George Gervin vs Reggie Miller
Posted: Fri Nov 11, 2022 4:40 am
Who's higher on your ATL??
Sports is our Business
https://forums.realgm.com/boards/
https://forums.realgm.com/boards/viewtopic.php?f=64&t=2239480
Just resume wise, Gervin BLOWS Reggie away lol.
prolific passer wrote:Gervin couldn't shoot 3s like Reggie.
I don't think Reggie had the offensive firepower overall like Gervin did and couldn't defend like Gervin who doesn't get enough credit for that.
tsherkin wrote:prolific passer wrote:Gervin couldn't shoot 3s like Reggie.
I don't think Reggie had the offensive firepower overall like Gervin did and couldn't defend like Gervin who doesn't get enough credit for that.
Gervin was a sick shooter, and a career 84.1% FT shooter. Odds are, if he had 3pt shooting as a focus, he'd have been fine. Not as good as Reggie, sure, but good enough, I suspect. Gervin was a nasty, nasty scorer and a high-end shooter in his day.
prolific passer wrote:tsherkin wrote:prolific passer wrote:Gervin couldn't shoot 3s like Reggie.
I don't think Reggie had the offensive firepower overall like Gervin did and couldn't defend like Gervin who doesn't get enough credit for that.
Gervin was a sick shooter, and a career 84.1% FT shooter. Odds are, if he had 3pt shooting as a focus, he'd have been fine. Not as good as Reggie, sure, but good enough, I suspect. Gervin was a nasty, nasty scorer and a high-end shooter in his day.
Gervin's finger roll doesn't get enough credit as one of the best moves in NBA history. Maybe if he won a championship it would be up there with the skyhook and dream shake.
tsherkin wrote:prolific passer wrote:tsherkin wrote:
Gervin was a sick shooter, and a career 84.1% FT shooter. Odds are, if he had 3pt shooting as a focus, he'd have been fine. Not as good as Reggie, sure, but good enough, I suspect. Gervin was a nasty, nasty scorer and a high-end shooter in his day.
Gervin's finger roll doesn't get enough credit as one of the best moves in NBA history. Maybe if he won a championship it would be up there with the skyhook and dream shake.
Strictly speaking as a scorer, he's up there with the absolute best, for sure. He wasn't a staggering playmaker, or floor-raiser, so his overall offensive punch wasn't quite the same as some.... but certainly compared to Reggie, he has a puncher's chance in a comparison. And yeah, he was a nasty finisher. Dude shot 50.4% on jumpers and finger rolls without being a Lebron-like physique
HeartBreakKid wrote:Isn't his NBA body comparable to Durant's who is also a great finisher? It's not like Lebron is exactly a blue print, more like an anomaly.
He wasn't a staggering playmaker, or floor-raiser, so his overall offensive punch wasn't quite the same as some
kcktiny wrote:He wasn't a staggering playmaker, or floor-raiser, so his overall offensive punch wasn't quite the same as some
On the contrary - from 1977-78 to 1983-84 (7 years) when Gervin was in his prime the Spurs were the 2nd best team offensively (107.2 pts/100poss scored) in the league. Only the Lakers were better offensively.
kcktiny wrote:Just resume wise, Gervin BLOWS Reggie away lol.
Boy is this ever the truth.
I can't imagine why anyone would think that a prime Reggie Miller was a better player than a prime George Gervin. Gervin was all-NBA 1st team five years in a row (1977-78 to 1981-82). Miller was never all-NBA 1st nor all-NBA 2nd team in his career.
Miller never scored as much as 25 pts/g in a season, just twice over an 18 year career scored over 22 pts/g in a season. Yes he was a great shooter, but he was 6-7 and couldn't rebound and wasn't much of a defender.
In the late 70s/early 80s Gervin was the league's preeminent scorer, and one of the best shooting SGs.
He scored over 30 pts/g in a season not once but twice, lead the league in scoring 4 times, and over the 7 year period of 1977-78 to 1983-84 scored 2411 more points than anybody else in the league (15964, 28.8 pts/g) - that's like an entire 82 game season at 29 pts/g.
And only a couple of SGs that played at least 5 of those 7 seasons shot better from the floor than did Gervin.
Like Miller Gervin too was not much of a defender. But he was a much better rebounder, got steals at a higher rate, and was 3 times the shot blocker that Miller was.
migya wrote:kcktiny wrote:Just resume wise, Gervin BLOWS Reggie away lol.
Boy is this ever the truth.
I can't imagine why anyone would think that a prime Reggie Miller was a better player than a prime George Gervin. Gervin was all-NBA 1st team five years in a row (1977-78 to 1981-82). Miller was never all-NBA 1st nor all-NBA 2nd team in his career.
Miller never scored as much as 25 pts/g in a season, just twice over an 18 year career scored over 22 pts/g in a season. Yes he was a great shooter, but he was 6-7 and couldn't rebound and wasn't much of a defender.
In the late 70s/early 80s Gervin was the league's preeminent scorer, and one of the best shooting SGs.
He scored over 30 pts/g in a season not once but twice, lead the league in scoring 4 times, and over the 7 year period of 1977-78 to 1983-84 scored 2411 more points than anybody else in the league (15964, 28.8 pts/g) - that's like an entire 82 game season at 29 pts/g.
And only a couple of SGs that played at least 5 of those 7 seasons shot better from the floor than did Gervin.
Like Miller Gervin too was not much of a defender. But he was a much better rebounder, got steals at a higher rate, and was 3 times the shot blocker that Miller was.
Most on here are enamored with outside shooting. Reggie was a great shooter and had some very good playoffs but truth is if the guy was really a great scorer, on a talented team that had a good level of everything else; playmaking and floor generalship of Mark Jackson, Rebounding and defense of the Davis' and Schrempf then McKey, the shooting and good offense of Smits and a pretty good bench, Reggie was in the right situation to flourish as a scorer and he just didn't. Mitch Richmond in that situation would have scored more and easier than he did on the Kings.
tsherkin wrote:migya wrote:kcktiny wrote:
Boy is this ever the truth.
I can't imagine why anyone would think that a prime Reggie Miller was a better player than a prime George Gervin. Gervin was all-NBA 1st team five years in a row (1977-78 to 1981-82). Miller was never all-NBA 1st nor all-NBA 2nd team in his career.
Miller never scored as much as 25 pts/g in a season, just twice over an 18 year career scored over 22 pts/g in a season. Yes he was a great shooter, but he was 6-7 and couldn't rebound and wasn't much of a defender.
In the late 70s/early 80s Gervin was the league's preeminent scorer, and one of the best shooting SGs.
He scored over 30 pts/g in a season not once but twice, lead the league in scoring 4 times, and over the 7 year period of 1977-78 to 1983-84 scored 2411 more points than anybody else in the league (15964, 28.8 pts/g) - that's like an entire 82 game season at 29 pts/g.
And only a couple of SGs that played at least 5 of those 7 seasons shot better from the floor than did Gervin.
Like Miller Gervin too was not much of a defender. But he was a much better rebounder, got steals at a higher rate, and was 3 times the shot blocker that Miller was.
Most on here are enamored with outside shooting. Reggie was a great shooter and had some very good playoffs but truth is if the guy was really a great scorer, on a talented team that had a good level of everything else; playmaking and floor generalship of Mark Jackson, Rebounding and defense of the Davis' and Schrempf then McKey, the shooting and good offense of Smits and a pretty good bench, Reggie was in the right situation to flourish as a scorer and he just didn't. Mitch Richmond in that situation would have scored more and easier than he did on the Kings.
Nothing about this post makes sense.
migya wrote:tsherkin wrote:migya wrote:
Most on here are enamored with outside shooting. Reggie was a great shooter and had some very good playoffs but truth is if the guy was really a great scorer, on a talented team that had a good level of everything else; playmaking and floor generalship of Mark Jackson, Rebounding and defense of the Davis' and Schrempf then McKey, the shooting and good offense of Smits and a pretty good bench, Reggie was in the right situation to flourish as a scorer and he just didn't. Mitch Richmond in that situation would have scored more and easier than he did on the Kings.
Nothing about this post makes sense.
You are one of the enamored.
migya wrote:kcktiny wrote:Just resume wise, Gervin BLOWS Reggie away lol.
Boy is this ever the truth.
I can't imagine why anyone would think that a prime Reggie Miller was a better player than a prime George Gervin. Gervin was all-NBA 1st team five years in a row (1977-78 to 1981-82). Miller was never all-NBA 1st nor all-NBA 2nd team in his career.
Miller never scored as much as 25 pts/g in a season, just twice over an 18 year career scored over 22 pts/g in a season. Yes he was a great shooter, but he was 6-7 and couldn't rebound and wasn't much of a defender.
In the late 70s/early 80s Gervin was the league's preeminent scorer, and one of the best shooting SGs.
He scored over 30 pts/g in a season not once but twice, lead the league in scoring 4 times, and over the 7 year period of 1977-78 to 1983-84 scored 2411 more points than anybody else in the league (15964, 28.8 pts/g) - that's like an entire 82 game season at 29 pts/g.
And only a couple of SGs that played at least 5 of those 7 seasons shot better from the floor than did Gervin.
Like Miller Gervin too was not much of a defender. But he was a much better rebounder, got steals at a higher rate, and was 3 times the shot blocker that Miller was.
Most on here are enamored with outside shooting. Reggie was a great shooter and had some very good playoffs but truth is if the guy was really a great scorer, on a talented team that had a good level of everything else; playmaking and floor generalship of Mark Jackson, Rebounding and defense of the Davis' and Schrempf then McKey, the shooting and good offense of Smits and a pretty good bench, Reggie was in the right situation to flourish as a scorer and he just didn't. Mitch Richmond in that situation would have scored more and easier than he did on the Kings.