George Gervin or Scottie Pippen?

[theonethatownz]

So basically I'm just asking the very simple question on these two great players. Is George Gervin better then Pippen? Or is Pippen better then Gervin?

 

I personally say that Gervin is the better all around player. Scottie Pippen was extremely athletic and played D and could shoot, but I personally feel the 90's where when dunking was very much so common. But back then players may not have jumped out of the building like some players now but they were much better shooters and fundamentally sound. The game is not about how flashy a player is but how the play the whole game-offense, defense, rebounding, dribbling. Gervin could do all of the that.

 

What do you think?

[Guest STL10]

Is this a joke? Pippen all day...

[theonethatownz]

How is this a joke? They're very comparable.

[Nitro]

So basically I'm just asking the very simple question on these two great players. Is George Gervin better then Pippen? Or is Pippen better then Gervin?

 

I personally say that Gervin is the better all around player. Scottie Pippen was extremely athletic and played D and could shoot, but I personally feel the 90's where when dunking was very much so common. But back then players may not have jumped out of the building like some players now but they were much better shooters and fundamentally sound. The game is not about how flashy a player is but how the play the whole game-offense, defense, rebounding, dribbling. Gervin could do all of the that.

 

What do you think?

 

What are you talking about? The '90's were a very fundementally sound league, and Pippen was one of the most well-rounded players in NBA history. He was a very good scorer who had 3pt range (something, due to different era's, Gervin didn't have), an amazing playmaker, a very good rebounder, and arguably the greatest perimeter defender in NBA history. He also has 6 championships under his belt.

 

Besides scoring, Gervin doesn't have any case over Pippen. Therefor, I'd take Pippen.

[Poe]

Statistically, Gervin was easily the superior player.

 

 

However, both players played in different times, and I believe the game of basketball grows and evolves over time as the popularity grows, therefore the overall competition grows by a player, coaching, and training standpoint making it more and more difficult to produce the same numbers.

 

For an extreme example, I'm sure that Jerry West, who played in the 60s when basketball was virtually a brand-new sport, would not even make the NBA had he been born in the mid-80s and applied for the draft in 2010. If you watch game-tapes of him, the guy could not even dribble the ball with his left hand whatsoever.

 

A guy like Wilt Chamberlain, who played in the same era as West and actually put up 50 points per game at one point, would most likely be a project player today because of his height and athleticism. With today's training he would still most likely have star potential, though.

 

It's possible that Magic and Bird in the 80s would just be role players in today's game. Perhaps still starters, but I consider it doubtful that they would still be the two main stars of the league today. Bird might be a stretch-4 being a rich-man's version of Matt Bonner with passing ability. Magic most likely wouldn't be able to match up against opposing PGs, so he'd have to be a point-forward. It would be more imperative that he develops a three-pointer.

 

And even Jordan might not be THE star in today's game like he was in the 90s, but most probably would still be top 5 among the Kobe's, the Paul's, the LeBron's, and the Durant's.

 

 

So with the above in mind, Gervin played in the 70s and 80s and produced a PER of 21.7, and Scottie played in the 80s and 90s and produced a PER of 18.6. Though Pippen produced less statistically, I assume that because Pippen played later and against stronger competition, his production was more difficult to accomplish, making Pippen the superior individual player.

[Nitro]

^I understand and agree to an extent, but I think you are SERIOUSLY underrating some of the players from past generations.

 

And using PER to compare 2 players with entirely different roles is questionable. PER always inflates players with volume scoring, and Gervin was a #1 option on his team for many, many years while Pippen wasn't. Gervin led the league in USG% a few times while Pippen wasn't close. However, if you look at the 2 years that Pippen was without MJ, he netted a PER of around 23, which was right at Gervin's PER during his peak years. Also, remember, PER is a baseline stat which adjusts according to the rest of the league, so using PER to compare players who played in different era's doesn't show much IMO. It shows their production (only production) relative to the rest of the league in that specific year, but it's not a great measuring stick for comparing two individual players across different era's.

 

What's more worthwhile is analyzing their stats rather than just a general total of their production compared to their peers (PER). I know you said Gervin was 'easily' superior statistically to Pippen, and I know that was because of their PER's, but I think it's the other way around. When placed in similar roles, Gervin scored more on better efficiency than Pippen, but Pippen was better on the boards (RPG, TRB%, whatever stat you want), a MUCH better ballhandler and passer (again, APG, TO's, AST%, whatever stat you want), and was a FAR better defensive player (which Drtg, DWS, or whatever stat also shows).

[Poe]

^I understand and agree to an extent, but I think you are SERIOUSLY underrating some of the players from past generations.

 

And using PER to compare 2 players with entirely different roles is questionable. PER always inflates players with volume scoring, and Gervin was a #1 option on his team for many, many years while Pippen wasn't. Gervin led the league in USG% a few times while Pippen wasn't close. However, if you look at the 2 years that Pippen was without MJ, he netted a PER of around 23, which was right at Gervin's PER during his peak years.

 

Those were also Pippen's prime years of his career, when he was at his very best. His rebounding and stealing average was at a career high, though his scoring (about 22 ppg) was barely better than it was 2 years before (21 ppg).

 

His PER didn't change drastically either, though it was at a career high. In 91/92 it was at 21.5, then dipped to 19.2 oddly enough in 92/93. It went up to 23.2 and 22.6 the two years without MJ, then moves down to 21.0, 21.3, then 20.4.

 

It is to be noted that there was a change and his usage percentage did go up by about 2% or 3%, but it seems to me that his PER increase was more due to the other elements of his game increasing. His steals and rebounding were up, and it was his first year he shot better than 30% from three, and the first year he took more than 1 three per game (93/94 he took 2.7 threes per game and made 32%).

 

Also, remember, PER is a baseline stat which adjusts according to the rest of the league, so using PER to compare players who played in different era's doesn't show much IMO. It shows their production (only production) relative to the rest of the league in that specific year, but it's not a great measuring stick for comparing two individual players across different era's.

 

That's actually a very good point. I didn't think of that.

 

 

What's more worthwhile is analyzing their stats rather than just a general total of their production compared to their peers (PER). I know you said Gervin was 'easily' superior statistically to Pippen, and I know that was because of their PER's, but I think it's the other way around. When placed in similar roles, Gervin scored more on better efficiency than Pippen, but Pippen was better on the boards (RPG, TRB%, whatever stat you want), a MUCH better ballhandler and passer (again, APG, TO's, AST%, whatever stat you want), and was a FAR better defensive player (which Drtg, DWS, or whatever stat also shows).

 

I always considered PER to be THE per-minute stat. It's the summary of all stats, so the player with the best PER is the best statistical player (well, when playing in the same year I suppose).

 

 

But stats only tell the stories that it shows. I feel stats are under-developed and need to be expanded. They are still barely good enough for me to base assumptions off of at least. Relative to Gervin's overall regular season performance in comparison to the years he played to how Pippen performed in the regular season of his own years, Gervin had better stats, but I believe Pippen may have had stronger competition making his stats more impressive to obtain.

 

Looking at more in-depth stats than PER, like rebounding percentage, usage percentage, true shooting percentage, etc. I can make assumptions on who was stronger in which elements in basketball. For example, I can see that Gervin both scored in more volume and was a more efficient scorer than Pippen with a career average of 26 PPG with a 57% TS, while Pippen had a career average of 16 PPG with a 54% TS. I can also see that Pippen was used more as a playmaker with an assist percentage of 23.1 while Gervin had just 13.0, though Gervin was less turnover prone with a turnover percentage of 11.4 while Pippen had a 15.6.

 

So again, through the rest of these stats, I can make assumptions on who was better at what, but PER shows the grand total, at least in comparison to their individual years against the league of that year.

 

 

 

Anyway, just so I'm clear, I'm just saying who has performed better statistically. I didn't watch much of either player, so I don't have any opinions beyond the facts (stats). I'm just making an assumption based off of stats, and saying that Pippen was most likely the better player because he played in an era that had stronger competition that Gervin.

[Nitro]

Those were also Pippen's prime years of his career, when he was at his very best. His rebounding and stealing average was at a career high, though his scoring (about 22 ppg) was barely better than it was 2 years before (21 ppg).

 

His PER didn't change drastically either, though it was at a career high. In 91/92 it was at 21.5, then dipped to 19.2 oddly enough in 92/93. It went up to 23.2 and 22.6 the two years without MJ, then moves down to 21.0, 21.3, then 20.4.

 

It is to be noted that there was a change and his usage percentage did go up by about 2% or 3%, but it seems to me that his PER increase was more due to the other elements of his game increasing. His steals and rebounding were up, and it was his first year he shot better than 30% from three, and the first year he took more than 1 three per game (93/94 he took 2.7 threes per game and made 32%)

 

I know they were Pippen's career years, but they were the only years of his prime where he was viewed as a #1 option like Gervin was virtually his entire prime. IMO if you are going to use an all-encompasing stat like PER which is so predicated on volume, then you have to take Pippen's 2 years without MJ with a lot more importance than you otherwise would.

 

I always considered PER to be THE per-minute stat. It's the summary of all stats, so the player with the best PER is the best statistical player (well, when playing in the same year I suppose).

 

The problem is PER has its flaws, and IMO a player who averages 8-10 less points on a little worse efficiency shouldn't be considered easily superior to a player who still averages 20+ PPG on good efficiency, far more assists (with less turnovers), more rebounds and substantially more steals. I guess it comes down to how you value each statistical area, but I find a lot of value in guys who can score with decent volume and efficiency, but are also strong (or very strong) in every other statistical area over a guy who can score on greater volume and efficiency but is average to below average in every other statistical fecet.

 

But stats only tell the stories that it shows. I feel stats are under-developed and need to be expanded. They are still barely good enough for me to base assumptions off of at least. Relative to Gervin's overall regular season performance in comparison to the years he played to how Pippen performed in the regular season of his own years, Gervin had better stats, but I believe Pippen may have had stronger competition making his stats more impressive to obtain.

 

The '70's are widely regarded as the NBA's weakest era, but I don't think that's the reason Gervin's stats may be inflated...it has more to do with the fact that in Gervin's highest scoring years, the Spurs were scoring 120PPG, which led the league by a good amount. In Pippen's best year ('93-'94), the league average for PPG was 10PPG lower, and the Bulls that season scored 22PPG less than the Spurs did in Gervin's best season.

 

I can also see that Pippen was used more as a playmaker with an assist percentage of 23.1 while Gervin had just 13.0, though Gervin was less turnover prone with a turnover percentage of 11.4 while Pippen had a 15.6.

 

Be careful there. Because Pippen was the primary ballhandler and facilitator of the Bulls while Gervin wasn't for the Spurs, that is skewed. All you need to know is that almost every year during Gervin's prime he averaged more turnovers than assists, while Pippen was always over a 2:1 AST:TO ratio. So, TO% may indicate Pippen was more turnover prone, but I think the raw stats are more telling.

 

Anyway, just so I'm clear, I'm just saying who has performed better statistically. I didn't watch much of either player, so I don't have any opinions beyond the facts (stats). I'm just making an assumption based off of stats, and saying that Pippen was most likely the better player because he played in an era that had stronger competition that Gervin.

 

That's a poor assumption and over-generalization. Not saying there isn't some (or a lot of) truth to that, but we just don't know, especially since neither of us saw much or any of Gervin actually play. IMO the best way to compare players across different era's is to take what they did in their era and compare it to what another player did in their respective era. I based my opinion on the fact that Pippen was the more well-rounded player who could also score with volume and good efficiency, and he has the championships and sufficient individual accoldades to back it up.