RealGM Top 100 List #38

[RSCD3_]

What advantages does Peak Cowens have over Dwight or Alonzo

[Clyde Frazier]

Vote for #38 - George "Iceman" Gervin

Spoiler:

- 14 year career (4 ABA, 10 NBA)
- 2x all ABA 2nd team
- 7x all NBA (5 1st, 2 2nd)
- 3 top 3 and 3 top 10 MVP finishes
- 4x scoring champ, which was most all time among guards when he retired

My post earlier in the thread comparing gervin to durant:

Spoiler:

Looking at gervin's best 5 seasons, they're [edit] pretty comparable to durant's last 5, who was voted in at 36.

GERVIN 78-82

AVG - 29.8 PPG, 5.1 RPG, 2.9 APG, 1.4 SPG, 1 BPG, 3.3 TOPG

PER 100 - 37.6 PPG, 6.4 RPG, 3.7 APG, 1.7 SPG, 1.2 BPG, 4.1 TOPG

~52% FG, 30% 3PT, 84% FT, 58% TS, 113/106 OFF/DEF RG, .185 WS/48

DURANT 10-14

AVG - 29.3 PPG, 7.5 RPG, 3.9 APG, 1.3 SPG, 1 BPG, 3.4 TOPG

PER 100 - 38.7 PPG, 10 RPG, 5.1 APG, 1.7 SPG, 1.4 BPG, 4.4 TOPG

~49% FG, 38% 3PT, 89% FT, 62% TS, 119/103 OFF/DEF RTG, .250 WS/48

Both players were selected to all NBA 1st team in all 5 of those seasons.

You can make arguments against gervin such as average longevity and so so team success, but I just wanted to point out how truly gifted he was offensively.

It's too bad Steve Smith's "Baby Ice" nickname didn't stick, because it's quite fitting.

Looking at gervin's playoff resume, it certainly leaves something to be desired in comparison to isiah. That said, he was still an impressive playoff performer, putting up the following #s from 75-83:

~28.8 PPG, 7 RPG, 3 APG, 1 SPG, 1 BPG, 50% FG, 82% FT, 56% TS, 113/108 OFF/DEF RTG, .163 WS/48

In 79, the spurs faced the defending champion bullets in the ECF, with a heartbreaking 2 pt game 7 loss. Gervin scored 42 pts in the game, including 24 in the 2nd half. The spurs and bullets ranked 1st and 2nd in SRS respectively that season.

In 82, the spurs made a mid season trade for talented scorer Mike Mitchell. He would only appear in 57 games for the spurs, and gervin still led the spurs to the 7th best SRS in the league. They would fall to the eventual NBA champion lakers (4th in SRS) in the WCF.

In 83, the spurs (6th in SRS) would again fall to the lakers (3rd in SRS) in the WCF. Gervin and Mitchell both had solid performances in the post season that year, but simply weren't enough for a deep lakers roster that featured magic, kareem, nixon, wilkes, mcadoo and cooper.

I was very close to voting for thomas here, and I'm sure I will be soon, but looking at those teams he played on in the late 80s, they were super talented. They weren't built like a big 3, but closer to the 70 knicks or 04 pistons in that they had talent across the board structured toward a specific gameplan.

Dumars, Dantley, Aguirre, Rodman, Vinnie Johnson, Laimbeer, Mahorn, etc.

And let's not forget HOF coach Chuck Daly. In no way am I knocking isiah's contribution to those team accomplishments, but he was lucky to have the support he had along the way. Had gervin and gilmore had more time together during each other's primes, i'm sure both would have helped each other to further playoff success.

[SactoKingsFan]

I'll go with Pierce over Miller and Isiah.

I think Pierce's ability to play at an elite level over more seasons is enough to give him the clear edge over Isiah.

Pierce and Miller both have great longevity but I prefer Pierce as a franchise cornerstone for his more impressive overall game which I value more than Miller's super efficient scoring and edge as a playoff performer. With Pierce you get volume scoring (pre big 3) on very good efficiency (02-11 TS%: 57.2 (+3.9) | League Avg TS%: 53.3) solid/underrated defense, and superior playmaking ability and rebounding.

Vote: Paul Pierce

Sent from my LG-D800 using RealGM Forums mobile app

[Quotatious]

Not an easy choice for me, but I'll vote for George Gervin.

Clyde Frazier's post makes a pretty good case for him. I'm normally not a big fan of one-dimensional players, but some of them are just special in their area of expertise, that they deserve some serious praise for that. Like Magic, Barkley and Nash (as far as GOAT-ish offensive players, below average defenders, who are already in) before him, Iceman was also an unstoppable force. I think he's definitely one of the top 10 scorers in NBA history, and even though he created very little for his teammates, his scoring was so impactful that San Antonio was a fixture as a top 5 (usually the 2nd or 3rd best) offensive team in the league. His playoff numbers are pretty close to his regular season numbers, which means that his game translated just fine to a high-pressure situation, and really validates his scoring ability as truly elite.
Gervin had some obvious flaws - defense immediately comes to mind - he was really poor on that end of the floor, but he wasn't really total garbage as an all-around player - one of the best shotblockers at the shooting guard position, and a pretty good rebounder for a SG, too (Kobe's equal as a rebounder in the RS, MJ equal in the playoffs, in terms of TRB%). These are obviously just minor things, but by all accounts, Iceman was an all-time great offensive anchor (not just pure scorer), and his longevity/durability was also pretty good - averaged 25+ PPG for 7 consecutive seasons (28.8 PPG on 57.2% TS in 555 RS games between 1977-78 and 1983-84), and 12 straight seasons with 20+ PPG (26.2 PPG on 56.6% TS in 948 games, 1973-74 to 1984-85).

Honestly, I could see myself voting for Isiah here, as well - he's very deserving at this point, but I just feel like Gervin was more elite than Thomas, as an offensive player (Zeke was better defensively, but not much of an impact player on D, so it doesn't really matter). They're really comparable in terms of offensive impact, but I see Gervin as a bit more valuable player on that end of the court, and they're basically even in terms of longevity. Gervin looks better in advanced metrics like PER and WS/48 (even in the playoffs, where Isiah usually stepped up his game, Gervin still had the edge), and he was much more efficient offensively, on clearly higher USG%.

Gervin over Pierce because he seems like a clearly superior scorer (but Truth is obviously an excellent scorer, too), and also because he was a better postseason performer. Paul's longevity and better all-around play (defense, in particular), makes it very close, but Gervin was better at their expertise - scoring. You guys know that I love PP, but I'm trying to be as unbiased as I can, and Gervin seems like a slightly better choice. Maybe also Isiah over Pierce (but I'm not sure anymore, to be honest), and he'll be my vote after that.

[Jaivl]

What advantages does Peak Cowens have over Dwight or Alonzo

Range and court vision I'd guess. I'd still take peak Zo easily, and peak Howard too but a little less easily.

[DQuinn1575]

What advantages does Peak Cowens have over Dwight or Alonzo

Range and court vision I'd guess. I'd still take peak Zo easily, and peak Howard too but a little less easily.

Cowens was much better passer and ball handler, better shooting range, more mobile, ran floor on break better, more hustle, and led better teams






Sent from my iPhone using RealGM Forums

[Owly]

Vote: Isiah Thomas

I've been voting for Zeke (and previously Jason Kidd alternatingly) for awhile now. For Zeke, a quick bullet point (but non-exhaustive) list of some of my thoughts:

*There was a clear improvement in the Pistons' offense from dead-last the 2 years consecutively before his arrival to a peak of #1 about 4 years into his career and a steady top-10 offense for almost all of his prime. He wasn't alone, with other talented players and coaches coming and going during this period, but I believe him to be clearly the key ingredient

It being from dead last consecutively would matter if there was a bunch of continuity between hyhat cast and the good offensive team. There isn't (Tyler and Long are it, and they go from the team's best players in their 3rd pro season to Tyler being peripheral to the rotation and Long in a smaller role). It just establishes he was replacing lousy players (the pgs were around or below replacement level).

As for Isiah as clearly key. Why? If talking about initially, as noted Tripucka outpolled him that first year. If talking about '84, he wasn't creating good shots, the team's efg% was below average. Nor did he (they) set up shots that necessitated fouling. He did run an offense that avoided turnovers so maybe you credit him with that, though individually he wasn't exceptional, and this is his best year in this regard his turnovers/trn% are typically higher especially in the title years. Of the areas where a pg would be likely to have an impact they're good in one of three (and in that one somewhat indirectly), wheras in Offensive rebounding, the one area you couldn't credit him for, they were very good. I don't see why he would be clearly the key ingredient.

*We have an IMO reasonably established (and growing) set of data indicating that scoring efficiency is not necessarily all that important at determining point guard impact (nor overall player impact, but here we're talking about a PG). Lots of point guards with questionable or poor efficiency have been shown to have a much more positive influence than expected. I believe Zeke is one of those players, and my history perusal which led to bullet point 1 supports this

I'm not sure we do. From my limited awareness we have one measure (RAPM) that gives some less efficient guards high ratings. That might reflect the value at what they do (i.e. if a team is reliant on Baron Davis to create offense, it probably isn't going to be that good without him). Just a thought on that, I don't know.

But if we look at our elite pg's perhaps the unifying strand is that they were all efficient scorers. Magic, Robertson (and West if you count him), Nash, Stockton, Paul, Frazier. All our top 5 (or 6) were all efficient scorers. Then too peak Archibald (possibly the ideal for Isiah type guards - small, quick, gets to the rim, volume scores and assists) whose peak is up there is amongst the yearly leaders in TS%. The next two (Kidd, Payton) have been exceptional elsewhere, primarily on D, and Isiah doesn't have that string to his bow.

If there's reasonable causal explanation fine. If there's a wide body of evidence fine (I don't know maybe there is). But at the moment it just looks like creditiing Isiah quite a bit too much for good offensive rebounding.

*Zeke was very strong willed, a good leader, and the big stage wasn't too big for him. We've had some debate as to whether Zeke was truly leading the '89 Pistons statistically or whether those Pistons really went through the best of the Lakers or Celtics, and the points raised have been fair. However, I will say, at the time when the playoff games were billed/hyped as Isiah vs Larry or Isiah vs Magic, it didn't feel like a mismatch. Like for instance, when the '09 Lakers played the Magic and it was billed as Kobe vs Howard, it was clearly a personality mismatch at the top. This is unquantifiable and if it were just about me as a fan largely irrelevant, but I think that the other players in the Pistons locker room felt it too. Isiah was strong enough to look any player in the eye and say I'm better, then go out and do his thing on the biggest stage. I think this leadership/confidence was of tangible value to his teams, helped them establish an identity.

There's two seperate points here. Isiah as at Larry and Magics level in the public eye. And here I'll just say he wasn't. He wasn't 3rd team all-NBA by the time he won titles. His best MVP finish was 5th, once, behind early peak Bird, a guy not close to getting in yet (King), pre/early prime Magic and 36 year old, off year Kareem. He wasn't at that table. He is sometimes placed there retrospectively because Detroit won two titles, and he amongst the Pistons' cast looks least odd in that company. Best player versus best player these were mismatches. But as noted, "Isiah" (his team) didn't beat them at their best, and he beat them with a team that went 9 deep (I'd say then 8 deep but he didn't go through either team in '90).

Isiah internally ... I don't know. But it's far from hard evidence. And there's other other, smart, hard working, determined players in that squad (Laimbeer, Dumars, Mahorn) and an all-time great coach.

*Along those lines, Isiah is famous for some of his big postseason performances and pretty consistently stepping up his game in the second season.

Okay. Absolutely a good performer in the playoffs particularly in relative terms. But ...
1) Using "stepping up" is rewarding him for his low RS baseline.
and
2) Is it necessarily better than say Gus Williams.

*My eye test. I'm a very stat-based evaluator, as is abundantly clear in my posts. But I do pay attention to what my eyes tell me, especially lacking strong contradictory evidence to the contrary. And at the time, I always felt like Isiah was one of the best, with the only players clearly better having long been voted in here. I would have been fine with him going in 10 slots ago. Now feels like a good time

Your eye test is fine for you. But I'm assuming you're using as your explanation and not expecting others to take that as evidence.

[Texas Chuck]

Your eye test is fine for you. But I'm assuming you're using as your explanation and not expecting others to take that as evidence.

Understandable and I'm assuming the same.

However for me personally I'd say I think highly enough of drza that his "eye test" holds weight for me. Same with a number of other posters in this project. I definitely put stock in what intelligent basketball people are saying even if they don't have a statistical basis for it.

[tsherkin]

I think it's interesting that the Pistons won with Isiah doing less offensively. Given that and his lesser relevance on D, the breadth of talent and coaching on the pistons and winner's bias, it's hard to credit him at this lhase of the project (for me). I've already voted Gervin, but I have Pierce, Reggie and a few others over Isiah as well.

[D Nice]

I think it's interesting that the Pistons won with Isiah doing less offensively. Given that and his lesser relevance on D, the breadth of talent and coaching on the pistons and winner's bias, it's hard to credit him at this lhase of the project (for me). I've already voted Gervin, but I have Pierce, Reggie and a few others over Isiah as well.

This is not meaningful if you are using team record to tear down his offensive performance, because they were worse offensively when his primacy was lowered in spite of the fact that the talent level (even just on offense) had gone up.

Between '84-'88 they were ranked 1st, 9th, 7th, 9th, 6th in team offense with Isiah putting up 21/11 @53TS% and an average team ORTG of 111.

The back-to-back teams ('89 & '90) were 7th and 11th with Isiah putting up 18/9 @51TS% while playing at a higher pace and an average team ORTG of 105.

So Isiah with a bigger role produced superior offenses to Isiah with a smaller role but more talent. That can’t possibly be an indictment of him as an offensive player.

Fine with Gervin going over Isiah on the basis of anchoring better team offenses, but this critique is both stale and inconsequential. They got better because the defense and rebounding improved significantly with front-court additions of Rodman, Mahorn, and Aguirre. Period.

[tsherkin]

Right, but in your froth, you've responded to an idle musing as if it were a poinyt I accorded major primacy. I was merely making a note

[penbeast0]

Well, I wasn't sure but currently there are 3 main candidates, Isiah, Ice, or Pierce. Of the 3, I have to go with Gervin. All 3 are primarily scorers, tough Isiah's added playmaking makes up for a lot of his much poorer scoring efficiency. Gervin's teams were the most efficient, frequently with lesser talent; he took some weak teams to the playoffs and was impressive in the RPOY threads. I remember one year he and James Silas took a team to the playoffs that started Dave Corzine at C, Mark Olberding at PF, and Reggie Johnson (who?) at SF. That's some serious mediocrity to be winning with. Good longevity, great isolation and shot creation (for those who think that's a priority), and just a fearful weapon that coaches gamed against unsuccessfully. Pierce's numbers are roughly equal which gives me pause for a bit; Pierce, like Alex English, always seemed to put up much better numbers than his recognition would indicate, but it is close enough that I have to go with things like eye test and rep which both clearly go to Ice.

Vote: George Gervin

Isiah Thomas -- JordansBulls, ronnymac2, lukekarts, batmana, Jim Naismith, drza

Doctor MJ -- Reggie Miller

George Gervin -- tsherkin, Clyde Frazier, Quotatious, penbeast0

Sam Jones -- DQuinn1575

Paul Pierce -- Owly, trex_8063, SactoKingsFan

RUNOFF BETWEEN ISIAH THOMAS AND GEORGE GERVIN

[D Nice]

Right, but in your froth, you've responded to an idle musing as if it were a poinyt I accorded major primacy. I was merely making a note

Haha at froth, although I can see how it would come across like that from re-reading my post, but really the quote was just a jumping off point to address the most common criticism that has been lobbed at Isiah thus far. People keep saying "well his teams got better when they took a step back" without paying any attention to why or how they got better. They got better because they added significant defensive/rebounding upgrades.

The offense was markedly inferior when he indeed declined individually/took a step back, and yet it's being used as a criticism rather than praise. Seems a bit odd to me. That's all.

[Doctor MJ]

Here is a comparison between Howard and Mourning......

First 10 seasons.....(snip)

....Very close. Howard does have the advantage with 768 games to Zo's 622. Zo was injured in the last 2 years of that stretch.

Peak....(snip)


Another very close comparison.......(snip)

...Overall its very close. But Howard actually played more minutes than Zo. 28K vs 26K. Howard was effective for 10 of those years while Zo was only effective 8 years......

Good fair breakdown I think.

Just on that, Zo seems like a clear cut choice.......

I'm not sure how "just on that" you can declare a clear cut choice.....I'm not sure I've ever seen such an even-looking comparison; dang near mirror images. I'd have to concur with colts18 that it's "very close" (and no clear-cut choice in either direction).

If you want to give Mourning a small edge based on RAPM data, that's another matter.

fwiw (this in response to something colts18 said), I'd not definitively give Zo any kind of edge as a scorer: slight bigger volume (both in raw numbers and per 100), but on slightly lower efficiency; and also Dwight's have come after somewhat more extensive rule changes made to favor perimeter players on offense.
So I'd be inclined to call them pretty even as scorers (pretty even as overall offensive players).

I'd otherwise give Howard the obv edge as a rebounder, but give Zo the edge as a defender. Based on number of relevant seasons/minutes played, probably we could give Howard a small longevity/durability edge. But then Zo's impact numbers look a little better.

idk....this seems like a super-close comparison no matter how you slice it.

What I meant was "if I had to choose on that alone", not that that was the entire story.

As far as seeing it as a tossup, it'd be interesting to compare how we see the data, as here's how it looks to me:

Over their first 10 seasons, which is Howard's entire career, Zo was a much higher volume scorer with a much higher efficiency while being much, much bigger shot blocking threat, while playing slightly less total minutes.

There are other things to point out of course:

1) It's not right to simply add up a career without acknowledging the arc involved, and that a superior peak from Howard could make the difference.

2) Rebounding isn't showcased in my thoughts, and those who really like Howard, really like his rebounding.

My personal take in response to that:

1) I prefer Zo's peak too.

2) I think Howard's rebounding is very much a product of systematic inflation. He's good at it no matter what, but it's a way for him to rack up stats and he's someone who will rack up stats at a cost to team play.

[Doctor MJ]

I
Pierce and Miller both have great longevity but I prefer Pierce as a franchise cornerstone for his more impressive overall game which I value more than Miller's super efficient scoring and edge as a playoff performer. With Pierce you get volume scoring (pre big 3) on very good efficiency (02-11 TS%: 57.2 (+3.9) | League Avg TS%: 53.3) solid/underrated defense, and superior playmaking ability and rebounding.

Vote: Paul Pierce

Sent from my LG-D800 using RealGM Forums mobile app

I'm going to jump in to hammer a particular thing in here:

In my post I listed out the number of seasons each player played on a +3 ORtg offensive team. That number was:

Miller 8
Pierce 0

It's well and good to chalk up Pierce having a lower number due to him having weaker situations, but I think it's pretty critical to understand our views on Pierce as an alpha are based almost entirely on him doing a lot for teams that were not working on the offensive side of the ball. This isn't a "Pierce's teams need him to do all those things to make it all happen, unlike Miller" thing because Pierce never actually made it all work.

That's not individually damning, but remember that when talent actually joined him in Boston, his individual stats looked pretty damn pedestrian and the offense still wasn't amazing.

I'm not saying that I think Miller clearly could have done better in crappy situations, but what I am saying is that Pierce being a more unipolar guy isn't something anyone should be looking at and saying "Yeah, that's how I want to build my team so they can scale to a championship."

Pierce gets an edge over a lot of volume scorers because he can adjust and play a more streamlined role with a better cast around him in a way they can't, but in that streamlined role, much of what makes people think he's better than Miller disappears or even inverts. And it's not like it's some mystery as to why at least on Pierce's side of the conversation. What Pierce experiences is normal for someone like him.

As far as the defensive edge, well hey, if that tips the scales, so be it. I just think the fixation on non-scoring offense to justify Pierce's edge has all the same problems that his regular season volume edge does.

Last thing I'll say: In the 2011 project at this point, I had been championing Pierce for several threads. I was high on Miller then, but I was even higher on Pierce. So, I like Pierce, but after 3 more years of analysis I have to go the other way this time.

[Doctor MJ]

Runoff vote: George Gervin

So, um, remember when we did the runoff between Drexler and Isiah? I rate Gervin ahead of Drexler. While Glide had a beautiful game that was sometimes all around brilliant in a way Gervin's wasn't, Gervin was the better scorer and was far more reliable year in and year out in his alpha role.

So yeah, Drexler over Isiah was a bit tough. Gervin over Isiah isn't really.

Gervin vs Miller is actually an interesting one for me.

[Basketballefan]

Runoff vote: George Gervin

So, um, remember when we did the runoff between Drexler and Isiah? I rate Gervin ahead of Drexler. While Glide had a beautiful game that was sometimes all around brilliant in a way Gervin's wasn't, Gervin was the better scorer and was far more reliable year in and year out in his alpha role.

So yeah, Drexler over Isiah was a bit tough. Gervin over Isiah isn't really.

Gervin vs Miller is actually an interesting one for me.

What evidence suggests Gervin was more reliable than Drexler as the alpha?

Drexler led his team to the finals twice, and put up better all around seasons than Gervin.

[Notanoob]

Runoff vote: George Gervin
Both guys derive the majority of their value from scoring like mad, but Gervin scored a lot more and was a lot more efficient. From 76 to 84, Iceman led his team to a top 4 offense in his league, while Zeke's teams were typically 5 spots lower. Zeke was a better playmaker (he was a PG afterall), but he turned the ball over a ton, and Iceman at least rebounded the ball very well and blocked shots, although he was an awful overall defender. They're pretty much equals to me, but I take the born-in-Detroit legend over the Chicagoan in this one. It was a lot closer than I thought, really. I always thought Zeke was the man, but looking back, it's obvious that there was a lot of narrative shifting going on around him because he was the vocal leader and heart of the team-but he was just a part of that very, very, deep team.

[tsherkin]

Right, but in your froth, you've responded to an idle musing as if it were a poinyt I accorded major primacy. I was merely making a note

Haha at froth, although I can see how it would come across like that from re-reading my post, but really the quote was just a jumping off point to address the most common criticism that has been lobbed at Isiah thus far. People keep saying "well his teams got better when they took a step back" without paying any attention to why or how they got better. They got better because they added significant defensive/rebounding upgrades.

The offense was markedly inferior when he indeed declined individually/took a step back, and yet it's being used as a criticism rather than praise. Seems a bit odd to me. That's all.

Wasn't a criticism of Isiah so much as a reminder of his short burst peak if offense and that his rep is based on a down period for him individually when D was more important than his O... Systemically, sure, but worth exploring vis a vis his portion of the credit in the context of this project.

[trex_8063]

As far as seeing it as a tossup, it'd be interesting to compare how we see the data, as here's how it looks to me:

Over their first 10 seasons, which is Howard's entire career, Zo was a much higher volume scorer

Well, this is the first point upon which our perception of the data differs.....
I wouldn't call 30.5 vs 26.5 (pts per 100 possessions) "much" higher volume, particularly when the raw number difference is proportionally smaller (the minutes you noted), and also considering some rule change/trends that to some degree occurred AFTER the 10-year Zo sample.
And I thought you didn't care much about volume anyway, or at least didn't think it a noteworthy or lofty offensive goal.

with a much higher efficiency

???
This is the 2nd place our perception differs.......
Howard is 59.9% TS% (+6.1% to league). Zo was 58.3% TS% (+5.5% to league).
Per 100 poss: Howard avg 2.2 ast/4.5 tov; Zo avg 2.1 ast/4.6 tov (although ast%/tov% does slightly favor Zo).
ORtg: Howard is 110.16 (+3.49 to league); Zo is ~109 (~+3.43 to league).

I don't see anyone with a clear lead here (in fact, in most things it's Howard with the lead, but by such a negligible margin that it's barely worth mentioning). To declare Zo has "much" higher efficiency.....

while being much, much bigger shot blocking threat, while playing slightly less total minutes.

Hey, at least we can agree on these two.

Couple other points:
*I also think it's worth noting that Howard has been relevant all 10 years of his career. I don't think we can claim Zo particularly relevant in '01, playing just 13 games.
**You pointed out that these 10 seasons constitute Dwight's entire career (implying Zo's got a significant edge on him there)......but that's not really the case: Zo played five additional years, it's true. But in each of those five additional years he was a small minute role player (never avg more than 20.4 mpg); he also played fewer than 40 games in three of the five, 25 or less games in two of the five.
Collectively, these five years add a fairly small amount of career value to his legacy. Really only '06 and '07 are of any particular significance.