1978-81 Gervin or 2013-16 Harden?

[Quotatious]

Who was better during the 4-year stretch:

George Gervin 1977-78 to 1980-81 seasons

or

James Harden 2012-13 to 2015-16 seasons

[Warspite]

This might be the only matchup in which Gervin has a clear edge on defense.

[wojoaderge]

This might be the only matchup in which Gervin has a clear edge on defense.

A 1997 Sporting News survey of writers (50th anniversary etc.) voted the Iceman one of the 5 worst defensive players of all time along with Connie Hawkins, Billy Knight, a fourth ex-ABAer I can't remember, and Ernie "No-D."

This is a tough one

[homecourtloss]

This might be the only matchup in which Gervin has a clear edge on defense.

A 1997 Sporting News survey of writers (50th anniversary etc.) voted the Iceman one of the 5 worst defensive players of all time along with Connie Hawkins, Billy Knight, a fourth ex-ABAer I can't remember, and Ernie "No-D."

This is a tough one

ElGee's WOWY project had the Iceman as one of the if not the biggest negative impact players whom he studied. Harden sucks on defense, but his overall impact is a positive one because his offense is so efficient (perhaps only in this era but still).

I'll take Harden.

[tsherkin]

Tough. I'd side with Harden because of the playmaking, I think, but it's a fairly interesting comparison.

[Blackfyre]

The gap between the two isn't large, but I would take Harden rather easily. Both are tremendous scorers with very good efficiency. Harden is miles ahead as passer and play-maker. Considering Gervin was few inches taller and played in a era with much faster pace I'd say Harden is also better rebounder. Gervin was rather subpar rebounder for a guy that tall. Both are terrible defenders, but that post from "wojoaderge" makes me think that Gervin was probably even worse.

[penbeast0]

This might be the only matchup in which Gervin has a clear edge on defense.

A 1997 Sporting News survey of writers (50th anniversary etc.) voted the Iceman one of the 5 worst defensive players of all time along with Connie Hawkins, Billy Knight, a fourth ex-ABAer I can't remember, and Ernie "No-D."

This is a tough one

The Hawk? Surprised at that. I do remember Gervin and Nique being voted to the "cares least about playing defense" team by their peers while they were playing in a Sporting News article. Gervin was a surprisingly good shotblocker though.

[Samurai]

The gap between the two isn't large, but I would take Harden rather easily. Both are tremendous scorers with very good efficiency. Harden is miles ahead as passer and play-maker. Considering Gervin was few inches taller and played in a era with much faster pace I'd say Harden is also better rebounder. Gervin was rather subpar rebounder for a guy that tall. Both are terrible defenders, but that post from "wojoaderge" makes me think that Gervin was probably even worse.

To be fair, Harden wasn't playing in 1997. If he were, there is a good chance he could have made that Sporting News list.

Off topic a bit, but I am surprised Connie Hawkins was on that Sporting News list. I don't recall him as a bad defender and I vaguely remember him having some fairly good defensive ratings on the board games (such as Strat-O-matic) back then. I don't recall any of the publications at the time making note of his bad defense during his playing days.

[wojoaderge]

I remember reading in Wilt's first bio saying that "Connie doesn't play defense worth a ****" or something to that effect. I'm thinking now that the 4th ex-ABAer may have been Brisker

[70sFan]

Do you realise that Gervin is much better playoffs performer than Harden? James has one nice run in 2015, but otherwise he is just poor in PS. Gervin on the other hand was unstoppable scorer in playoffs.

Harden is better playmaker, but Gervin is great off-ball player. Both players are mainly scorers and I think George game is better suited for postseason.

[tsherkin]

Do you realise that Gervin is much better playoffs performer than Harden? James has one nice run in 2015, but otherwise he is just poor in PS. Gervin on the other hand was unstoppable scorer in playoffs.

Harden is better playmaker, but Gervin is great off-ball player. Both players are mainly scorers and I think George game is better suited for postseason.

Yes, but... To DA this, scoring isn't the only part of offense and Harden remains (even in his poor postseasons) a dramatically superior shot creator who also creates more foul pressure. That's something worth considering as well.

[Warspite]

Do you realise that Gervin is much better playoffs performer than Harden? James has one nice run in 2015, but otherwise he is just poor in PS. Gervin on the other hand was unstoppable scorer in playoffs.

Harden is better playmaker, but Gervin is great off-ball player. Both players are mainly scorers and I think George game is better suited for postseason.

Yes, but... To DA this, scoring isn't the only part of offense and Harden remains (even in his poor postseasons) a dramatically superior shot creator who also creates more foul pressure. That's something worth considering as well.

Gervin might have been better at getting to the line if he faced better defenders or if his 1st move wasnt so unstoppable. Hard to fault a guy for not getting fouled when no defender can stay within 2 ft of him.

Gervin is also a better teammate who can lead a team to success while Harden has trouble leading flies to a dumpster full of dog poo.

Both players are flawed to a large degree but I don't see how Harden is going to win 4 scoring titles or take a team of role players to a WCF. he certainly isn't going to beat a team led by a player of the caliber of DrJ with less talented teammates.

[trex_8063]

This might be the only matchup in which Gervin has a clear edge on defense.

A 1997 Sporting News survey of writers (50th anniversary etc.) voted the Iceman one of the 5 worst defensive players of all time along with Connie Hawkins, Billy Knight, a fourth ex-ABAer I can't remember, and Ernie "No-D."

This is a tough one

The Hawk? Surprised at that. I do remember Gervin and Nique being voted to the "cares least about playing defense" team by their peers while they were playing in a Sporting News article. Gervin was a surprisingly good shotblocker though.

I'd noted this too. Guy's got crazy length for a SG, for sure. But even so, it seems to me that you're not going to block that many shots as a perimeter player unless you're at least semi-consistent in contesting shots hard.
From the limited amount of full-game video of Gervin I've seen, I didn't think he looked that bad on defense. His lateral quickness (whether its effort or ability) didn't seem great, and every once in awhile he'd fall asleep on a play. Though it didn't seem quite as bad as some guards I watch more regularly today (like Harden, Dame Lillard, sporadically Derrick Rose frustrates me with his lack of defensive effort, too).

[Quotatious]

Both players are flawed to a large degree but I don't see how Harden is going to win 4 scoring titles or take a team of role players to a WCF.

When did Gervin take a team of role players to WCF? He always had at least one star. Larry Kenon in 1979 was an excellent player, clearly a star. Then in '82 he had Mike Mitchell, a very good scorer, and in '83, he had Mitchell and Artis Gilmore, when A-Train was still easily all-star caliber player. Besides, his Spurs had to win only one series to get to conference finals. Johnny Moore and James Silas were good, too. Gervin's teams were fairly talented most of the time.

I think Harden in 2015 actually came closer to "leading a role player team to WCF". Dwight played pretty well in the postseason that year, but he wasn't a real star most of the time. Certainly not like he was the year before, in 2014. Plus, Harden had to win two series to get to WCF.

[tsherkin]

Gervin might have been better at getting to the line if he faced better defenders or if his 1st move wasnt so unstoppable. Hard to fault a guy for not getting fouled when no defender can stay within 2 ft of him.

I don't think we would see an appreciable difference. Harden is an outlier even in this era. There aren't a ton of guys who have matched anything like his draw rate even over the last decade plus since the rules change. Gervin was okay at drawing fouls, pretty decent for his own time, but he was a finesse player. That was his core identity. The finger roll, the jumper, that's who he was.

Gervin is also a better teammate who can lead a team to success while Harden has trouble leading flies to a dumpster full of dog poo.

That is a steaming load of garbage, given that Harden led the Rockets just as far as did Gervin (to the conference finals). From 77-85, the Spurs exited the first round 5 times and missed the playoffs once. They made it to the conference finals three times (once in the east, twice in the west). They lost to Boston, lost to the Bullets twice (and in 79, the conference finals was their second series, not their third), lost in consecutive seasons to the Rockets, got swept by the Lakers, lost to them again in 83, missed entirely in 84 and then lost to Denver.

This is a really, really BAD argument on your behalf. Hell, we're not even talking about the best-of-5 first round series in that era, either. C'mon, Warspite, you're better than this.

[quot]
Both players are flawed to a large degree but I don't see how Harden is going to win 4 scoring titles[/quote]

He probably wouldn't, but that's entirely irrelevant: Gervin shot more, Harden passed more. We already know this. There's also the pace difference to consider. Even in 85 in his last year with the Spurs, Gervin was playing at 103.9 possessions per game, rendering transition a very, very large part of his game even in only 29 mpg. The proportion of his buckets represented by those opportunities was obviously higher as a result (given that his total shooting volume was reduced).

I'm not sure how you thought that a viable argument. You don't like Harden, that's fine, but your argument is pretty bad. Revisting that, you should see it.

or take a team of role players to a WCF. he certainly isn't going to beat a team led by a player of the caliber of DrJ with less talented teammates.

"Bunch of roleplayers" is totally inaccurate, particularly given Mike Mitchell as his second scorer was scoring 20+ ppg in the playoffs, and often more than that in the series victories. He was handling a pretty meaningful scoring load, putting the lie to your attempt at downplaying Gervin's support. FWIW, Mitchell logged 20+ ppg seasons a half-dozen times in 7 years in his NBA career, and the middle season was 19.9 ppg. That's not a roleplayer, that's a quality second scorer, again undercutting your attempt at downplaying Gervin's support, and this is to say nothing of Larry Kenon from 77-80, who averaged 21/10 over those seasons. Talking about the Spurs as a collection of roleplayers is disingenuous and antithetical to quality discussion.

Series victories that the Spurs had in the NBA with Gervin include:

79: 7-game victory over the Sixers where he was one of 3 20+ ppg scorers on his team and he scored almost 4 fewer PPG than his regular season average from that season but where he was a monster in game 7.

82: 6-game victory over the Sonics. Gus Williams tore them a new one, but after him and Sikma, they didn't have tons of offensive support while again,

83: 5-game victory over the Nuggets

And that's it. 3 series victories in the entire time he was with the Spurs in the NBA, because of the way the playoffs worked at the time. And you're comparing that to a guy who did actually win two series in a single season, which almost matches Gervin's entire NBA career in that regard.

You have every right to dislike the aesthetic of Harden's game. In a comparison like this, however, it's important to set aside your sense of aesthetic and to properly handle how each player plays the game, the impact it has, the facts about the rosters involved and team success, etc. Otherwise, what's the point? Coming in to spit venom and nothing more isn't productive.