Kawhi has scored double figures in 50 straight home games (2nd all-time)

[SPURt]

Durant is the modern day Gervin & is actually a better scorer b/c he is an elite 3 point shooter.

I don't know if it's fair to use the three as a reason to place Durant over Gervin. The rules of the game are so different and were changed to make the game more fluid and perimeter oriented.

[Cry Havoc]

Gervin shot a better percentage too, it isn't just points. Ice's scoring got him into the Hall and he carried the Spurs as a franchise for years. Durant is an MVP and an overall more complete player. People acting like it's crazy to put Ice in the same echelon of scorer as Durant I simply don't agree with.

so first you argue that Gervin didn't have a 3 point line, now you're using the flip side of the argument in your favor also. You have to pick one horse to ride.

[SPURt]

so first you argue that Gervin didn't have a 3 point line, now you're using the flip side of the argument in your favor also. You have to pick one horse to ride.

I'm not sure what is contradictory? If you want think Ice doesn't belong in a debate with KD scoring wise I'm not going to concede, especially since you have yet to give any evidence stat wise to prove KD is in a separate stratosphere to Ice. Ice also didn't have players like Westbrook to create open shots for him. Silas was great, but not the caliber of Westbrook.

If you are suggesting taking two point jumpers in the mid range should improve his percentages during the more physical, hand checking NBA we are really far from agreeing. I get it though, you took a weak position and nobody wants to say they were wrong.

[daslicer]

The le was deceptive but still pretty impressive for Kawhi. I think at the start of Duncan's career he had a streak of scoring in double figures for around 300 some games. I think the streak ended sometime during the '03-'04 season. That would have been the second season of playing in the AT&T center.

[Kawhitstorm]

I don't know if it's fair to use the three as a reason to place Durant over Gervin. The rules of the game are so different and were changed to make the game more fluid and perimeter oriented.

Gervin was a perimeter player & played in the ABA where they had a 3 point line before the NBA.

http://www.basketball-reference.com/...g3_career.html

[SPURt]

Gervin was a perimeter player & played in the ABA where they had a 3 point line before the NBA.

http://www.basketball-reference.com/...g3_career.html

I don't think you understand that defenses changed and offenses changed. The 80's had a three point line but most offenses didn't utilize anywhere near today's NBA.

[Kawhitstorm]

I don't think you understand that defenses changed and offenses changed. The 80's had a three point line but most offenses didn't utilize anywhere near today's NBA.

I'm aware of that but he was still a mediocre 3 point shooter in relative to the other ABA players. He was basically Wade status, who's a great mid-range shooters & finisher at the rim but not a long range shooter. Jordan was also at best an average 3 point shooter in relative to his contemporaries.

[SPURt]

I'm aware of that but he was still a mediocre 3 point shooter in relative to the other ABA players. He was basically Wade status, who's a great mid-range shooters & finisher at the rim but not a long range shooter. Jordan was also at best an average 3 point shooter in relative to his contemporaries.

There are plenty of great scorers that weren't proficient at the three. Jordan and Wade are good examples. All the big men from Wilt to Kareem to Shaq to Timmy. They were all great scorers. Same with Ice. Conversely there have been great three point shooters that aren't great scorers. I agree that Ice wasn't a great 3 point shooter, but he could still average more points in a season the all but a few great players.

[Cry Havoc]

I'm not sure what is contradictory? If you want think Ice doesn't belong in a debate with KD scoring wise I'm not going to concede, especially since you have yet to give any evidence stat wise to prove KD is in a separate stratosphere to Ice. Ice also didn't have players like Westbrook to create open shots for him. Silas was great, but not the caliber of Westbrook.

Durant had 4 scoring les by the time he entered his prime.

Career numbers:

PPG:
Durant 27.2
Gervin 25.1

RPG:
Durant 7.0
Gervin 5.3

APG:
Durant 3.6
Gervin 2.6

EFG%:
Durant .529 (.578 peak)
Gervin .507 (.544 peak)

TS%:
Durant .604 (.647 peak)
Gervin .564 (.604 peak)

PER:
Durant 25.0 (29.8 peak)
Gervin 21.4 (24.7 peak)

FT%
Durant .882
Gervin .841

If you are suggesting taking two point jumpers in the mid range should improve his percentages during the more physical, hand checking NBA we are really far from agreeing.

At suggesting an era when defense was an afterthought was more physical. Why do you think they took away the hand check in the first place? Because teams actually started trying on defense in the 90s and during the 00s when they became more advanced, scoring was in the 80s. Do you really think that players just suddenly forgot how to play offense in 2000?

I get it though, you took a weak position and nobody wants to say they were wrong.

Yeah, Durant's career PER is higher than Gervin's PEAK PER, but I'm arguing from a weak position.

Also, I guess Iceman himself is an idiot too: http://blog.mysanantonio.com/spursna...ant-is-better/

Even the man himself agrees with me. Good effort. By that I mean ty effort listing a single stat and rose-tinted glasses about the 70s and thinking you've won a basketball argument.

[Kawhitstorm]

There are plenty of great scorers that weren't proficient at the three. Jordan and Wade are good examples. All the big men from Wilt to Kareem to Shaq to Timmy. They were all great scorers. Same with Ice. Conversely there have been great three point shooters that aren't great scorers. I agree that Ice wasn't a great 3 point shooter, but he could still average more points in a season the all but a few great players.

Without the 3 point line, Gervin is an all-time top 10 scorer but Curry is breaking records b/c he's the best 3 point shooter of all-time.

[SPURt]

Durant had 4 scoring les by the time he entered his prime.

Career numbers:

PPG:
Durant 27.2
Gervin 25.1

RPG:
Durant 7.0
Gervin 5.3

APG:
Durant 3.6
Gervin 2.6

EFG%:
Durant .529 (.578 peak)
Gervin .507 (.544 peak)

TS%:
Durant .604 (.647 peak)
Gervin .564 (.604 peak)

PER:
Durant 25.0 (29.8 peak)
Gervin 21.4 (24.7 peak)

FT%
Durant .882
Gervin .841




At suggesting an era when defense was an afterthought was more physical. Why do you think they took away the hand check in the first place? Because teams actually started trying on defense in the 90s and during the 00s when they became more advanced, scoring was in the 80s. Do you really think that players just suddenly forgot how to play offense in 2000?



Yeah, Durant's career PER is higher than Gervin's PEAK PER, but I'm arguing from a weak position.

Also, I guess Iceman himself is an idiot too: http://blog.mysanantonio.com/spursna...ant-is-better/

Even the man himself agrees with me. Good effort. By that I mean ty effort listing a single stat and rose-tinted glasses about the 70s and thinking you've won a basketball argument.

Yeah, you are using rebounds, PER, etc. No where did I say Gervin was an equal player. I said he is in the same class of SCORER. The position you took is Gervin is not in the same league scoring wise as Durant, and that's simply not true. The scoring les are an empty stat too. It's like saying Nash is in a different class of player than Oscar Robertson because he has more MVP's. There is no stat you provided that suggests Gervin and Durant don't belong on the same list of NBA's greatest scorers. That's my point.

On top of that you are using career averages lol! Durant hasn't had his last couple of old man years to temper his stats, and 2 more points per game or one field goal hardly suggest Durant and Gervin don't belong in a discussion as to who is better scoring wise.

[SPURt]

Without the 3 point line, Gervin is an all-time top 10 scorer but Curry is breaking records b/c he's the best 3 point shooter of all-time.

I totally agree the Steph is the best shooter possibly ever and is beyond both Durant and Gervin. Using the three point line as the basis for "greatest scorers" or excluding Gervin doesn't necessarily work. For instance Curry is too small to be a great post up scorer, that doesn't make him a bad scorer. LMA is not a great three point shooter, but he is a great scorer because he is so strong on the post and in the mid range. When I said Gervin was arguably better than Durant, it was because Gervin was a great scorer and belongs in the same discussion as KD. I was confused on whether or not that was an NBA record because the Spurs had players like D Rob and Gervin. When you used KD as an example of why it wasn't obviously NBA I'm thinking about DRob and Gervin and how they were averaging similar ppg numbers to KD in their primes.

[Cry Havoc]

Yeah, you are using rebounds, PER, etc. No where did I say Gervin was an equal player. I said he is in the same class of SCORER.

You didn't say the same class. You said he's arguably a better scorer. You have failed to make any sort of argument for that, and even Gervin himself disagrees with you.

The position you took is Gervin is not in the same league scoring wise as Durant, and that's simply not true.

Kindly direct me to where I said that, please.

"Using a flat stat in isolation (like points) is a terrible way to measure the impact of a player. No one is disputing that Gervin wasn't a great scorer -- you said he's arguably better than Durant."

The scoring les are an empty stat too. It's like saying Nash is in a different class of player than Oscar Robertson because he has more MVP's. There is no stat you provided that suggests Gervin and Durant don't belong on the same list of NBA's greatest scorers. That's my point.

Did you really just make the argument that scoring les is a meaningless stat when you're talking specifically about the offensive abilities of a player?

It's reflective of the fact that a player dominated his era in scoring. If the NBA changed the rules tomorrow and suddenly teams were scoring a combined 320 points per game on average, do you think it would be impressive for a player to average 35 points per game? Or would you need the context in which they scored those points to determine how the pace of the game affected the scoring output.

But I guess relative pace of the game doesn't matter, so Big O would definitely average a triple double today, right?

On top of that you are using career averages lol! Durant hasn't had his last couple of old man years to temper his stats, and 2 more points per game or one field goal hardly suggest Durant and Gervin don't belong in a discussion as to who is better scoring wise.

Yeah, and what does that show? That shows that Durant's career AVERAGES often better Gervin's career BESTS. Durant is 27 and just now into his prime, so there's a chance his averages could stay the same or even go up from where they are now in his career.

So far you've strawmanned my argument (I never said they were in different leagues as scorers), you've stated that I'm arguing from a weak position, which now you're backtracking with a lot of additional qualifiers, and you have, in all this time, only listed ONE statistic for your argument. Waiting to hear any convincing knowledge from you. Or any knowledge period.

[SPURt]

You didn't say the same class. You said he's arguably a better scorer. You have failed to make any sort of argument for that, and even Gervin himself disagrees with you.



Kindly direct me to where I said that, please.

"Using a flat stat in isolation (like points) is a terrible way to measure the impact of a player. No one is disputing that Gervin wasn't a great scorer -- you said he's arguably better than Durant."



Did you really just make the argument that scoring les is a meaningless stat when you're talking specifically about the offensive abilities of a player?

It's reflective of the fact that a player dominated his era in scoring. If the NBA changed the rules tomorrow and suddenly teams were scoring a combined 320 points per game on average, do you think it would be impressive for a player to average 35 points per game? Or would you need the context in which they scored those points to determine how the pace of the game affected the scoring output.

But I guess relative pace of the game doesn't matter, so Big O would definitely average a triple double today, right?



Yeah, and what does that show? That shows that Durant's career AVERAGES often better Gervin's career BESTS. Durant is 27 and just now into his prime, so there's a chance his averages could stay the same or even go up from where they are now in his career.

So far you've strawmanned my argument (I never said they were in different leagues as scorers), you've stated that I'm arguing from a weak position, which now you're backtracking with a lot of additional qualifiers, and you have, in all this time, only listed ONE statistic for your argument. Waiting to hear any convincing knowledge from you. Or any knowledge period.

It's easy to be on the Durant bandwagon but Ice's career is still a point of conversation years later. I believe Gervin could score and be more effective in this era, especially with sports medicine. I'm not sure Durant would be as successful in Gervin's era.

I put Gervin the same conversation as Durant. You use best career season and the one relevant stat, ppg, Gervin is still better. It's debatable still, if Durant wins a le as the main weapon and keeps his pace for more years he could be in a rare class. As of now, like people in this thread have opined, Durant appears to be the Ice of his generation.

I I appreciate the discussion, sometimes on spurstalk these type of conversations devolve into garbage. Thank you for responding, I see your perspective and think time will tell. If Durant becomes a Spur for instance his stats would dip and this conversation becomes much different. That's on Durant for now.