ISH All-time Top 25 Guards Project: #15 - Allen Iverson vs. George Gervin

[G.O.A.T]

[FONT="Book Antiqua"]

Make your arguments here for the next 48 hours on rather Allen Iverson or George Gervin should advance and continue to move higher on the list. Put the players name you are voting for in BOLD so I don't miss it when I tally. The loser of this poll will be ranked #16 in our project.

[/FONT]

14 seasons
7x all-NBA
10x all-star
2001 MVP
1997 Rookie of the Year
2001 & 2005 All-Star Game MVP
4x Scoring Champion
3x Steals Leader
6th All-time career PPG (26.7)

Votes (9)
ShaqAttack3234
magnax1
Toizumi
Rose
KGMN
WillC
nycelt84
G.O.A.T
L Kizzle



14 seasons
7x all-NBA
2x all-ABA
12x all-star
4x Scoring Champion
1980 All-Star game MVP
Top three of MVP vote from 1978-1980
8th All-time career PPG (26.2)

Votes (6)
iamgine
ThaSwagg3r
1987 Lakers
RobertdeMeijer
SteveNashMVPcro
Gotterdammerung

[iamgine]

Iceman is clearly the answer here.

[ThaSwagg3r]

George Gervin has my vote. Iverson really just had one season of success because he never really did anything special outside of that other than win a few more scoring titles. That was the only time he ever made the Conference Finals. Gervin made the Conference Finals three times although back in his day you just had to win one series in order to make the conference finals. Both of these guys were fantastic scorers but Gervin was worlds more efficient than Iverson was.

[L.Kizzle]

Iceman is clearly the answer here.

Iceman or Answer, which one?

[G.O.A.T]

George Gervin has my vote. Iverson really just had one season of success because he never really did anything special outside of that other than win a few more scoring titles. That was the only time he ever made the Conference Finals. Gervin made the Conference Finals twice although back in his day you just had to win one series in order to make the conference finals. Both of these guys were fantastic scorers but Gervin was worlds more efficient than Iverson was.

Ice made it three times, but to count that against AI might not be fair.

Iverson's team were 6-8 in playoff series during his 12 prime years.

Gervin's teams were 3-10 in playoff series during his 12 prime years.

Gervin's best teammates (with the Spurs) were Mike Mitchell, James Silas, a past his prime but effective Artis Gilmore and an underrated PG in Johnny Moore.

Iverson's best teammates (with the Sixers) were Derrick Coleman, Jerry Stackhouse, a past his prime but effective Dikembe Mutombo and an underrated PG in Eric Snow.

Gervin's team only cam close in one conference final, so in essence, they both had one signature year as far as team play goes.

[1987_Lakers]

This is a tough one. Both are pretty much the same player, both amazing scorers that somewhat lacked an all-around game. I was never a fan of Iverson because of his inefficiency & attitude, but I believe Iverson loved the game more than Gervin did. This is pretty much a toss up, but for right now I vote Gervin.

[Boston C's]

man this one is difficult for real... To me its a coin flip literally... I flipped a coin and its tails for Iverson so I'm going with him ... I was leaning towards iverson as well anyway

[L.Kizzle]

This one will be a barn burner (hi Chuck.) These guys were basically the same player who peaked about 25 years apart.

This should a good discussion similar to the Ray-Reggie and Mac/Archibald battles.

[SuperPippen]

This one is definitely tough.

There are many parallels to be drawn between these two players.

Both known mostly as terrific scorers (even if Ice was significantly more efficient), both won 4 scoring titles, both had playing styles that were very unique and memorable, both grew to be perceived negatively amongst members of the public (Iverson for being a chucking ballhog, Gervin for not caring/coasting) neither of them (allegedly) liked to show up for practice, neither were known for their defensive prowess (though Iverson was able to effectively play the passing lanes and tally up a good amount of steals) and neither of them won a championship.

Again, this is a very tough choice, but I'm going to have to go with Allen Iverson, for having a slightly more impressive career, and winning an MVP.

[ShaqAttack3234]

I'm going to go with Iverson. Both are most notable for their scoring, but Gervin seemed really one-dimensional to me. While neither were great or even what I'd call good defenders, Gervin seemed lazier and less of a factor at that end in the games I've seen. While Iverson gambled a lot, he could make an impact playing the passing lanes and it worked within his team's system when Philadelphia was at their best and could get them some easy baskets.

I was also watching a Spurs/76ers game from 1980 and one of the commentators pointed out how Gervin played much better when he played less minutes and how his shooting percentage dropped when he played 40 minutes and if you look at Gervin's minutes throughout his prime, he seemed to play less than just about any other star with such a big scoring load.

Iverson on the other hand, frequently led the NBA in minutes and had unbelievable stamina, especially considering his style of play.

While Iverson was also a tough player to build around being a 6'0" streaky shoot-first shooting guard, Philadelphia was able to build a solid team around him that could consistently win almost 50 games, and from '99-'03, they only failed to advance past the first round once, and that was in 2002 when Iverson was playing injured, but they still took Boston to the maximum 5 games.

Comparing the 2 players as scorers, well, Gervin initially looks more impressive statistically, but without bringing too much of an era bias into the equation, I'd be lying if I said I didn't believe that it was much harder to put up efficient high scoring numbers in the late 90's/early 00's which I consider the best defensive era.

Also noteworthy is the fact that Iverson was a superior passer/playmaker, and this is the real deciding factor for me. Iverson rejuvenated his career in 2004-2005 after an injury-plagued 2003-2004 season when many thought he was declining. He did so by switching to point guard and having one of the best seasons of his career. And if you look at his overall efficiency numbers in 2008 with Denver, they're really solid all around at 26 ppg/7 apg, 46 FG%, 57 TS%, 3 TO.

You could argue that Gervin was better compared to his peers, but then you also have to factor in how good the other top players are in a particular time frame. And as I've mentioned, Gervin might actually be the best choice for the '78 MVP, imo due to Walton's missed games, but it seems like a weak year for MVP candidates with the top 2 players in the league missing 20+ games.

[D-Wade316]

Gervin all the way.

[magnax1]

Iverson for three reasons. First off, I think the way Iverson was constantly on the move with and without the ball attracted way more attention. Secondly he was a really good passer, which Gervin wasn't and lastly he was a superior defender. Not really a good defender most of his career, but he definitely made an impact on that 01 team that was heavily reliant on pressuring the passing lanes to play defense.
Iverson

[RobertdeMeijer]

I started typing this post wanting to say that Iverson was more important to remember than Gervin...
but as always, the longer I look at "The Answer", the more I wish he received less attention.
(as a side note: even Bill Simmons ranked him lower the second time he made his pyramid)

In short, he was bad for his teams and bad for the league.

Teamwise:
George Gervin had .572 True Shooting % on 30% usage rating, which is amazingly good. In the playoffs, he was .564 on 29%.
Iverson on the other hand, .518 on 32% (ouch) and .489 on 34% (!!!)

These stats back up what I've always felt: letting Gervin be a ball hog is a good thing, giving the ball to Iverson is usually a bad thing.

Iverson never seemed to improve teams: the 76ers were just as good when he left, and Denver and Detroit were better off without him. The 2001 run I see as a fluke: they only won 56 games just barely made it to the finals. After Larry Brown left, the team fell apart.

Leaguewise:
Around Iverson's prime, the league was doing bad and had too many players who were egocentric, thought they were larger than the league and wouldn't work as a whole. I see Iverson's attitude towards talking about practice as a lack of empathy for other players. One should first win some titles before acting like an ubermensch.


Personality wise, I didn't like either of them, but it's better to be boring than to be
I think both players should be remembered; but I can't give bonus points to Iverson for being more interesting in a bad way.

George Gervin also had his faults, but I'm voting for him.

[SteveNashMVPcro]

George Gervin

[SuperPippen]

I started typing this post wanting to say that Iverson was more important to remember than Gervin...
but as always, the longer I look at "The Answer", the more I wish he received less attention.
(as a side note: even Bill Simmons ranked him lower the second time he made his pyramid)

In short, he was bad for his teams and bad for the league.

Teamwise:
George Gervin had .572 True Shooting % on 30% usage rating, which is amazingly good. In the playoffs, he was .564 on 29%.
Iverson on the other hand, .518 on 32% (ouch) and .489 on 34% (!!!)

These stats back up what I've always felt: letting Gervin be a ball hog is a good thing, giving the ball to Iverson is usually a bad thing.

Iverson never seemed to improve teams: the 76ers were just as good when he left, and Denver and Detroit were better off without him. The 2001 run I see as a fluke: they only won 56 games just barely made it to the finals. After Larry Brown left, the team fell apart.

Leaguewise:
Around Iverson's prime, the league was doing bad and had too many players who were egocentric, thought they were larger than the league and wouldn't work as a whole. I see Iverson's attitude towards talking about practice as a lack of empathy for other players. One should first win some titles before acting like an ubermensch.


Personality wise, I didn't like either of them, but it's better to be boring than to be
I think both players should be remembered; but I can't give bonus points to Iverson for being more interesting in a bad way.

George Gervin also had his faults, but I'm voting for him.

If you're going to rely on someone else's opinions to validate yours, than don't make it Simmons.

While the guy knows how to write a humorous, engaging column, a lot of the [COLOR="Black"]sh[/COLOR]it in his book is just that: shit.

It's a lot of extremely biased, one-sided arguments that are shined up with quick-witted pop-culture references and dick jokes to appeal to the average sports fan. His credentials as a serious basketball analyst leave MUCH to be desired.