70sFan wrote:It seems that KD will be in after 6 hours. I have a question though - what makes him so much better than George Gervin that Iceman doesn't have any recognition yet? I know that Durant became better defender last season and he shoots more threes, but Gervin played much more seasons and had longer prime. He was also very good PS performer and he led many very good offensive teams deep without better supporting cast than Durant. I don't see how Durant's 6 prime seasons can be more valuable than Gervin whole prime which is much longer.
I haven't voted for Gervin; but I have been mentioning him as deserving for being voted in soon.
In MY view here's the principle reasons for the little-to-no traction:
1) FORGETTING THE ALL-TIME GREATS FROM THE 1970'S: Because of the general watered-downness of the 9 years of the Dual-League situation (1968-1976); people assume that there weren't the usual decadal share of All-Time Great Players in it. After Kareem & Dr J; who else has gotten much traction from the 1970s here. (And, in both Kareem's case, and Julius' case, they've both got a great case for inclusion "representing" the 1980s instead of the 1970s (or in addition to it)).
2) OVEREMPHASIS ON "MY GENERATION's STARS": Conversely, after our initial set of GOAT selections here; collectively we, imo, have slid back into "my era was the best one" type thinking.
2a) 1990s: By way of example, the 1990s were dominated by a terribly watered-down NBA (not as bad as the 70s but plenty bad nonetheless); yet we've got any number of 2nd-Tier players just from that decade getting voted in or getting serious traction. It can be shown CLEARLY that, throughout the entire 80 years history of the NBL-ABA-NBA, virtually ever top W-L season happened right after expansion. Four teams get added, and THEN the Bulls get 67 wins (followed by two more high-win years; but decreasing wins (as the watered-downness receded). Then two more teams are added before the 1996 season, and they go 72-10 (followed by two years with again decreasing win totals for obvious reasons). YET, people still call that the GOAT team; and, claim that the teams it faced and beat, were All-Time Great teams (but whose records were also inflated by that same mass expansion).
2b) 1980s: Magic & Bird took the League by storm; the previous drug-tainted decade was "erased". PR went BIG TIME. And, somehow, the 1980s were FULL of All-Time Great Teams and All-Time Great Players.
2c) 2000s, 2010s: The currently "new" generation tends to almost always get the most HYPED and therefore to have the reputation as THE BEST. We've got CURRENT players who don't come close to having as many Great Years (defined by me as Reg. Seasons in which the player was selected ALL-NBA 1st-Team or 2nd-Team) as some other unselected players; yet getting serious traction; even getting voted in. CP3, whom I love, for example).
3) OUR GOAT DISCUSSION SERIOUSLY OVER-EMPHASIZING CENTERS: Gervin didn't play Center. I've never seen a more Center-centric GOAT list than ours here. It's a self-fulfilling circle. Supposedly the Centers have always been the best players; so even if you did far less than dominate THAT position during your own era; you get in because you were somehow "automatically" better than even Top-Tier players from the other 4 positions.
Picture an actual team composed of ALL Centers. Who's bringing the ball up; setting up the offense; running endlessly around and thru picks (on offense and defense); stop-and-starting; dribbling, passing, thinking/reflecting as each play goes deeper into the shot clock and ever-more on-the-spot adjustments have to be made? Running (much) further out to take & contest 3s; etc. etc. No stat I know of accurately reflects all this "non-stat" effort & influence. So it gets largely ignored. But it IS quite important / valuable.
Isn't the true test simply: How Much You Did (Or Didn't) Dominate YOUR OWN POSITION During YOUR OWN ERA?
If you did THAT; they UP the GOAT list you should go. If you didn't do THAT;they DOWN the GOAT list you should go.
Isn't it a FIVE-man game? Don't you need decent quality at multiple positions to compete for wins & Chips? If one of your positional-players is decidedly weaker; won't the other team hammer you to death there?
But who's to judge who dominated and who didn't and on what basis?
I submit that no other "stat" is more reflective of the true value of YEARLY performances than is the ALL-LEAGUE (ALL-NBA, ALL-ABA, ALL-NBL) 1st-Team (then less so, 2nd-Team; then less so still: 3rd-Team) selections. The selectors' very jobs are reporting on the players, etc. Their very large number neutralizes individual selector's biases. They've been THE most highly qualified JUDGES of how players did. And their ANNUAL selections have HISTORICALLY reflected very well, who was better (and not) at each position.
We've got Cousy & Baylor with TEN ALL-NBA 1st-Team selections (with Cousy having 2 additional 2nd-Team selections); yet neither is close to getting voted in by us. There have ONLY been TEN players to ever get that many 1st-Team selections (and all the other ones have already been voted-in by us). The argument against Cousy is the weakness of his era - but then why have we voted in Mikan whose era was decidedly weaker? He DID what was asked of every other great player: dominate YOUR position during YOUR era. Same for Baylor. TEN YEARS worth of dominance is tremendous. But here it counts for about nothing.
Watch for the same thing to happen with such MULTIPLE-YEAR positionally-dominant players such as: Gervin & Rick Barry.
Btw, I really do not like to publicly criticize either our process or our results - I am SO impressed with the effort and the quality thought people are putting into these discussions. AND the lack of flame-warring. This is so rare in my experience. Given that, I'm reluctant to be pointing out our weaknesses.
Your very valid point about Gervin is my "excuse".
