle. But to compare them so simplistically undermines Gervin's talent and is unfair to him.

A more interesting comparison would be: 25 year old George Gervin after he spent 5 years being developed from the age of 20 by the Spurs (who went back in time and nabbed him). You might invoke inferior athleticism, but since we know modern humans aren't "naturally" more athletic than humans of 40 years ago, we can extrapolate that 5 years under a modern sports program would improve Gervin's athleticism and also his skill set. And if you think the later isn't possible, Kawhi's skillset was beyond limited when the Spurs drafted him. Also, he's not very athletic. But yet, the Spurs have made him into an all-star level player. 1978 George Gervin was more skilled offensively than even today's Kawhi. You don't think Gervin could improve under those conditions into a great (better than Tony) player?

Maybe you don't. But I think he can.

[sook]

kryst. This guy is 9.

[ezau]

George Gervin would never even be a franchise player if he played in today's NBA. Tony Parker is way better than Vince Carter as a player and career-wise, and yet Carter is miles ahead of Gervin.

[exstatic]

midnightpulp, taking a deuce all over apoplectic_9. :lol

[Galileo]

He wouldn't even be in the draft because no college team would pick a player that can't even dribble well enough.

LOL, the only other 6'7" plus guards in NBA history with equal skills are Drexler and Magic. You could stretch it and include Reggie Miller and Reggie Theus.

[apalisoc_9]

Where's your proof for the bolded?



It's an educated assumption. let's take runners for example, the slowest in 100M sprint would place top 3 in the 70's, meaning most athletes on average nowadays are athletically better.


Height? I don't have figures from the 1970's, but from 1986 to 2008, the average height actually declined: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NBA_lea...ing_experience
[/QUOTE]

Why did you use the late 80's? the 80's was basically a time period of change..specially the late 80's. Also, with this sheet, it's apparent NBA players were getting stronger and stronger by year...Again, even your sheet proves my point


Not to nit-pick, but a 10.98 100 time wouldn't even be competitive 100 years ago. They were running faster 100 times in 1891

except my buddy is not a professional runner..

I'll give you the benefit the doubt and say you're not purposely lying, but if you're using wikipedia you should have at least bothered checking the 100 meter record. apparently my buddy would be champion in 1891...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Men%27s_100_metres_world_record_progression

your facts are off.


My argument for Gervin being naturally more gifted at the game is because he didn't have many shoulders of giants to stand on like today's players do. He was one of the innovators that actively evolved the game. He invented/popularized the floater, was a dynamic finisher, and could score from pretty much anywhere on the court. The fact that Gervin learned the game as effectively as he did (and this is a credit to all great players from that era) without the aid of SportVu tracking, videotape, armies of coaches tweaking his game, and other such luxuries is a testament to his ability.

Nurture is half the game, Tony being exposed to many things makes him a far more diverse player.

1978 Gervin probably would get his twig like body injured if he ever faced Kawhi..:lol

[Spurs 4 The Win]

It's an educated assumption. let's take runners for example, the slowest in 100M sprint would place top 3 in the 70's, meaning most athletes on average nowadays are athletically better.




Why did you use the late 80's? the 80's was basically a time period of change..specially the late 80's. Also, with this sheet, it's apparent NBA players were getting stronger and stronger by year...Again, even your sheet proves my point



except my buddy is not a professional runner..

I'll give you the benefit the doubt and say you're not purposely lying, but if you're using wikipedia you should have at least bothered checking the 100 meter record. apparently my buddy would be champion in 1891...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Men%27s_100_metres_world_record_progression

your facts are off.



Nurture is half the game, Tony being exposed to many things makes him a far more diverse player.

1978 Gervin probably would get his twig like body injured if he ever faced Kawhi..:lol


Give it up little kid

[midnightpulp]

It's an educated assumption. let's take runners for example, the slowest in 100M sprint would place top 3 in the 70's, meaning most athletes on average nowadays are athletically better.

Why did you use the late 80's? the 80's was basically a time period of change..specially the late 80's. Also, with this sheet, it's apparent NBA players were getting stronger and stronger by year...Again, even your sheet proves my point

except my buddy is not a professional runner..

I'll give you the benefit the doubt and say you're not purposely lying, but if you're using wikipedia you should have at least bothered checking the 100 meter record. apparently my buddy would be champion in 1891...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Men%27s_100_metres_world_record_progression

your facts are off.



Nurture is half the game, Tony being exposed to many things makes him a far more diverse player.

1978 Gervin probably would get his twig like body injured if he ever faced Kawhi..:lol

Huh? In what world is 10.98 faster than 10.8?


Tony being exposed to many things makes him a far more diverse player.

My argument assumes Gervin will also be exposed to and use those modern luxuries. I'm not comparing them in a vacuum.

[apalisoc_9]

Huh? In what world is 10.98 faster than 10.8?



My argument assumes Gervin will also be exposed to and use those modern luxuries. I'm not comparing them in a vacuum.

.1 difference is what's called a marginal difference. A guy sprinting at 9.5-9.7 today are all championship caliber runners. With a 10.8 world record, my buddy would have been a championship caliber runner.

Jim Hine's record of 10.03 in the 70's would mean my buddy would have probably been a professional sprinter if he was running 10.9 at 19 years old.:lol

[apalisoc_9]

Love TP...

[Johnny RIngo]

Top 4 Spurs imo:

1. Duncan
2. Robinson
3. Manu
4. Leonard

[ThaBigFundamental21]

Gervin was better.

[TheGreatYacht]

Top 4 Spurs IMO
1. Duncan
2. Robinson
3. Parker
4. Gervin

[George Gervin's Afro]

Gervin was better

[Mikeanaro]

1.Duncan
2.Manu
3.Parker
4.Kawhi

I dont like Enrique basketball, but thats the order.

[Diego20]

1 - Duncan
2 - Robinson
3 - Manu
4- Gervin
5 - Kawhi

[dabom]

1.Duncan
2.Manu
3.Parker
4.Kawhi

I dont like Enrique basketball, but thats the order.

No DRob?

[100%duncan]

Duncan and Manu period

[pgardn]

They played different positions. Very difficult.

As far as pure basketball talent I put Gervin only behind Duncan.
Gervin got better in the playoffs; Never have we had a player with this type of scoring ability.

That being said, it would be very interesting to see how Pop would use a young Gervin.

[Mikeanaro]

No DRob?
You are right, Drob at number 4 Kawhi needs to win at least one or two more rings and have a more consistent regular season (All Star numbers) to deserve that spot.

[ajh18]

Anyone who puts Manu or Parker above Robinson is out of their mind. Athletically, Robinson was like a combination of Amare and Dwight Howard (and smarter than both combined). Scoring champ. Rebounding champ. DPOY. MVP. Six-times he was ranked 1 in box +/- during his career. Five times he ranked 1 in win shares/48. Eight times he was top-five in value over replacement.

In his prime, Robinson would be far and away the best Center in the league today. Neither Manu nor Parker can have that said about them at their respective positions, even Manu who had a relatively high peak.

More importantly, Robinson was the foundation of "Spurs basketball" as we know it today. The Spurs are in SA, and have the culture they do, because of the admiral. Duncan is the most accomplished and skilled Spur ever, but some of these posters are completely oblivious to how good Robinson was. There are no two players on the Spurs today you don't trade for a rookie David Robinson.

[Mikeanaro]

Anyone who puts Manu or Parker above Robinson is out of their mind. Athletically, Robinson was like a combination of Amare and Dwight Howard (and smarter than both combined). Scoring champ. Rebounding champ. DPOY. MVP. Six-times he was ranked 1 in box +/- during his career. Five times he ranked 1 in win shares/48. Eight times he was top-five in value over replacement.

In his prime, Robinson would be far and away the best Center in the league today. Neither Manu nor Parker can have that said about them at their respective positions, even Manu who had a relatively high peak.

More importantly, Robinson was the foundation of "Spurs basketball" as we know it today. The Spurs are in SA, and have the culture they do, because of the admiral. Duncan is the most accomplished and skilled Spur ever, but some of these posters are completely oblivious to how good Robinson was. There are no two players on the Spurs today you don't trade for a rookie David Robinson.
Yet he did nothing until Tim Duncan arrived... thats a fact do what you want with it.

[pgardn]

And sadly, but it must be stated:

During perhaps the best season Robinson ever had, he was left on an Island to handle Hakeem.
And he got destroyed. And we got crushed on National TV. In the playoffs...

[ajh18]

Yet he did nothing until Tim Duncan arrived... thats a fact do what you want with it.

Lol, he took a team starting Sean Elliott, Avery Johnson, Vinny Del Negro, and Chuck Person/Charles Smith to 59 wins. That's more than Kobe, Garnett, Howard, Iverson, Melo, or Anthony Davis has been able to do with much more talent. Put prime Manu, Parker, Leonard on those teams instead of Robinson, they don't sniff the playoffs. He did PLENTY without Tim, he just didn't have enough help to win the title. Of course neither did Barkley, Malone, or any number of other all-time greats either.

[ajh18]

And sadly, but it must be stated:

During perhaps the best season Robinson ever had, he was left on an Island to handle Hakeem.
And he got destroyed. And we got crushed on National TV. In the playoffs...

And again, this point has addressed by numerous posters on this site who put way more time into it than I will, but this take represents an extremely unsophisticated perspective on basketball... which a Spurs fan who understands the TEAM nature of the sport should be ashamed of themselves for falling back on.

The Spurs lost to the Rockets because Robinson was asked to score against double and triple teams, while on defense he was isolated against one of the greatest post-players of all-time. The Spurs shooters weren't good enough to create space for Robinson that year, so he got swarmed. It was NOT a one-on-one match on both ends, despite what some made it out to be.

[pgardn]

And again, this point has addressed by numerous posters on this site who put way more time into it than I will, but this take represents an extremely unsophisticated perspective on basketball... which a Spurs fan who understands the TEAM nature of the sport should be ashamed of themselves for falling back on.

The Spurs lost to the Rockets because Robinson was asked to score against double and triple teams, while on defense he was isolated against one of the greatest post-players of all-time. The Spurs shooters weren't good enough to create space for Robinson that year, so he got swarmed. It was NOT a one-on-one match on both ends, despite what some made it out to be.

Yep.

Thats what Robinson was asked to do.
And he could not get it done.

So were we outcoached?

[ajh18]

Yep.

Thats what Robinson was asked to do.
And he could not get it done.

So were we outcoached?

We were out-talent-ed. And out-shot. And yes, out-coached (despite the love some had for Bob Hill).

Put the 2005, 2007, or 2014 Spurs around Robinson in the mid-90s and we likely win at least one title.

[pgardn]

Robinson had two weaknesses offensively that could be taken advantage of, especially as he got older.
He was way, way too left handed.
His post game, was really not a part of his game.

I love the man. The most athletic big man ever imo.
But the above was so obvious.

[ajh18]

Robinson had two weaknesses offensively that could be taken advantage of, especially as he got older.
He was way, way too left handed.
His post game, was really not a part of his game.

No argument that his game had weaknesses. But he was still a far, far superior basketball player to Manu, Parker, or Leonard (who all have noticeable weaknesses in their games as well, and are/were nowhere near as dominant).

Let's also not forget that Rockets team had some of the all-time great clutch shooters on it. Mario Ellie. Kenny Smith. Sam Cassell. Clyde Drexler. Robert Horry. Put four of those around Hakeem and dare a defense to double team him. They'll pay.

[pgardn]

No argument that his game had weaknesses. But he was still a far, far superior basketball player to Manu, Parker, or Leonard.

Let's also not forget that Rockets team had some of the all-time great clutch shooters on it. Mario Ellie. Kenny Smith. Sam Cassell. Clyde Drexler. Robert Horry. Put four of those around Hakeem and dare a defense to double team him. They'll pay.

Personally I thought Robinson could have been better.
He was a great, great athlete. His face up at the foul line, hit the shot, or blow by were great. But he was unable to evolve due to injury and lack of an all around offensive game.

But maybe it's like asking Tim to learn how to be an 80 % FT shooter for his career...

[pgardn]

We were out-talent-ed. And out-shot. And yes, out-coached (despite the love some had for Bob Hill).

Put the 2005, 2007, or 2014 Spurs around Robinson in the mid-90s and we likely win at least one title.

Bob Hill was never picked up after the Spurs.
Hmmm...

Last pro gig I think.

A young Robinson under Pop... Jeezzz.

[ViceCity86]

PG Parker
SG Manu
SF Leonard
PF Duncan
C Robinson

Coach Pop

[pgardn]

PG Parker
SG Manu
SF Leonard
PF Duncan
C Robinson

Coach Pop

Where do Zarco Paspalj and Cotton Ball fit into this juggernaut?

[TheGreatYacht]

:lmao at people putting a 6th man over someone who dropped a Quadruple fucking Double

:lol then saying he never won a ring until Duncan got there

:lol Mario Elie, Avery Johnson, Vinnie Del Negro

[Hemotivo]

:reading

[barbacoataco]

Hard to compare different positions and different eras. So DRob never won a ring single-handedly, but neither did Manu or Parker or Leonard. Robinson was a great great player who won a regular season MVP, led the league in scoring, rebounding, blocking and had great stats all around. His best chance to win a championship in the mid 90's he had Del Negro and a young crappy Avery in the backcourt. Also they never could make their 3ptrs in the playoffs.
1. Duncan
2. Robinson
3. Gervin
4. Parker- only above Manu because more durable
5. Ginobili-

Leonard- we'll see in 5 years

[barbacoataco]

My all time team
C- DRob
Pf- Duncan
Sf- Bowen
Sg- Gervin
Pg- Parker

Bench- Ginobili, Kenon, Leonard

What a team! I'd take it over any other franchise all time team. Bowen is the secret weapon, because you need someone to guard the other teams best scorer. Prime Bowen like 2003 when he shut down Kobe, with DRob and Duncan defending the paint, would be unstoppable.

[RD2191]

Free OP