Tony Parker>Gervin..

[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 Mitc , 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 Mitc , 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

[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 a en and athleticism.

"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 Mitc , 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 a en and athleticism.

"Golden era of PGs."

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

Midnightpulp destroying another ty take per par

[midnightpulp]

Midnightpulp destroying another ty take per par

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 ens. He was on 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]

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 do ented 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... 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 do ented 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... 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 wad like yourself comes along in 40 years and tries to 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 got

[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 do ented 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... 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.