Reply With Quote
I'd call you a re , too. Gervin isn't even ON your list that he responded to. Dude is in the HOF.dont disagree with me
I'd call you a re , too. Gervin isn't even ON your list that he responded to. Dude is in the HOF.
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.
This discussion can begin when Parker gets selected by his peers as 1 of the 50 greatest players of all time.
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 re !!!
Cojo > Westbrook
1 > 0
Daye > Durant
1 > 0
"Ayres is a good player"
DOINK
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."
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.
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!!!
That was a simple by example rebuttal of your "rings above HOF!" re ed argument.Who moved the goalposts when you brought in scrubs and players from another team?
Bbbuut Five Oooo! Retaaard!!!
Ok so by your re ed 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.
No because that was what you suggested by saying ring count is a re ed 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
Wow, just wow. That's all I can say about this thread.
George Gervin would be worse than Belinelli in today's game, tbh..
there he is
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?
Ring count, ALONE, is a re ed 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.
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.
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 hope not.
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 le 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.
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.
Parker > Admiral?
Never go full re
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions