Tony Parker>Gervin..

[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 compe ive 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...rd_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..

[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...rd_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..

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...rd_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..

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.

[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 le. 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 le.

[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...