Gervin " "I could get 30 or 40 every night real easy, these days"

so what if barkeley picked up shaq he still end up bleeding and if that fight went on barkeley would have lost. Its easy to make someone fall if you go for their legs. Watch football.\
what barkeley did wasnt bravery it was stupidity. Shaq could easily have swung at him and he would have been unconcious


glen davis tackled shaq so i guess he is stronger than shaq right?

[QUOTE=plowking]
The only reason things like FG have gone down for wing players is due to zone defense. They are forced to take outside jumpers. Of course there are going to be less made shots.[/QUOTE]


I'd actually say the FG% has dropped because of the amount of 3's taken, however the eFG between eras, and FT percentage has stayed relatively the same.

Simple things like that Sir Charles cant comprehend though, it's apparent this guy is irrational and completely biased.

[QUOTE=Sir Charles][B]A center wow :rolleyes: did he pick him up and throw him to the ground?:confusedshrug:[/B]

[B]The NBA`s level decrease after 1992 its a fact, then again in 1996 and beyond that its just hilarious:confusedshrug: [/B]

[B]By the way the league had more pace in the 80s because players had way more Full Court B_Ball IQ (knew how to move in the cout) and actually had a Passing Game.[/B][/QUOTE]


LMAO, full court B-ball IQ? I've never heard anything as stupid as that on this site.

The arguments Sir Charles is presenting are ridiculous. So why bother arguing with him? Everyone loses.

[QUOTE=abuC]I'd actually say the FG% has dropped because of the amount of 3's taken, however the eFG between eras, and FT percentage has stayed relatively the same.

Simple things like that Sir Charles cant comprehend though, it's apparent this guy is irrational and completely biased.[/QUOTE]

Exactly, he makes stupid claims like former greats doing well in the later eras.

I can also say, look at Jordans stats, and look at his FG% at the end of his career at the Bulls. It began to drop.

He is just thick and too dense to realize that naturally every sport has progressed rather than regressed.

Gervin's comment might have been arrogant, but he's probably right. He easily put up 25-27 points per game and had two 30+ point per game seasons. In an era where there are inferior defenders and soft fouls, he could certainly put up 30 a game. Half his points would probably come at the free throw line anyway.

[QUOTE=D.J.]Gervin's comment might have been arrogant, but he's probably right. He easily put up 25-27 points per game and had two 30+ point per game seasons. In an era where there are inferior defenders and soft fouls, he could certainly put up 30 a game. Half his points would probably come at the free throw line anyway.[/QUOTE]

I just find it funny how posters who posted previously, said Kobe's 81 point performance isn't that impressive because Gervin could have done the same thing if he played today. No, no he couldn't have...

They bring up points like he scored 55 points in a half and so on and use crappy mathamatical calculations to figure out that he would have scored more then 81. How do you know how he would have shot for the rest of the game? How do you know if he wasn't tired.

Kobe scored 62 in less then 3 quarters of basketball. I can get his most amount of points scored in a quarter and say he could have produced it again in this game and also if he had no rest he would have scored 100.

[QUOTE=plowking]

I can also say, look at Jordans stats, and look at his FG% at the end of his career at the Bulls. It began to drop. [/quote]

1) He was 35 years old.

2) He shot 48% after the first 20 games of the 1998 season (during which he shot ~42% FG/68% FT) after he adjusted to a torn ligament/cracked knuckle on the index finger on his shooting hand.

Just FYI.

[QUOTE=plowking]Exactly, he makes stupid claims like former greats doing well in the later eras.

I can also say, look at Jordans stats, and look at his FG% at the end of his career at the Bulls. It began to drop.

He is just thick and too dense to realize that naturally every sport has progressed rather than regressed.[/QUOTE]

[B]It dropped because he was obviously aging dumy. Jordan schooled 85% of the players in the NBA till age 38 and playing with the Wizard`s not his Bulls. Do you realize this? Dream of Kobe doing that even with his Great Supporting Casts of today at age 38 :rolleyes:

I have just given you the Schooling of Magic Johnson on ZO and Tim Hardaway among others getting 27 Points, 9 Rebounds, 9 Assists and to end it; he gets Zo fouled out at home too :pimp: . Zo was 25 years old (totally Prime) and Magic was [U]36 years old [/U], [U]NOT PLAYING FOR 4-5 YEARS [/U]and [U]PLAYING NOT PG BUT PF[/U] :oldlol: [/B]

[QUOTE]I just find it funny how posters who posted previously, said Kobe's 81 point performance isn't that impressive because Gervin could have done the same thing if he played today. No, no he couldn't have...[/QUOTE]

Even while in his prime, Gervin played well under 40 minutes per game. If Gervin were to average 40 minutes per game, perhaps he could have. Even then, he probably still would have fallen short.

[QUOTE]They bring up points like he scored 55 points in a half and so on and use crappy mathamatical calculations to figure out that he would have scored more then 81. How do you know how he would have shot for the rest of the game? How do you know if he wasn't tired.[/QUOTE]

Going by Gervin's playing time, I really cannot see how he would have surpassed the 81 point mark. He had the field goal percentage to do it. He shot well over 50% from the field, but there just was not enough time.

[QUOTE]Kobe scored 62 in less then 3 quarters of basketball. I can get his most amount of points scored in a quarter and say he could have produced it again in this game and also if he had no rest he would have scored 100.[/QUOTE]

Without rest, he could have reached it had he continued his hot shooting. There is a lot of what ifs. Considering Gervin average over 30 points per game, even in the early 80s, there is no doubt he would at the very least, match that today. He was a 54% shooter in his prime.

[QUOTE=inclinerator]so what if barkeley picked up shaq he still end up bleeding and if that fight went on barkeley would have lost. Its easy to make someone fall if you go for their legs. Watch football.\
what barkeley did wasnt bravery it was stupidity. Shaq could easily have swung at him and he would have been unconcious


glen davis tackled shaq so i guess he is stronger than shaq right?[/QUOTE]

[B]Oh really?:eek: well he missed :hammerhead: Charles moved he aint quick and guessed what happened next? Charles picked that 350 lbs **** up from the ground in an instant (not 1 second or 2,..0.5 seconds) and landed on him and was about to punch him but his teamates went on top to move him. Then you the camara shows Charles pissed and Mr Shaky all Upset and Afraid. There is proof on that. To bad youtube removed the fight when it was filmed from behined :rolleyes: [/B]

no he was bleeding had it been a longer fight charles might have been beheaded. not really but he probably would have lost.

[QUOTE=Loki]1) He was 35 years old.

2) He shot 48% after the first 20 games of the 1998 season (during which he shot ~42% FG/68% FT) after he adjusted to a torn ligament/cracked knuckle on the index finger on his shooting hand.

Just FYI.[/QUOTE]

I know, all I'm saying is his point aren't valid at all much like the one I brought up about Jordan. It proves nothing about the eras.

Wing players have decreased in FG% due to zone defense.

Though my point is, the skills of players will continue to get better over time. He is neglecting this. Go look at the tapes of the 80's and prior to that. Are any of the players movements as smooth as now? No. The game has been studied and players have improved naturally as every sport does.

Zone defense is getting too much credit in this thread.

[QUOTE=G-train]Zone defense is getting too much credit in this thread.[/QUOTE]


You can certainly use zone defense as a reason, but it used way too much. There are guys today that are excellent man to man defenders. Unfortunately, this era is mainly zone and it benefits weaker defenders.