George Gervin vs Reggie Miller

[kcktiny]

I believe Gervin's offense would translate, I'm just pointing out that the offense in the seventies wasn't hot

Then does that mean the defense was hot?

What I was saying is that his impact on team offense has some level of diminishing returns because he was primarily a scorer and not much of a driver with his playmaking. "Lifting" a team to 105 ORTG means nothing in a league with an average of 112. Gervin was good; in his own time, the level of offensive lift necessary to be a good offensive team was different and the impact of a pure scorer went a little further. In today's league, he would need a good PG/point forward or whatever running the show, but would be a very capable finisher. He was and would remain an exceptional scorer, but pure scoring goes only so far.

Nothing about this post makes sense.

Sound familiar?

The point is that a high-volume, high-efficiency scorer who isn't a mainstay table-setter can boost team offense only so much, which means his value to a team in a league where average ORTG is 112 goes only so far, because he doesn't have the ability to lift an offense to that level.

Again - Nothing about this post makes sense. Because he would be playing against teams that on average are worse defensively with an average DRTG of 112.

Lots of excessive post usage that wasn't ideal

Did you actually watch the NBA in the 1970s and 1980s? A lot of great teams had dominant high scoring post players.

non-ideal spacing, nothing like the volume or variation of modern PnR game... that's all a lot more important than the rules changes until you get closer to the current era of ball, IMHO.

Then we can leave the subjective out of it

Pretty much everything you have said has been subjective, and based on a flawed premise.

Anyway, my original point was a response to kcktiny, to whom I'm done responding at this point.

Yes when you cannot validate your flawed opinion it's best to step out of the discussion.

Gervin was amazing, and he stands up well next to Reggie in a comparison. And I agree that he'd translate well into the modern league. He wouldn't be a tier 1 guy,

So a player that was all-NBA 1st team 5 straight years in the 70s/80s could not be a top player in the league today? Sheer nonsense.

Just out of curiosity are then any other players since say the 1970s that was all-NBA 5 years in a row that would not be a top player in the league today?

a high-volume scorer, even a very efficient one, can impact a team O only so far in any era... their ability to push a team goes only so far without playmaking ability.

Another completely flawed premise - and one not based on fact. You've already ignored the statistical evidence in this thread (the Spurs over 7 years second best in the league on offense due mostly to Gervin) and there are numerous other examples.

The 1980-81 Denver Nuggets lead the league in offensive efficiency at 107.8 pts/100poss scored, David Thompson scored 25.5 pts/g (30 pts/40min), he himself threw for just 3.0 ast/g, and the team was 2nd worst in the league at only 21.9 ast/100poss.

The 1992-93 Phoenix Suns had Charles Barkley score 25.6 pts/g (27.2 pts/40min), they lead the league in offensive efficiency at 111.8 pts/100poss scored, Barkley himself threw for 5 ast/g, but the team ranked just 15th in the league in assists at 25.1 ast/100poss.

The 2001-02 Dallas Mavericks had Dirk Nowitzki score 23.4 pts/g (24.6 pts/40min), the PG was Nash, they lead the league in offensive efficiency at 110.9 pts/100poss, but ranked only 19th in the league in assists with 23.3 ast/100poss.

The 2011-12 Oklahoma City Thunder has Kevin Durant score 28.0 pts/g (29.1 pts/40min), the Thunder were 2nd best in the league in offensive efficiency at 108.4 pts/100poss scored, Durant threw for just 3.5 ast/g, and OKC was dead last in the league in assists at 19.5 ast/100poss.

Perhaps you should check out the statistical history of the league before you make a blanket statement that professes expertise.

[AEnigma]

I believe Gervin's offense would translate, I'm just pointing out that the offense in the seventies wasn't hot

Then does that mean the defense was hot?

Only if you foolishly believe that higher league-wide offence necessitates absolutely worse defensive performance. You are arguing the 1979 Boston Celtics were a better defence than the 2022 Boston Celtics, because their defensive rating was lower. And the 1955 Celtics? Man, if they played today, no one would score on them! Because that is how the sport works, right. No one gets better. The talent pool stays the exact same. Nothing builds off what came before. Ignoring basic ideas like three-point shots being worth more was not a strategic failing, it was a conscious decision to maintain good defence (which of course could not be done if your players were all tuckered out from shooting threes instead of long twos).

Honestly a child could understand this.

What I was saying is that his impact on team offense has some level of diminishing returns because he was primarily a scorer and not much of a driver with his playmaking. "Lifting" a team to 105 ORTG means nothing in a league with an average of 112. Gervin was good; in his own time, the level of offensive lift necessary to be a good offensive team was different and the impact of a pure scorer went a little further. In today's league, he would need a good PG/point forward or whatever running the show, but would be a very capable finisher. He was and would remain an exceptional scorer, but pure scoring goes only so far.

Nothing about this post makes sense.

Sound familiar?

Of course it does, that perfectly tracks for someone who apparently believes the average Tony Bennett coached Virginia Cavaliers NCAA team would be the NBA’s best defence every year.

The point is that a high-volume, high-efficiency scorer who isn't a mainstay table-setter can boost team offense only so much, which means his value to a team in a league where average ORTG is 112 goes only so far, because he doesn't have the ability to lift an offense to that level.

Again - Nothing about this post makes sense. Because he would be playing against teams that on average are worse defensively with an average DRTG of 112.

So again to be clear, you think throwing George Gervin into the pre-shot-clock era… say 1949, pre-integration… would mean that relative to the rest of the league, he would be no more valuable than he was thirty years later.

Lots of excessive post usage that wasn't ideal

Did you actually watch the NBA in the 1970s and 1980s? A lot of great teams had dominant high scoring post players.

That does not mean it is an overly efficient approach in itself, it just is more so when most other players are less efficient.

non-ideal spacing, nothing like the volume or variation of modern PnR game... that's all a lot more important than the rules changes until you get closer to the current era of ball, IMHO.

Then we can leave the subjective out of it

Pretty much everything you have said has been subjective, and based on a flawed premise.

Yes, the subjective and flawed premise that everything is not in fact exactly as good as that which came after. “We stand on the shoulders of giants” pfft listen to this guy, he thinks knowledge builds over time and across generations.

Anyway, my original point was a response to kcktiny, to whom I'm done responding at this point.

Yes when you cannot validate your flawed opinion it's best to step out of the discussion.

The irony.

Gervin was amazing, and he stands up well next to Reggie in a comparison. And I agree that he'd translate well into the modern league. He wouldn't be a tier 1 guy,

So a player that was all-NBA 1st team 5 straight years in the 70s/80s could not be a top player in the league today? Sheer nonsense.

Just out of curiosity are then any other players since say the 1970s that was all-NBA 5 years in a row that would not be a top player in the league today?

Oh now that is interesting.

Why are we specifying 1970s? Are you saying Bob Cousy would not be an MVP candidate today?

a high-volume scorer, even a very efficient one, can impact a team O only so far in any era... their ability to push a team goes only so far without playmaking ability.

Another completely flawed premise - and one not based on fact. You've already ignored the statistical evidence in this thread (the Spurs over 7 years second best in the league on offense due mostly to Gervin) and there are numerous other examples.

Okay, what about Bernard King? Incredible scorer. I bet those 1983-85 Knicks must have had some all-time offences, right.

The 1980-81 Denver Nuggets lead the league in offensive efficiency at 107.8 pts/100poss scored, David Thompson scored 25.5 pts/g (30 pts/40min), he himself threw for just 3.0 ast/g, and the team was 2nd worst in the league at only 21.9 ast/100poss.

Are the Denver Nuggets the reason you believe offensive rating and defensive rating are inherent inversions only produced via different approaches and nothing else.

The 1992-93 Phoenix Suns had Charles Barkley score 25.6 pts/g (27.2 pts/40min), they lead the league in offensive efficiency at 111.8 pts/100poss scored, Barkley himself threw for 5 ast/g, but the team ranked just 15th in the league in assists at 25.1 ast/100poss.

Uh huh. Who was their lead playmaker again?

The 2001-02 Dallas Mavericks had Dirk Nowitzki score 23.4 pts/g (24.6 pts/40min), the PG was Nash, they lead the league in offensive efficiency at 110.9 pts/100poss, but ranked only 19th in the league in assists with 23.3 ast/100poss.

So Nash was not what you consider a lead playmaker?

The 2011-12 Oklahoma City Thunder has Kevin Durant score 28.0 pts/g (29.1 pts/40min), the Thunder were 2nd best in the league in offensive efficiency at 108.4 pts/100poss scored, Durant threw for just 3.5 ast/g, and OKC was dead last in the league in assists at 19.5 ast/100poss.

Man imagine if that team had any playmakers outside Durant.

Perhaps you should check out the statistical history of the league before you make a blanket statement that professes expertise.

Perhaps you should consider that playmaking is not defined by a team’s assist averages. But I know this is a dead end; every week you seem to showcase a new ineptitude for trying to understand anything about the sport past what you can see on basketball-reference, and then you rant and rave about no one having a nuanced understanding like you do.

[DNice68]

Gervin wins this easily. Reggie could only shoot, and wasn’t much of a scorer. An overrated player imo!

[ty 4191]

Gervin wins this easily. Reggie could only shoot, and wasn’t much of a scorer. An overrated player imo!

Who upped their games more in the playoffs than Reggie Miller, in the past 4 decades?

[ty 4191]

Why are we specifying 1970s? Are you saying Bob Cousy would not be an MVP candidate today?

Don't you think most people on this Forum would argue that to be the case?

[No-more-rings]

I don’t think there’s a right or wrong answer to this, but I voted for Reggie because i’m not convinced that Gervin bends a defense quite like Reggie does, and Miller seems to simply have more notable playoff monents. I’m not someone to treat Elgee’s analysis as gospel or anything, but he does make a pretty convincing case that Miller has a Curry-like gravity effect although Miller obviously can’t pass or handle the ball like Curry can. To me it feels like comparing KD to Curry as far as offensive impact goes. Not a perfect analogy but it makes some sense.

[Jaivl]

Gervin wins this easily. Reggie could only shoot, and wasn’t much of a scorer. An overrated player imo!

Miller has a 11-year prime averaging 23.7 ppg on the playoffs, or 25.0 points per 75.

That's not as much volume as today's leading scorers (Doncic, Giannis, etc), but is right on par with guys like Devin Booker, Damian Lillard or 2020 Jokic, and miles ahead of 2nd-3rd option guys like Klay Thompson.

Again, that's his 11-year average.