RealGM 2023 Top 100 Project - #59 (George Gervin)

[Owly]

My favorite Gervin season was 81 when he and James Silas (my all time favorite Spur) led a team with a starting front line of George Johnson, Mark Olberding, and rookie Reggie Johnson (front line reserves Dave Corzine, John Shumate, and Paul Griffin) to a 7 game playoff loss to the Moses Malone led Houston team that went to the finals. They had rookie Johnny Moore and half a season of Ron Brewer off the bench in the backcourt for more excitement when their two big guards sat. But seriously, has any franchise ever gone to the playoffs with that consistent a bunch of mediocre rotation bigs?

"Cheating" here by just picking an awful playoff-making team but from the same franchise, adjacent era ...
'88 Spurs
https://www.basketball-reference.com/teams/SAS/1988.html

Brickowski, Avent, Berry et al

The production from the earlier team doesn't look that bad (at least for the top 3 minutes guys, and if one buys into Johnson's D ... it's not great but not that bad either). Certainly versus the '88 powerhouse ...

[penbeast0]

Not as good defensively but Walter Berry and Mike Mitchell is a pretty talented scoring forward combination. The 81 front line was basically three defensive minded bruisers backed up by 3 more bruisers; combine that with the explosive guard play and it made it a fun team to watch.

[Doctor MJ]

Hey guys, thanks for your patience. Family has made my schedule a bit unpredictable during the Holidays. Will post my vote in a minute then tally.

[Owly]

Not as good defensively but Walter Berry and Mike Mitchell is a pretty talented scoring forward combination. The 81 front line was basically three defensive minded bruisers backed up by 3 more bruisers; combine that with the explosive guard play and it made it a fun team to watch.

Berry and Mitchell maybe amount to most of the minutes for one position between the two of them if you think Mitchell is entirely at the three. Both had drug connections (Mitchell went to rehab, I know Berry had to testify regarding drugs ... don't know if there was more than that ... regardless the character stuff on Berry is ... to put it mildly ... not positive) ... part of me likes the idea of the potential of Berry ... so did a bunch of coaches/GMs until they got him.

'81 SA might be more specialized, of a particular image ... '88 is just bad. Brickowski's the guy I feel least uncomfortable starting but even then you get fairly efficient moderate volume points, lots of turnovers, lots of fouls (so can't stay on the floor) and can't really defend his position versus starters, nor provide the help typically desired at that position.

So reading it as of a consistent archetype and middling '81; if read as consistent at being not good (taking the negative implications around mediocre) it's '88.

[Doctor MJ]

Induction Vote 1: George Gervin
Induction Vote 2: Willis Reed

I have a skepticism toward Gervin, but it's not a reason to keep siding against him indefinitely. I'll point out the lack of major playoff success, but it's not like there's some Achilles heel here. Gervin was an extraordinary offensive force.

For the second spot, Zo proponents in particular have made great arguments and I'm continuing to ponder them. Here there is a tendency toward playoff disappointment with Zo that I do keep in mind, and meanwhile, Reed held up very well.

Nomination Vote 1: Cliff Hagan
Nomination Vote 2: Bobby Jones

Well I said I'd be careful about championing more super-oldtimers, but with Hagan getting support I can leave them hanging. The truth is that I do think Hagan stands out significantly compared to the other old timers left. The way he was dominant in the playoffs really impresses.

For the second vote, siding with Bobby among the major candidates. I do find the Parish arguments to be pretty compelling too, but Bobby really stands out to me.

[Doctor MJ]

Induction Vote 1:

Gervin - 6 (beast, AEnigma, Samurai, Clyde, OSNB, Doc)
Zo - 1 (trelos)
Reed - 1 (HBK)
Gasol - 1 (trex)
Thurmond - 1 (hcl)

Gervin with the majority.
George Gervin is Inducted at #59.



Nomination Vote 2:

Bobby - 2 (beast, Samurai)
Mutombo - 3 (AEnigma, trelos, OSNB))
Hagan - 2 (HBK, Doc)
Parish - 2 (trex, Clyde)
none - 1 (hcl)

No way to go further, and Mutombo has more votes than anyone else.

Dikembe Mutombo is added to Nominee list.

[AEnigma]

I've noticed that quite a few players who were top 50 in the last list have slipped through on this rendition and the only question I have is are these players just being dismissed out of hand this time around or are voters actually looking over why they were top 50 last time to get an idea of the reasoning that went on behind it? Not that I'm here to point fingers or anything like that really. I just hope people can realize that were well thought out reasonings for people voting for them that high last time around that might be worth looking into.

Can you specify which names you mean.

Some who aren't yet in(Billups, Gasol, Sam Jones and prob a couple others) and some who are but dropped quite a bit(Gervin, forget who else off the top of my head).

Redirecting this one as it is Gervin specific.

Here is what I pulled from the last project, where Gervin was admitted at #37 (based on active player gains, projected #40 in 2023):

Penbeast voted for him and was distinctly lower on him this go-around. Doc voted for him right behind Reggie Miller and was also distinctly lower on him this go-around (using a difference means of assessment than previous). Dr. Positivity voted for him behind Miller and I think was lower on him this go-around as well. So three fall-offs right there.

Oh, and you voted for him (behind Schayes).

Clyde and Joao vote for Gervin over Miller in a specific tiebreak scenario. User “Magic is Magic” does as well, mostly in an anti-Miller capacity. Hal14 votes for three players who are not Gervin, then changes tact when none gain traction (no explanation given for his later Gervin vote).

The non-overlapping voters (per my recollection, because I know people pop in and out):

I value efficient volume scoring, which is why Gervin and Miller are here. Gervin is less dependent on others to score, which is why i picked him here. Reggie didn’t offer enough passing, defense, etc., for me to take him over Gervin…
…
I guess I might call Iverson and WIlkins B list alphas - teams could make a good playoff run, but not really win it. Probably put Gervin on that list too.

I'm more of a peak/prime guy. I'd take 5-7 seasons with higher chance of winning than 9-10 season with lower chance of winning. This could be challenged by looking at results Drexler's Blazers and Miller's Pacers had but Gervin didn't get to play in such deep, well constructed rosters and good coaches. On individual level, Gervin was the better player and his prime lasted long enough for me.

And that is it. So then the question becomes, is all that a sufficient justification for Gervin to not fall down to top 60 rather than to top 40, and is that 2020 commentary valuable enough that the 2023 collective should have factored it more heavily?

[Cavsfansince84]

[
Redirecting this one as it is Gervin specific.

Here is what I pulled from the last project, where Gervin was admitted at #37 (based on active player gains, projected #40 in 2023):

Penbeast voted for him and was distinctly lower on him this go-around. Doc voted for him right behind Reggie Miller and was also distinctly lower on him this go-around (using a difference means of assessment than previous). Dr. Positivity voted for him behind Miller and I think was lower on him this go-around as well. So three fall-offs right there.

Oh, and you voted for him (behind Schayes).

Clyde and Joao vote for Gervin over Miller in a specific tiebreak scenario. User “Magic is Magic” does as well, mostly in an anti-Miller capacity. Hal14 votes for three players who are not Gervin, then changes tact when none gain traction (no explanation given for his later Gervin vote).

The non-overlapping voters (per my recollection, because I know people pop in and out):

I value efficient volume scoring, which is why Gervin and Miller are here. Gervin is less dependent on others to score, which is why i picked him here. Reggie didn’t offer enough passing, defense, etc., for me to take him over Gervin…
…
I guess I might call Iverson and WIlkins B list alphas - teams could make a good playoff run, but not really win it. Probably put Gervin on that list too.

I'm more of a peak/prime guy. I'd take 5-7 seasons with higher chance of winning than 9-10 season with lower chance of winning. This could be challenged by looking at results Drexler's Blazers and Miller's Pacers had but Gervin didn't get to play in such deep, well constructed rosters and good coaches. On individual level, Gervin was the better player and his prime lasted long enough for me.

And that is it. So then the question becomes, is all that a sufficient justification for Gervin to not fall down to top 60 rather than to top 40, and is that 2020 commentary valuable enough that the 2023 collective should have factored it more heavily?

With regard to Gervin I can easily see how 37 would be at close to the highest possible ranking for him back in 2020 and its understandable how he might come in 10 or or more posts lower this time around. I don't want to specifically debate his placement so much as I was just asking whether voters were actually considering how some of these players got in at a much higher ranking in the previous iteration of this project who have slid very far down. Which is to say whether something may be getting lost in terms of the rationale for what made them great players.

[AEnigma]

Speaking for myself, yes — which is why I will try to quote others when I think an explanation is particularly compelling. The results do not matter much to me, and in this case, I did not find those Gervin votes to be especially compelling as a top 50 case — and I said as much repeatedly when people came in and asked. Nothing there strikes me as a particularly strong comparative argument, so nothing there inherently justifies Gervin above or below other players. I voted for Gervin in this thread, and a large part of why was that we finally reached the point where I stopped objecting to what I felt he accomplished relative to the other four or five available options.

[penbeast0]

Can you specify which names you mean.

Some who aren't yet in(Billups, Gasol, Sam Jones and prob a couple others) and some who are but dropped quite a bit(Gervin, forget who else off the top of my head).

Redirecting this one as it is Gervin specific.

Here is what I pulled from the last project, where Gervin was admitted at #37 (based on active player gains, projected #40 in 2023):

Penbeast voted for him and was distinctly lower on him this go-around. Doc voted for him right behind Reggie Miller and was also distinctly lower on him this go-around (using a difference means of assessment than previous). Dr. Positivity voted for him behind Miller and I think was lower on him this go-around as well. So three fall-offs right there.

Oh, and you voted for him (behind Schayes).

Clyde and Joao vote for Gervin over Miller in a specific tiebreak scenario. User “Magic is Magic” does as well, mostly in an anti-Miller capacity. Hal14 votes for three players who are not Gervin, then changes tact when none gain traction (no explanation given for his later Gervin vote).

The non-overlapping voters (per my recollection, because I know people pop in and out):

I value efficient volume scoring, which is why Gervin and Miller are here. Gervin is less dependent on others to score, which is why i picked him here. Reggie didn’t offer enough passing, defense, etc., for me to take him over Gervin…
…
I guess I might call Iverson and WIlkins B list alphas - teams could make a good playoff run, but not really win it. Probably put Gervin on that list too.

I'm more of a peak/prime guy. I'd take 5-7 seasons with higher chance of winning than 9-10 season with lower chance of winning. This could be challenged by looking at results Drexler's Blazers and Miller's Pacers had but Gervin didn't get to play in such deep, well constructed rosters and good coaches. On individual level, Gervin was the better player and his prime lasted long enough for me.

And that is it. So then the question becomes, is all that a sufficient justification for Gervin to not fall down to top 60 rather than to top 40, and is that 2020 commentary valuable enough that the 2023 collective should have factored it more heavily?

For me, (hopefully) it's a better understanding of what makes a player valuable plus the addition of a number of players who have added to their career value since that time. Also, the spread between players gets tighter as you progress in the project making it harder to draw significant distinctions.