Not Loyal, No Journeyman Draft (Post Merger) - Discussion

[Fadeaway_J]

This was a very shallow pool, yet George Gervin, Elvin Hayes and Bob Lanier ended up undrafted. All 3 of them are HOFers. Personally, I almost drafted Gervin. Changed my mind the very last second and opted for Wiggins. I was afraid voters would dismiss Gervin as a non 3pt shooter who'd disrupt spacing next to Luka.

Hope we have a conversation about this now that the draft is over. I think there's something fundamentally wrong in the way we judge old school players. Gervin was a career 84% FT shooter. More often than not, FT% is indicative of shooting ability. By all accounts, he was also a great mid-range shooter. Nobody was expecting him to shoot 3s in the 70s/80s. Chances are he would have developed a reliable 3 in the modern era. All he'd have to do is expand his range a little bit. Hate myself right now for passing up an all-time great for Andrew f...ing Wiggins. He's a decent 2-way wing, but Gervin is a basketball legend.

This has come up more than once, and for me, the answer is very simple: I know a lot more about Andrew Wiggins as a player than George Gervin.

I just don't like delving that deep into the realms of speculation when it comes to judging players. I'm not even all that wild about doing it for current players I watch all the time, but I'm given some comfort by seeing them play in real time and by the amount of information we have available these days. Even some of the absolute GOATs like Oscar have very little footage online for you to try and extrapolate from, and what little you can find shows an entirely different game from what I've been watching for the last 25 years. I'm already uncomfortable arguing from ignorance or leaning on other people's opinions (although it's unavoidable to some degree, I'm just a random with a laptop at the end of the day), but trying to argue that a guy who never took threes even when the shot was available would be a good three-point shooter based on FT% is a bridge too far for me.

[JimmyPlopper]

This was a very shallow pool, yet George Gervin, Elvin Hayes and Bob Lanier ended up undrafted. All 3 of them are HOFers. Personally, I almost drafted Gervin. Changed my mind the very last second and opted for Wiggins. I was afraid voters would dismiss Gervin as a non 3pt shooter who'd distrapt spacing next to Luka.

Hope we have a conversation about this now that the draft is over. I think there's something fundamentally wrong in the way we judge old school players. Gervin was a career 84% FT shooter. More often than not, FT% is indicative of shooting ability. By all accounts, he was also a great mid-range shooter. Nobody was expecting him to shoot 3s in the 70s/80s. Chances are he would have developed a reliable 3 in the modern era. All he'd have to do is expand his range a little bit. Hate myself right now for passing up an all-time great for Andrew f...ing Wiggins. He's a decent 2-way wing, but Gervin is a basketball legend.

I debated on Gervin but the thing is he wasn't a 3P shooter and it's hard to fit Walton/Gervin/Pippen together unless I tried to explain why Walton was Nikola Jokic as a passer, which is a hard sell. Gervin was much more of a slasher like Dominque Wilkins (Who you love, right? Right? RIGHT?) and mid-range maestro.

I don't think it is fair to just say "Good FT Shooter, Good 3P Shooter". DeMar DeRozan is a mid-80s FT shooter yet a 30% 3P shooter. He was a slasher and mid-range maestro, not a 3P shooter.

So I fundamentally disagree about saying Gervin would have automatically been a 3P shooter, because that wasn't his game. Now, Chris Mullin on the other hand was a 3P shooting champion and later in his career became a decent 3P volume guy. He is the type of older player who you can look at his 1990 season (Season I am using) and say you know what, that's a 38-40% 3P guy on high volume. High release, perfect shooting motion, off the catch shooter, ect.

Is Wilkins a fair comparision for Gervin? I always got the impression he was a much better shooter than Wilkins. And he’s certainly more efficient.

I think Gervin was a better shooter than Wilkins. I would put Gervin as more similar to an Alex English, but with better iso ability and less reliant on a PG or a system to put him in place to succeed

[flaco]

This was a very shallow pool, yet George Gervin, Elvin Hayes and Bob Lanier ended up undrafted. All 3 of them are HOFers. Personally, I almost drafted Gervin. Changed my mind the very last second and opted for Wiggins. I was afraid voters would dismiss Gervin as a non 3pt shooter who'd distrapt spacing next to Luka.

Hope we have a conversation about this now that the draft is over. I think there's something fundamentally wrong in the way we judge old school players. Gervin was a career 84% FT shooter. More often than not, FT% is indicative of shooting ability. By all accounts, he was also a great mid-range shooter. Nobody was expecting him to shoot 3s in the 70s/80s. Chances are he would have developed a reliable 3 in the modern era. All he'd have to do is expand his range a little bit. Hate myself right now for passing up an all-time great for Andrew f...ing Wiggins. He's a decent 2-way wing, but Gervin is a basketball legend.

I debated on Gervin but the thing is he wasn't a 3P shooter and it's hard to fit Walton/Gervin/Pippen together unless I tried to explain why Walton was Nikola Jokic as a passer, which is a hard sell. Gervin was much more of a slasher like Dominque Wilkins (Who you love, right? Right? RIGHT?) and mid-range maestro.

I don't think it is fair to just say "Good FT Shooter, Good 3P Shooter". DeMar DeRozan is a mid-80s FT shooter yet a 30% 3P shooter. He was a slasher and mid-range maestro, not a 3P shooter.

So I fundamentally disagree about saying Gervin would have automatically been a 3P shooter, because that wasn't his game. Now, Chris Mullin on the other hand was a 3P shooting champion and later in his career became a decent 3P volume guy. He is the type of older player who you can look at his 1990 season (Season I am using) and say you know what, that's a 38-40% 3P guy on high volume. High release, perfect shooting motion, off the catch shooter, ect.

Nique was a scoring beast, but he was also a black hole. His ass/to ratio throughout his career was 1.0. That's nowhere near good enough for a dominant creator. He cannot run the offense, hence he would have likely been better off as a #2 option. I just mentioned his slashing ability in comparison to D-Wade's. I'm low on slashers in general cause it's hard to build around them. Don't think Gervin would have been exclusively a slasher though. He was a terrific shooter who also excelled at slashing. I bet he would have been a legit 3 level scorer in today's game. His most famous move was the finger roll. People may assume he was spamming layups. In fact, he had mastered the finger roll from as far as the FT line! Fwiw, I came across a Spurs thread on Reddit voting Gervin the best shooter in Spurs history.

Just like Nique, he was also a black hole averaging an ass/to ratio of 0.77. Seems like a major weakness in his game. I like the Alex English comp. If I had to compare him with a modern player, I'd say a poor man's KD due to his skinny frame and scoring ability. Obviously, KD is considerably taller. He's hands down a better facilitator, plus an all-time great shooter.

For the record, I believe Nique would have also developed a 3 in the modern era. He had a season at 39% from 3 on 4 attempts per game, albeit with the shortened 3pt line. Averaged 81% from the FT line throughout his career. That's nothing to sneeze at, although I understand the DeRozan (or Jimmy Butler) argument.

[Larry_Russell]

Harrison Barnes

He's ineligible. Please repick.

Why?

Only 3 teams

Gsw, dallas and sacramento according his bball reference page

[flaco]

Harrison Barnes

He's ineligible. Please repick.

Why?

Only 3 teams

4 teams: Warriors, Mavs, Kings, Spurs

[ReggiesKnicks]

Harrison Barnes

He's ineligible. Please repick.

Why?

Only 3 teams

SAC/DAL/GSW and his current team is 4.

[Larry_Russell]

He's ineligible. Please repick.

Why?

Only 3 teams

SAC/DAL/GSW and his current team is 4.

My brain was seeing sas as sac

****.

[MadNESS]

Why?

Only 3 teams

SAC/DAL/GSW and his current team is 4.

My brain was seeing sas as sac

****.

[Larry_Russell]

SAC/DAL/GSW and his current team is 4.

My brain was seeing sas as sac

****.

[JimmyPlopper]

Grand MA MA! I love it!

[flaco]

This was a very shallow pool, yet George Gervin, Elvin Hayes and Bob Lanier ended up undrafted. All 3 of them are HOFers. Personally, I almost drafted Gervin. Changed my mind the very last second and opted for Wiggins. I was afraid voters would dismiss Gervin as a non 3pt shooter who'd disrupt spacing next to Luka.

Hope we have a conversation about this now that the draft is over. I think there's something fundamentally wrong in the way we judge old school players. Gervin was a career 84% FT shooter. More often than not, FT% is indicative of shooting ability. By all accounts, he was also a great mid-range shooter. Nobody was expecting him to shoot 3s in the 70s/80s. Chances are he would have developed a reliable 3 in the modern era. All he'd have to do is expand his range a little bit. Hate myself right now for passing up an all-time great for Andrew f...ing Wiggins. He's a decent 2-way wing, but Gervin is a basketball legend.

This has come up more than once, and for me, the answer is very simple: I know a lot more about Andrew Wiggins as a player than George Gervin.

I just don't like delving that deep into the realms of speculation when it comes to judging players. I'm not even all that wild about doing it for current players I watch all the time, but I'm given some comfort by seeing them play in real time and by the amount of information we have available these days. Even some of the absolute GOATs like Oscar have very little footage online for you to try and extrapolate from, and what little you can find shows an entirely different game from what I've been watching for the last 25 years. I'm already uncomfortable arguing from ignorance or leaning on other people's opinions (although it's unavoidable to some degree, I'm just a random with a laptop at the end of the day), but trying to argue that a guy who never took threes even when the shot was available would be a good three-point shooter based on FT% is a bridge too far for me.

Fair enough. What if someone selects Gervin though? Would you consider him a one-dimensional slasher without shooting range?

I believe the only old school stars who are considered legit floor spacers are Jerry West, Bob McAdoo and maybe(?) Rick Barry*. These guys are given a pass, whereas everbody else is considered an unproven shooter. For instance, players like Oscar, Havlicek, Gervin, English, Nique, Drexler, you name it. I think all of these guys would have had 3pt range in the modern game.

*Pete Maravich as well, but imo he's massively overrated. Don't think I've ever seen him drafted.

[ReggiesKnicks]

This was a very shallow pool, yet George Gervin, Elvin Hayes and Bob Lanier ended up undrafted. All 3 of them are HOFers. Personally, I almost drafted Gervin. Changed my mind the very last second and opted for Wiggins. I was afraid voters would dismiss Gervin as a non 3pt shooter who'd disrupt spacing next to Luka.

Hope we have a conversation about this now that the draft is over. I think there's something fundamentally wrong in the way we judge old school players. Gervin was a career 84% FT shooter. More often than not, FT% is indicative of shooting ability. By all accounts, he was also a great mid-range shooter. Nobody was expecting him to shoot 3s in the 70s/80s. Chances are he would have developed a reliable 3 in the modern era. All he'd have to do is expand his range a little bit. Hate myself right now for passing up an all-time great for Andrew f...ing Wiggins. He's a decent 2-way wing, but Gervin is a basketball legend.

This has come up more than once, and for me, the answer is very simple: I know a lot more about Andrew Wiggins as a player than George Gervin.

I just don't like delving that deep into the realms of speculation when it comes to judging players. I'm not even all that wild about doing it for current players I watch all the time, but I'm given some comfort by seeing them play in real time and by the amount of information we have available these days. Even some of the absolute GOATs like Oscar have very little footage online for you to try and extrapolate from, and what little you can find shows an entirely different game from what I've been watching for the last 25 years. I'm already uncomfortable arguing from ignorance or leaning on other people's opinions (although it's unavoidable to some degree, I'm just a random with a laptop at the end of the day), but trying to argue that a guy who never took threes even when the shot was available would be a good three-point shooter based on FT% is a bridge too far for me.

Fair enough. What if someone selects Gervin though? Would you consider him a one-dimensional slasher without shooting range?

Would anyone? He was a good mid-range shooter and efficient scorer. He also has decent passing metrics for a 2-guard for the 1980s.

I believe the only old school stars who are considered legit floor spacers are Jerry West, Bob McAdoo and maybe(?) Rick Barry*. These guys are given a pass, whereas everbody else is considered an unproven shooter. For instance, players like Oscar, Havlicek, Gervin, English, Nique, Drexler, you name it. I think all of these guys would have had 3pt range in the modern game.

Why would you try to change players in a fantasy game? Why not just accept what they were/are?

Is that something people like to do here?

[JimmyPlopper]

This has come up more than once, and for me, the answer is very simple: I know a lot more about Andrew Wiggins as a player than George Gervin.

I just don't like delving that deep into the realms of speculation when it comes to judging players. I'm not even all that wild about doing it for current players I watch all the time, but I'm given some comfort by seeing them play in real time and by the amount of information we have available these days. Even some of the absolute GOATs like Oscar have very little footage online for you to try and extrapolate from, and what little you can find shows an entirely different game from what I've been watching for the last 25 years. I'm already uncomfortable arguing from ignorance or leaning on other people's opinions (although it's unavoidable to some degree, I'm just a random with a laptop at the end of the day), but trying to argue that a guy who never took threes even when the shot was available would be a good three-point shooter based on FT% is a bridge too far for me.

Fair enough. What if someone selects Gervin though? Would you consider him a one-dimensional slasher without shooting range?

Would anyone? He was a good mid-range shooter and efficient scorer. He also has decent passing metrics for a 2-guard for the 1980s.

I believe the only old school stars who are considered legit floor spacers are Jerry West, Bob McAdoo and maybe(?) Rick Barry*. These guys are given a pass, whereas everbody else is considered an unproven shooter. For instance, players like Oscar, Havlicek, Gervin, English, Nique, Drexler, you name it. I think all of these guys would have had 3pt range in the modern game.

Why would you try to change players in a fantasy game? Why not just accept what they were/are?

Is that something people like to do here?

It's an interesting question and sort of goes back to another discussion I was bringing up in the last competition. We as contestants are judging this game in our own respective ways. There are no set rules for how to judge or how to think about things. That means that there is a lot of room for interpretation.

Couple examples of how you could think about a player in different ways:
1) Player A was a top scorer on his old team, and gets traded to a top team where he comes off the bench instead and plays more limited minutes and thus has a lower impact figure. Someone could argue that if he was more prominently featured during that season, the very same person would have had different stats
2) Someone could argue that the person is only what their production was for that season. To me that seems like a lazy way of thinking about it, because so much of the context about what helps a player to produce - are the teammates that surround them. In these games, we turn that on its head.
3) The game has evolved over time and those who were excellent three point shooters in the early 90s could be reasonably forecast to be higher volume shooters in the current era. Others may disagree with that - and insist that the player would not take into account the modern take on the game.
4) Then there are even more abstract arguments about whether a player who never even shot good three point percentage, but did shoot good free throws, may have been able to be a good three point shooter in this time. I find those to be a little bit more difficult to digest, but potentially could have some reason.

Since we've never had an official way that we are supposed to look at it - it has typically been in the eye of the be(er)holder

[Fadeaway_J]

This was a very shallow pool, yet George Gervin, Elvin Hayes and Bob Lanier ended up undrafted. All 3 of them are HOFers. Personally, I almost drafted Gervin. Changed my mind the very last second and opted for Wiggins. I was afraid voters would dismiss Gervin as a non 3pt shooter who'd disrupt spacing next to Luka.

Hope we have a conversation about this now that the draft is over. I think there's something fundamentally wrong in the way we judge old school players. Gervin was a career 84% FT shooter. More often than not, FT% is indicative of shooting ability. By all accounts, he was also a great mid-range shooter. Nobody was expecting him to shoot 3s in the 70s/80s. Chances are he would have developed a reliable 3 in the modern era. All he'd have to do is expand his range a little bit. Hate myself right now for passing up an all-time great for Andrew f...ing Wiggins. He's a decent 2-way wing, but Gervin is a basketball legend.

This has come up more than once, and for me, the answer is very simple: I know a lot more about Andrew Wiggins as a player than George Gervin.

I just don't like delving that deep into the realms of speculation when it comes to judging players. I'm not even all that wild about doing it for current players I watch all the time, but I'm given some comfort by seeing them play in real time and by the amount of information we have available these days. Even some of the absolute GOATs like Oscar have very little footage online for you to try and extrapolate from, and what little you can find shows an entirely different game from what I've been watching for the last 25 years. I'm already uncomfortable arguing from ignorance or leaning on other people's opinions (although it's unavoidable to some degree, I'm just a random with a laptop at the end of the day), but trying to argue that a guy who never took threes even when the shot was available would be a good three-point shooter based on FT% is a bridge too far for me.

Fair enough. What if someone selects Gervin though? Would you consider him a one-dimensional slasher without shooting range?

I believe the only old school stars who are considered legit floor spacers are Jerry West, Bob McAdoo and maybe(?) Rick Barry*. These guys are given a pass, whereas everbody else is considered an unproven shooter. For instance, players like Oscar, Havlicek, Gervin, English, Nique, Drexler, you name it. I think all of these guys would have had 3pt range in the modern game.

*Pete Maravich as well, but imo he's massively overrated. Don't think I've ever seen him drafted.

Why does he need to be a good three-point shooter at all? There are plenty of stars playing right now who aren't.

[flaco]

This has come up more than once, and for me, the answer is very simple: I know a lot more about Andrew Wiggins as a player than George Gervin.

I just don't like delving that deep into the realms of speculation when it comes to judging players. I'm not even all that wild about doing it for current players I watch all the time, but I'm given some comfort by seeing them play in real time and by the amount of information we have available these days. Even some of the absolute GOATs like Oscar have very little footage online for you to try and extrapolate from, and what little you can find shows an entirely different game from what I've been watching for the last 25 years. I'm already uncomfortable arguing from ignorance or leaning on other people's opinions (although it's unavoidable to some degree, I'm just a random with a laptop at the end of the day), but trying to argue that a guy who never took threes even when the shot was available would be a good three-point shooter based on FT% is a bridge too far for me.

Fair enough. What if someone selects Gervin though? Would you consider him a one-dimensional slasher without shooting range?

Would anyone? He was a good mid-range shooter and efficient scorer. He also has decent passing metrics for a 2-guard for the 1980s.

I believe the only old school stars who are considered legit floor spacers are Jerry West, Bob McAdoo and maybe(?) Rick Barry*. These guys are given a pass, whereas everbody else is considered an unproven shooter. For instance, players like Oscar, Havlicek, Gervin, English, Nique, Drexler, you name it. I think all of these guys would have had 3pt range in the modern game.

Why would you try to change players in a fantasy game? Why not just accept what they were/are?

Is that something people like to do here?

My main issues are Oscar Robertson and Bill Russell. I consider both of them GOAT candidates and I got them in my all-time top 10. Hate the fact I'm hesitant to draft them cause there's no consensus about these guys. Can't hold it against Oscar he wasn't shooting 3s when he played his whole career before the 3pt era. Likewise, cannot hold it against Gervin he wasn't shooting 3s when nobody was expecting him to do so in the 70s/80s.

On the other hand, nobody was expecting from 7'3'' Arvydas Sabonis to shoot 3s in the 80s, yet he was shooting them anyway. You can claim Gervin didn't revolutionize the game like Arvydas did, but that doesn't take away from his shooting ability. I'm sky high on Arvydas too btw, but that's another story.

[ReggiesKnicks]

This has come up more than once, and for me, the answer is very simple: I know a lot more about Andrew Wiggins as a player than George Gervin.

I just don't like delving that deep into the realms of speculation when it comes to judging players. I'm not even all that wild about doing it for current players I watch all the time, but I'm given some comfort by seeing them play in real time and by the amount of information we have available these days. Even some of the absolute GOATs like Oscar have very little footage online for you to try and extrapolate from, and what little you can find shows an entirely different game from what I've been watching for the last 25 years. I'm already uncomfortable arguing from ignorance or leaning on other people's opinions (although it's unavoidable to some degree, I'm just a random with a laptop at the end of the day), but trying to argue that a guy who never took threes even when the shot was available would be a good three-point shooter based on FT% is a bridge too far for me.

Fair enough. What if someone selects Gervin though? Would you consider him a one-dimensional slasher without shooting range?

I believe the only old school stars who are considered legit floor spacers are Jerry West, Bob McAdoo and maybe(?) Rick Barry*. These guys are given a pass, whereas everbody else is considered an unproven shooter. For instance, players like Oscar, Havlicek, Gervin, English, Nique, Drexler, you name it. I think all of these guys would have had 3pt range in the modern game.

*Pete Maravich as well, but imo he's massively overrated. Don't think I've ever seen him drafted.

Why does he need to be a good three-point shooter at all? There are plenty of stars playing right now who aren't.

Yup. SGA in 2023 and 2024 shot 3.1 3PA/G.

Trae Young is shooting 33% from 3 and is providing an offensive lift of +10 Net On/Off.

Jokic shot 33% from 3 in his second MVP season.

[JimmyPlopper]

I find that people tend to favor spacing over talent which I don't agree with. Spacing is important, but there is a point where a more talented player makes more sense

[JimmyPlopper]

Fair enough. What if someone selects Gervin though? Would you consider him a one-dimensional slasher without shooting range?

Would anyone? He was a good mid-range shooter and efficient scorer. He also has decent passing metrics for a 2-guard for the 1980s.

I believe the only old school stars who are considered legit floor spacers are Jerry West, Bob McAdoo and maybe(?) Rick Barry*. These guys are given a pass, whereas everbody else is considered an unproven shooter. For instance, players like Oscar, Havlicek, Gervin, English, Nique, Drexler, you name it. I think all of these guys would have had 3pt range in the modern game.

Why would you try to change players in a fantasy game? Why not just accept what they were/are?

Is that something people like to do here?

My main issues are Oscar Robertson and Bill Russell. I consider both of them GOAT candidates and I got them in my all-time top 10. Hate the fact I'm hesitant to draft them cause there's no consensus about these guys. Can't hold it against Oscar he wasn't shooting 3s when he played his whole career before the 3pt era. Likewise, cannot hold it against Gervin he wasn't shooting 3s when nobody was expecting him to do so in the 70s/80s.

On the other hand, nobody was expecting from 7'3'' Arvydas Sabonis to shoot 3s in the 80s, yet he was shooting them anyway. You can claim Gervin didn't revolutionize the game like Arvydas did, but that doesn't take away from his shooting ability. I'm sky high on Arvydas too btw, but that's another story.

I would argue that if you hesitate and do not pick these players and argue on their half that you could be seen as enabling this mentality of others who do not quite understand it the way you do. I tend to reward drafters who select older players who may be overlooked due to concerns about modern style of play. I also draft that way sometimes because there is really nothing to lose or gain here other than knowledge and entertainment.

[ReggiesKnicks]

Fair enough. What if someone selects Gervin though? Would you consider him a one-dimensional slasher without shooting range?

Would anyone? He was a good mid-range shooter and efficient scorer. He also has decent passing metrics for a 2-guard for the 1980s.

I believe the only old school stars who are considered legit floor spacers are Jerry West, Bob McAdoo and maybe(?) Rick Barry*. These guys are given a pass, whereas everbody else is considered an unproven shooter. For instance, players like Oscar, Havlicek, Gervin, English, Nique, Drexler, you name it. I think all of these guys would have had 3pt range in the modern game.

Why would you try to change players in a fantasy game? Why not just accept what they were/are?

Is that something people like to do here?

My main issues are Oscar Robertson and Bill Russell. I consider both of them GOAT candidates and I got them in my all-time top 10. Hate the fact I'm hesitant to draft them cause there's no consensus about these guys. Can't hold it against Oscar he wasn't shooting 3s when he played his whole career before the 3pt era. Likewise, cannot hold it against Gervin he wasn't shooting 3s when nobody was expecting him to do so in the 70s/80s.

On the other hand, nobody was expecting from 7'3'' Arvydas Sabonis to shoot 3s in the 80s, yet he was shooting them anyway. You can claim Gervin didn't revolutionize the game like Arvydas did, but that doesn't take away from his shooting ability. I'm sky high on Arvydas too btw, but that's another story.

I think Jaylen Brown is barely a Top 50 player in the NBA, meaning his FGA of 18-21 is incredibly expensive for a player of his caliber. I'm guessing he has been drafted in these games.

Allen Iverson in the modern era would be significantly more efficient. I saw someone joke about him in a discussion thread but he would be a better version of Jalen Brunson.

I don't think anyone is taking away from Gervin as a scorer by saying he was an elite slasher and mid-range player. The thing is, you aren't going to have him taking 3-5 above-the-break 3's because he didn't do that and never proved he could do that. Have him be your secondary shot creator in these games with other floor spacers and his efficiency, which was ATG approaching 300+ TS+ in his prime, would be incredibly impactful.

This gets back to our discussion about Dwyane Wade. Player's don't need to be pigeon holed into modern-day, conceived roles. You are making the same mistake we made yesteryear when we thought every position PG, SG, SF, PF and C had to have a specific characteristic.

Did we not learn that the 5 position labels were, for the most part, preventing the evolution of the actual game of basketball?

There is no need to put labels or limits on players just because they aren't a great 3P shooter so long as they aren't asked to shoot the 3. Utilize George Gervin for his actual skill-set, not an imaginary one.

Regarding Bill Russell, we already saw him re-born in Kevin Garnett and he is arguably the 2nd most impactful player of the data-ball era (1997-Present) by many impact metrics (+/-, On/Off, RAPM, ect).

[flaco]

This has come up more than once, and for me, the answer is very simple: I know a lot more about Andrew Wiggins as a player than George Gervin.

I just don't like delving that deep into the realms of speculation when it comes to judging players. I'm not even all that wild about doing it for current players I watch all the time, but I'm given some comfort by seeing them play in real time and by the amount of information we have available these days. Even some of the absolute GOATs like Oscar have very little footage online for you to try and extrapolate from, and what little you can find shows an entirely different game from what I've been watching for the last 25 years. I'm already uncomfortable arguing from ignorance or leaning on other people's opinions (although it's unavoidable to some degree, I'm just a random with a laptop at the end of the day), but trying to argue that a guy who never took threes even when the shot was available would be a good three-point shooter based on FT% is a bridge too far for me.

Fair enough. What if someone selects Gervin though? Would you consider him a one-dimensional slasher without shooting range?

I believe the only old school stars who are considered legit floor spacers are Jerry West, Bob McAdoo and maybe(?) Rick Barry*. These guys are given a pass, whereas everbody else is considered an unproven shooter. For instance, players like Oscar, Havlicek, Gervin, English, Nique, Drexler, you name it. I think all of these guys would have had 3pt range in the modern game.

*Pete Maravich as well, but imo he's massively overrated. Don't think I've ever seen him drafted.

Why does he need to be a good three-point shooter at all? There are plenty of stars playing right now who aren't.

Depends on what you mean by star. The only star wing without a legit 3pt shot is probably Butler. Wouldn't consider DeRozan a star, certainly not for the purposes of our games. Don't think bigs count, especially PnR roll men. The roll man doesn't have to be a shooter.

Let me make a specific question to make my point clear. Which team would you like the most?

Luka - Derrick White - George Gervin - KG- Gobert
Luka - Derrick White - Andrew Wiggins - KG - Gobert

In a vacuum, Gervin >>>>>>>> Wiggins. It's not even close. Given the modern game is all about (pace and) space, people might argue Gervin wasn't shooting 3s, hence he's a bad fit.