How good was Julius Erving?

[phnart]

I was lucky enough to see Dr. J a couple of times when I was a kid. He was pretty goddamn spectacular. The guy could flat out play. I don't know if I would go top 15, but who knows. In thinking about it, I would love to see him in today's game. He had the size and strength to lock down a lot of the top 3's in the league.

Would be fun.

[70sFan]

No, that's on you, because you specifically said "Butler only had one season in his whole career when he was clearly a positive three point shooter and it happened in 2015," which was inaccurate.

Because 2017 isn't a season I'd call "clearly a positive three point shooter". He averaged +0.9% 3P above league average but on very low volume (19.8% 3P rate vs 31.6% league average). He basically had average efficiency on below average volume - how is that a positive shooter?

We won't agree on that one.

You don't have to possess strong handles to beat your man off the dribble. You need a good first step (which he had) and a good read on your defender's positioning, which Erving could do.

True, but Erving also had solid handles for a forward. Certainly one of the better ones at his time during that era.

Morant is a lot faster than Erving ever was, though, so it isn't quite the same thing. He also has better handles. And, as you note, he wasn't actually an efficient scorer. Of course, Morant was also heavily on-ball, and Erving as a swing would be more able to get off-ball with a real PG and enjoy the fruits of transition passing and such, which would help his efficiency.

Again, you nitpick every advantage that modern players have without looking from holistic perspective. I know that Morant is quicker (I don't know if he's faster), but he's also much smaller, much weaker, doesn't have a better jumper... By this logic you can argue that 2008 LeBron wouldn't be as efficient as Morant because Morant is quicker than young LeBron as well.

Yes, as I said before, I don't think he was a bad passer. I'd be comfortable even calling him "above average." I would not be comfortable putting him in a full helio position and hoping for the best for team offense, though.

I dom think he's worse passer than Durant or Tatum and although these two don't play in a Doncic/Harden model, they are still very high load, ball dominant players.

That's a broad definition of "flirting with 30." But I agree that there is a lot more helio offense now than before, sure. Not really what we were discussing, but certainly true.

I picked all players above 29 ppg, is that really "broad"? Seriously?

Yes but if you're gonna label his touch outside the paint, I'm going to come with the facts on that one. You said he had "no touch" away from the rim, which was BS.

It's not, he literally makes 34% of his shots outside 10 feet. I guess he's not Rudy Gobert out there, but his shooting numbers are horrible this season.

He certainly wasn't elite away from the rim (this year from 16-23 feet notwithstanding), of course. But don't die on that hill, because that's not a legit point. Erving was better at finishing from 10-16 feet, I would expect the result would be. I would be surprised if he was better from 3-10, because Lebron is actually quite good from there.

If you think that Julius was a bad shooter and he wasn't "quite good" from 3-10 range, then was he good at anything in your evaluation?

Not quite the point I was making, and escapes a lot of what I was saying.

Sorry, but I fail to see what I'm missing here.

Quite a bit worse than someone who could maintain 35% on 9 3PA/g. C'mon man, don't play games. Maintaining even 35% at that volume is exceptional. There are 45 player-seasons in NBA history of 8+ 3PA/g at 35% on 60+ GP in league history, man. That's not trivial.

I didn't disagree that Tatum is a better shooter, but he's not elite - far from it. He takes a lot of threes and good for him that he could maintain only slightly below average efficiency on that volume, but didn't you ignore volume on our Butler discussion previously?

Anyway, Julius has so many advantages over Tatum in terms of inside scoring, post game and transition finishing that I don't think you can just say that Tatum is much better scorer strictly because of his shooting (which again, isn't elite).

Also consider that he's a career 37.8% 3pt shooter, with a pair of 40%+ seasons under his belt, a career 84.8% FT shooter and is a career 40.2% shooter from 16-23.

At much lower volume with threes and 40.2% from long midrange is decent, not elite.

Not like Giannis, and certainly not relative to the contemporary league.

Why? Giannis is bigger, but Julius was far more athletic in terms of quickness, body control, deceleration, coordination. He was also himself a very strong guy for his size.

I think we view Julius physical tools much differently. To me, he's probably the greatest physical speciement at his position after LeBron. You seem to treat him like just another athletic forward.

I'd be shocked if he did better than KD. He's dramatically inferior to Durant as a shooter, for starters.

Again, shooting and only shooting...

Might he be a bit more efficient than Lebron? This year, it's possible, as Lebron is having a down year, but I'd still take Lebron over Erving for his passing ability.

Well, if we include different aspects of game then Julius crushes old LeBron defensively, but that's not the point of this discussion.

Not exaggeration. Steph is the only other guy in league history to support volume from 3 the way Lillard does or better. And about a quarter of his shots come from 3-23 feet. He mostly shoots 3s. Yes, he has sometimes struggled in tight. But he's also at least as good at drawing fouls as I'd expect from Erving, has that 3pt advantage, is considerably better at the line and is an elite shooter on long twos.

So again, here volume matters. I wouldn't put Lillard ahead of guys like Reggie Miller, but fair enough.

Lillard isn't "elite shooter on long twos", because he doesn't take long twos. That's another time when you decide when volume is important. He takes around 1 long midrange per game this season. Even in the earlier seasons when he was younger and took more such shoots, shooting long midranges wasn't his game.

Not really. SGA's speed and mid-range shooting ability are not to be trivialized. Erving's taller, sure, but "physically imposing" is a vague phrase which ignores SGA's own athletic tools.

As I said, it seems that you view Julius physical tools very differently than me.

I don't really care about his ABA numbers because he would never play those minutes in the NBA, particularly in today's NBA. His scoring rate was fairly similar. Lower, in fact, per 100 possessions than in several seasons in the NBA, which renders those particular numbers somewhat immaterial.

Again, you don't take into account how much more modern offenses are slanted towards the main stars now. It's not a matter of scoring talent that we have 6 30 ppg level scorers this season. All of the volume per possession records have been destroyed in the last 5 years.

Julius wouldn't play 39 mpg, but he would have much higher load in these minutes when he'd be on the court. If you think that Julius apex is 25 ppg, then we have a very different view on his game and possible adaptation today.

[JN61]

Good enough to be in the top 15 of all time.

Oviously he was a tremendous player.

Honestly, I’m not sure if that’s true.

1. Jordan
2. Lebron
3. Kareem
4. Russell
5. Wilt
6. Magic
7. Bird
8. Duncan
9. Hakeem
10. Kobe
11. Shaq
12. Curry
13. Moses Malone
14.
15.

I think the final 2 spots are between Dr. J, Oscar Robertson, and Jerry West, and I’m not sure who to leave out.

Curry

[moderndarwin]

He’s a top 5-8 most impactful player to the NBA and a top 15-20 ranked basketball player.

It’s been a long time so it’s fading but he was Jordan before Jordan let’s be real.

[tsherkin]

Because 2017 isn't a season I'd call "clearly a positive three point shooter". He averaged +0.9% 3P above league average but on very low volume (19.8% 3P rate vs 31.6% league average). He basically had average efficiency on below average volume - how is that a positive shooter?

We won't agree on that one.

That's fine. He certainly wasn't a negative IMO, providing acceptable spacing, particularly in context of his low assisted volume and what have you. But that's certainly on the border and more an issue of semantics than anything, thank you for clarifying your thought process.

True, but Erving also had solid handles for a forward. Certainly one of the better ones at his time during that era.

For the era, sure. I don't know how much I actually merit that as relevant, but again, fair point.

Again, you nitpick every advantage that modern players have without looking from holistic perspective. I know that Morant is quicker (I don't know if he's faster), but he's also much smaller, much weaker, doesn't have a better jumper... By this logic you can argue that 2008 LeBron wouldn't be as efficient as Morant because Morant is quicker than young LeBron as well.

That doesn't quite track, because Morant's size is actually a boon to an extent, and yeah, his quickness is a significant advantage. Erving has several inches on Morant, but their playstyles are so different that it's hard to envision someone like Erving coming up similarly. Then again,

I dom think he's worse passer than Durant or Tatum and although these two don't play in a Doncic/Harden model, they are still very high load, ball dominant players.

They are high-load players, unquestionably. But they're also better passers than Erving, which does matter. Some of that is modern usage, some of it is vision I can't really say I ever saw out of Dr J.

It's not, he literally makes 34% of his shots outside 10 feet. I guess he's not Rudy Gobert out there, but his shooting numbers are horrible this season.

But again, that escapes the very specific deviation from 16-23 feet, so it's total horsecrap to say he has "no touch" when he's shooting almost 46% on his long twos, is what I was getting at. What you really want to go with is that his touch around the elbow and along the baseline has been problematic, and that he's struggled in the top half of the circle.

If you think that Julius was a bad shooter and he wasn't "quite good" from 3-10 range, then was he good at anything in your evaluation?

Yes. He had phenomenal body control, excellent athleticism. He was a pretty good passer. He had enough of a jumper that he kept the defenses of his time honest. He had a post game. He had size. His humongous hands helped him exercise fantastic ball control mid-stride and mid-air, so coupled with his body control, he was extremely adept at altering his shot mid-leap to get around defenders. He was an excellent defender and a great wing rebounder.

I can see how you might come to that question, but it's mostly because we're on opposite sides of a take at the moment, not a reflection of my full opinion of a guy who I generally consider a top 20-25 player all time.

I didn't disagree that Tatum is a better shooter, but he's not elite - far from it. He takes a lot of threes and good for him that he could maintain only slightly below average efficiency on that volume, but didn't you ignore volume on our Butler discussion previously?

Yeah, he's not Steph or Dame, for sure. And the percentages aren't elite, only strong. And of course he HAS evidenced better percentages in the past (such as 2020, 7.1 3PA/g, 40.3%), but we're also seeing him benefit from fewer and fewer corner threes, which bolster everyone's percentages, so there is that to consider contextually. He's shooting 42.1% on catch-and-shoot 3s this season and just bricking pull-ups (26.7%) on equal volume (about 4.6 attempts per). That's around 7% worse than last year, and around 10% worse than 2021. So now we have to decide if we're speaking about shooting proficiency as demonstrated thus far this particular season, or overall shooting ability demonstrated by the player to date in their careers. Tatum is a very good 3pt shooter, and of course also a very good shooter on long 2s.

Anyway, Julius has so many advantages over Tatum in terms of inside scoring, post game and transition finishing that I don't think you can just say that Tatum is much better scorer strictly because of his shooting (which again, isn't elite).

Mmmm. I'd still lean Tatum. Better shooter from basically 10 feet out. Doesn't have the post game and I'd imagine his finishing percentages would be comparable or Erving's would be better. But I still think that his superior passing and his superior shooting from more than 10 feet out and at the line carry him as a more valuable scoring threat.

Why? Giannis is bigger, but Julius was far more athletic in terms of quickness, body control, deceleration, coordination. He was also himself a very strong guy for his size.

Power and length matter. Quickness isn't everything, especially if you can pivot and be by someone with a single step, and in terms of how they handle contact.

I think we view Julius physical tools much differently. To me, he's probably the greatest physical speciement at his position after LeBron. You seem to treat him like just another athletic forward.

Yes, we very much disagree on that assessment. I don't think he's "just another athletic forward," but I very much don't believe that his athletic ability would strike as hard today compared to in his own time.

Again, shooting and only shooting...

re: KD, and passing. And ball handling.

Well, if we include different aspects of game then Julius crushes old LeBron defensively, but that's not the point of this discussion.

Impact of a wing defender versus offensive impact of a guy who can shoot better, still has great physical tools and is a dramatically superior passer? I'll take my chances on that one, personally, though I given the breadth of this conversation I appreciate your point and stance.

So again, here volume matters. I wouldn't put Lillard ahead of guys like Reggie Miller, but fair enough.

Volume and efficiency and shot composition, assisted percentage... all of the variables. Lillard versus Reggie is an interesting one. I'd generally consider him a better raw 3pt shooter because he is better on unassisted, above-break shots and on deeper range. Better FT shooter on higher volume (though that's fairly close), and Reggie's 3pt volume is... half, give or take, of what Lillard takes. And despite the fact that Reggie from 97 forward had over a quarter of his 3s come from the corner and Lillard gets them on about 5% of his shots also matters. Reggie was really good at playing the old school game running around screens for shots; he was a magnificent catch-and-shoot guy, but I don't really agree with a pro-Reggie argument as a straight-up shooter compared to Dame, personally.

Julius wouldn't play 39 mpg, but he would have much higher load in these minutes when he'd be on the court. If you think that Julius apex is 25 ppg, then we have a very different view on his game and possible adaptation today.

I think that the way he approaches the game would self-limit, personally. The 29 ppg season he had in 76? I'm sure he could pull that off with the right focus, because he took about 22 FGA/g that season. I don't know that it would be a hot idea to run the ball that often to someone of his offensive profile, but then again, we have had the 3pt discussion and there's some room for differentiation there. Still, I don't think he was good enough as a passer for that to be a super-hot choice.

As you say, we disagree about Erving. I've never thought of him as a top-tier offensive guy in the NBA, but more a very good offensive guy who helped make up the gap with his D. And as a mobile 6'7 guy with good wingspan, a modern coach would be able to get quite a lot out of him on that front. He'd be an amazing player even today, I just think that from an offensive standpoint, we have very different views on what he would be forward in time.

[formula 400]

dr j was pretty much an older vince carter/clyde drexel

[FluLikeSymptoms]

Let’s re-do the 70s. What a mess. Dr J was meant to be Kareem’s nemesis/measuring stick like Wilt was Russell’s, Magic was Bird’s, Dream was MJ’s, TD was Shaq’s, Kobe/KD/Steph were LeBron’s and Lex Luthor was Mikan’s.

20 years from now NBA history will begin at the merger, and everything before it will join Mikan in the N/A but foundational wing of the HOF. 40s and 50s nobody knew what they were doing, 60s were table tennis, 70s the talent was split and nobody even saw Dr J for years. How did Kareem only win one chip that decade? 2 finals? Was he really that good? It’s an era of wonderfully woven NBA/ABA tapestry, has to be the coolest and wildest time in basketball, and I’m open to learning anything about it, but I don’t think the history really applies as more than prep for the 80s.

[CharityStripe34]

To the OP, he was really good.

[Uncle Mxy]

Dr J was great enough to get me interested in basketball.
The first game I ever went to was because he was playing.

[SickMother]

His 75/76 ABA Championship with the Nets has to be one of the best carry jobs of all time.

Rich Jones, John Williamson, Kim Hughes, Al Skinner, Tim Bassett and Brian Taylor. Those aren't some random names I just made up, they were the six other 75/76 Nets that played 1700 or more minutes. Those six guys combined for -227 TS Add.

Dr. J had to do everything & he did ranking 1st in points, 3rd in rebounds, 5th in assists, 2nd in steals and 6th in blocks for the whole league while posting a 110 TS+ and +223 TS Add to even out his teammates.

Meanwhile Denver was coached by Larry Brown, had David Thompson (RoY, 2nd Team All ABA), Ralph Simpson (1st Team All ABA), Dan Issel (2nd Team All ABA) and Bobby Jones (2nd Team All ABA).

[sfernald]

I never thought he compared to Bird or Magic, but always loved watching for the dunks!

That is until I played Dr J vs Larry Bird: One on One which was like the first decent basketball videogame ever created and like one of the first EA games ever created. Then I realized he kicked ass! But still he couldn’t make 10 shots in a row like the Bird.

[WillyJakkz]

Thanks for bringing this back up wanted to post this clip and couldn't find thread.

@13:15 watch how Doc "thinks". The play was whistled dead but to even think like this on this pass attempt shows just how supremely athletic he was and how ahead of his time he was.

Watch on YouTube

Btw Not only Dr J but Dan Issel and David Thompson were balling as well!

[HotRocks34]

Dr. J was Jordan before Jordan.

Pretty much this.

Doc was incredible. As someone said, he didn't necessarily age well but in his prime he was just an incredible athletic artist.

[HotRocks34]

This is one of the most famous dunks in NBA history. This gives an idea of how athletic Doc was.

Doc was almost 33 years old here (January 1983). This was not his athletic peak. But the crazy hops still remained.

Watch on YouTube

[hippesthippo]

i've got KG (obviously), Robinson, and Malone over Dr J though Robinson and Malone are very debatable. Moses needs to be WAY WAY further down. KD is also making a case over Dr J at this point. CP3 might have a case too if you're looking at his longevity.

Why does Moses have to be way further down?

NBA champion
Finals MVP
3x MVP
13x all-star
4x all-NBA 1st team
4x all-NBA 2nd team
9th all time in points
3rd all time in rebounds
1st all time in offensive rebounds
2nd all time in free throws made
25th all time in blocks

Went 12-1 in the playoffs in 83, sweeping Magic and Kareem, averaging 26 and 16 on 58.7 TS%.

I could see the argument for KG over Moses, but David Robinson, Karl Malone, and CP3? I don’t see it.

I don't even see the KG argument tbh.
What is it? Just that we think he could have been better but for terrible management in Minny?
That's possible but does a hypothetical really impact legacy rankings that much? Everyone's career could be better with hindsight hypotheticals.

KG will start to slide in the coming decade(s). He was an amazing player, just not the automatic top15 player some people like to make him out to be. I think it mostly stems from Duncan's ATG status and KG's proximity to him. Boston has enough fans to prop him up for the time being, but he'll almost certainly fall as we have to start thinking about making room for guys like Jokic, Giannis, etc.

[70sFan]

...

I appreciate long response, at this point we can just agree to disagree. I will note that I don't think Durant has any advantage in passing or ball-handling, which shows how much differently we view Julius game.

[MaxZaslofskyJr]

His 75/76 ABA Championship with the Nets has to be one of the best carry jobs of all time.

Rich Jones, John Williamson, Kim Hughes, Al Skinner, Tim Bassett and Brian Taylor. Those aren't some random names I just made up, they were the six other 75/76 Nets that played 1700 or more minutes. Those six guys combined for -227 TS Add.

Dr. J had to do everything & he did ranking 1st in points, 3rd in rebounds, 5th in assists, 2nd in steals and 6th in blocks for the whole league while posting a 110 TS+ and +223 TS Add to even out his teammates.

Meanwhile Denver was coached by Larry Brown, had David Thompson (RoY, 2nd Team All ABA), Ralph Simpson (1st Team All ABA), Dan Issel (2nd Team All ABA) and Bobby Jones (2nd Team All ABA).

Spot on analysis. Although I'd argue that Brian Taylor was a better two-way player than Ralph Simpson. That Nuggets team was insane and the Nets were not the same Nets that won it all 2 years before that.

[dhsilv2]

Why does Moses have to be way further down?

NBA champion
Finals MVP
3x MVP
13x all-star
4x all-NBA 1st team
4x all-NBA 2nd team
9th all time in points
3rd all time in rebounds
1st all time in offensive rebounds
2nd all time in free throws made
25th all time in blocks

Went 12-1 in the playoffs in 83, sweeping Magic and Kareem, averaging 26 and 16 on 58.7 TS%.

I could see the argument for KG over Moses, but David Robinson, Karl Malone, and CP3? I don’t see it.

I don't even see the KG argument tbh.
What is it? Just that we think he could have been better but for terrible management in Minny?
That's possible but does a hypothetical really impact legacy rankings that much? Everyone's career could be better with hindsight hypotheticals.

KG will start to slide in the coming decade(s). He was an amazing player, just not the automatic top15 player some people like to make him out to be. I think it mostly stems from Duncan's ATG status and KG's proximity to him. Boston has enough fans to prop him up for the time being, but he'll almost certainly fall as we have to start thinking about making room for guys like Jokic, Giannis, etc.

The high ranking of KG has everything to do with his mind blowing stats...which paint him as better than Duncan to the chagrin of many of KG's biggest backers. Game film studies that showcase his elite skills that match up to what we expect to see from elite players. How his profile matches again everything we see that maps out to have high impact.

KG is simply put the greatest player in NBA history to simply never get a fair shake in terms of team around him during his apex. We'll likely see more KG like profiles as we move forward with 30+ teams in the league.

As the generations that worshiped Jordan age, there will be less mapping of expectations to "play like Jordan" and with that I expect we'll see a trend towards appreciating the KG's of the world.

[CIN-C-STAR]

I don't even see the KG argument tbh.
What is it? Just that we think he could have been better but for terrible management in Minny?
That's possible but does a hypothetical really impact legacy rankings that much? Everyone's career could be better with hindsight hypotheticals.

KG will start to slide in the coming decade(s). He was an amazing player, just not the automatic top15 player some people like to make him out to be. I think it mostly stems from Duncan's ATG status and KG's proximity to him. Boston has enough fans to prop him up for the time being, but he'll almost certainly fall as we have to start thinking about making room for guys like Jokic, Giannis, etc.

The high ranking of KG has everything to do with his mind blowing stats...which paint him as better than Duncan to the chagrin of many of KG's biggest backers. Game film studies that showcase his elite skills that match up to what we expect to see from elite players. How his profile matches again everything we see that maps out to have high impact.

KG is simply put the greatest player in NBA history to simply never get a fair shake in terms of team around him during his apex. We'll likely see more KG like profiles as we move forward with 30+ teams in the league.

As the generations that worshiped Jordan age, there will be less mapping of expectations to "play like Jordan" and with that I expect we'll see a trend towards appreciating the KG's of the world.

Timmy w more ppg on better shooting, more rebounds, more stocks... really KG just has the slight edge in assists and that's about it for traditional stats.
I think the idea of KG is quite a bit more exciting and fun than Duncan, but the reality that played out is even more unequivocal: Duncan was the more dominant player.
And the opinions of the guys who went against both seem to back that up pretty consistently.

Watch on YouTube

[dhsilv2]

KG will start to slide in the coming decade(s). He was an amazing player, just not the automatic top15 player some people like to make him out to be. I think it mostly stems from Duncan's ATG status and KG's proximity to him. Boston has enough fans to prop him up for the time being, but he'll almost certainly fall as we have to start thinking about making room for guys like Jokic, Giannis, etc.

The high ranking of KG has everything to do with his mind blowing stats...which paint him as better than Duncan to the chagrin of many of KG's biggest backers. Game film studies that showcase his elite skills that match up to what we expect to see from elite players. How his profile matches again everything we see that maps out to have high impact.

KG is simply put the greatest player in NBA history to simply never get a fair shake in terms of team around him during his apex. We'll likely see more KG like profiles as we move forward with 30+ teams in the league.

As the generations that worshiped Jordan age, there will be less mapping of expectations to "play like Jordan" and with that I expect we'll see a trend towards appreciating the KG's of the world.

Timmy w more ppg on better shooting, more rebounds, more stocks... really KG just has the slight edge in assists and that's about it for traditional stats.
I think the idea of KG is quite a bit more exciting and fun than Duncan, but the reality that played out is even more unequivocal: Duncan was the more dominant player.
And the opinions of the guys who went against both seem to back that up pretty consistently.

Opinions of players are pretty worthless, which has been proven out time and time again.

But yeah one on one Duncan was harder to guard. Nobody will debate that. But there's a bit more to basketball.