Durant vs Erving

[Pg81]

Most people understand the strenghts and weakness of PER and its not accident the all time list is a who's who led by MJ and Lebron. I said even if you think he was a great defender Durant isn't bad. What I dont' give a **** about is as voted on MVP award. The best players certainly doesn't get that every year. If that's the best you got I guess Nash is better than Shaq...

For career? No. For the years in question? Nash for sure was more important for the Suns than Shaq was as a 2nd fiddle to Wade on the Heat so yeah.
You are aware that MVPs back then were voted by NBA players and not by sports writers, right? So let me get this straight, a single on it's own meanigless stat like PER holds a lot of weight for you but an entire league of players voting a single guy the MVP holds no weight?
But hey, Petitt has a higher career PER than Durant, that must mean going by your logic that Petitt was better than Durant. Oh and David Robinson has a higher PER than Kareem so Robinson > Kareem, right?

Good lord, so you measure Shaq's career by a 1 MVP? Guess he had half the career than Nash by your original MVP logic.

Stupid players in the 70's voted on MVP's makes it even worse. Some of the dumb players didn't even vote Lebron on all NBA this year. I Jon Leur and other scrubs got ridiculous votes in todays votes as well. That's your standard This was before they even had info back in the 70's like they do today.

I also think most intelligent people understand what basketball really was in the 50's and early 60's when Petitt played in a segregated league with few blacks essentially and had a shorter career. Still a hall of famer BTW... Kareem played until he was 40+ and how that would affect a CAREER average in PER when he was more of a role player when he was old at the end or how David Robinson didn't even enter the NBA until he was 24 years old pretty much in his peak and how that would play into it as well or how coming in a 19 like Durant would a career PER....

It's a joke man. Durant had 8 individual seasons already better than the PEAK of Dr J who entered the NBA at 26 in his prime. You don't even have to use PER use anything that compares apples to apples possessions and it's not even close. That's not even including how much stronger the NBA is today as a world wide game.

Reading comprehension is not your strong suit I see. Not that this is surprising considering the way you are trying to s*** on Dr.J and prop up "The Servant". But please, continue to misconstrue on what I say and continue to try to miss MVP votings based on nothing but your empty rethoric which is all you can do. Enlighten us some more about the all mighty PER while you are at it.

[12footrim]

For career? No. For the years in question? Nash for sure was more important for the Suns than Shaq was as a 2nd fiddle to Wade on the Heat so yeah.
You are aware that MVPs back then were voted by NBA players and not by sports writers, right? So let me get this straight, a single on it's own meanigless stat like PER holds a lot of weight for you but an entire league of players voting a single guy the MVP holds no weight?
But hey, Petitt has a higher career PER than Durant, that must mean going by your logic that Petitt was better than Durant. Oh and David Robinson has a higher PER than Kareem so Robinson > Kareem, right?

Good lord, so you measure Shaq's career by a 1 MVP? Guess he had half the career than Nash by your original MVP logic.

Stupid players in the 70's voted on MVP's makes it even worse. Some of the dumb players didn't even vote Lebron on all NBA this year. I Jon Leur and other scrubs got ridiculous votes in todays votes as well. That's your standard This was before they even had info back in the 70's like they do today.

I also think most intelligent people understand what basketball really was in the 50's and early 60's when Petitt played in a segregated league with few blacks essentially and had a shorter career. Still a hall of famer BTW... Kareem played until he was 40+ and how that would affect a CAREER average in PER when he was more of a role player when he was old at the end or how David Robinson didn't even enter the NBA until he was 24 years old pretty much in his peak and how that would play into it as well or how coming in a 19 like Durant would a career PER....

It's a joke man. Durant had 8 individual seasons already better than the PEAK of Dr J who entered the NBA at 26 in his prime. You don't even have to use PER use anything that compares apples to apples possessions and it's not even close. That's not even including how much stronger the NBA is today as a world wide game.

Reading comprehension is not your strong suit I see. Not that this is surprising considering the way you are trying to s*** on Dr.J and prop up "The Servant". But please, continue to misconstrue on what I say and continue to try to miss MVP votings based on nothing but your empty rethoric which is all you can do. Enlighten us some more about the all mighty PER while you are at it.

So why even bring up old fat Shaq in Miami for if not? Everyone knew he was clearly past his prime at that point, it was like his 10th best season. Comparing careers was the point of the conversation we were having. It's was still your dumb logic that # of MVP's make the player or something clearly from the previous thread. Shaq has one MVP, Nash 2 in his career, using your MVP logic his career wasn't as good as Nash. That was where I was going not some dumb rehash of 2005 you went to.

That is your reasoning and evidence you provided a voted on award in the 70's by some players. You also got some pretty weak attempts to diminish PER. All PER is just is an encompassing one stat for EVERY stat. It's just stats adjusted for apples to apples, and Durant clearly has like 8 seasons of better stats per possession than DR J's best and vs stronger competition. You don't even have to put a name on it, just go look at the per 100 possessions, Durant is better. Not really much else to say, it is what it is and I think most understand and get that he was better statistically and in a better era.

[Ron Swanson]

The pace argument continues to misconstrued/thrown around inaccurately I see. I had thought that we had debunked this stuff when people started to see the absurdity in saying that simply multiplying numbers by the difference in pace would result in Russell Westbrook averaging a 50/18/18 triple double over 82 games. Apparently it keeps needing to be said but per minute and per possession metrics are not actual production and do not account for things like stamina and rule changes.

As for the debate itself, I have the two players relatively close. Durant is currently sitting around the top-30 with Dr. J sitting around the top-20. Peak I have Durant slightly ahead, and I can see Durant passing Erving career-wise with a few more prime seasons before he retires, but I can't for the life of me get how people would already have him ahead at this stage. Unless you really really penalize his ABA years.

[Warspite]

That proves absolutely nothing. What we have seen that players with terrific longevity like Kareem, Malone, Dr.J, Duncan etc. were excellent despite playing in very different eras during their time in the NBA so the claims you and your ilk are making about all time great players like Dr.J can be summarized in one word: unfounded.

Dr J's best PER season in the NBA was 25.9 at the age of 31. He was in the league from the time he was 26 years old, so that encompasses all his prime too. He only had 3 seasons over 23.0 PER. He wasn't even that dominate in his own era much less thinking he could do it today. The other players you mentioned they all had far more dominate seasons and many many more of them.

Durant has already had 8 freaking seasons rated higher than Dr J's all time best. Most in the high 20's. Even if you think Dr J was the greatest defender ever, Durant isn't bad and the fact is Dr J he has some marginal statistical seasons even by his era's standards.

PER doesn't work like that. Durant is compared to the avg player in a 30 team league while DrJ is compared to the avg player in a league with between 8 and 23 teams. Durant gets to compete with players who simply couldn't make an NBA team in a 8-23 team league. Add in the fact that DrJ played in a more talented era vs better players and the PER argument seems silly. Having a PER of 20 in the Gleague/Big10/WNBA/ EuroBasket doesn't mean the same thing and it doesn't in this case either.

For the PER geeks think about this: DrJ won the title in 76 with his 2nd option having a PER 16.1

[eminence]

PER is largely meaningless, I agree, but statements about the DrJ's league being stronger or modern players not making that league completely ignore the huge increase in talent pool since then and don't exactly reflect an unbiased position.

[Pg81]

PER is largely meaningless, I agree, but statements about the DrJ's league being stronger or modern players not making that league completely ignore the huge increase in talent pool since then and don't exactly reflect an unbiased position.

The talent was less diluted. There are plenty of players who in a league with only 8-23 teams would never make the cut unlike today. There is a reason why win columns have spiked after expansions, especially after the last one. Most of the time these expansion led to even more teams being bottom feeders.

[eminence]

PER is largely meaningless, I agree, but statements about the DrJ's league being stronger or modern players not making that league completely ignore the huge increase in talent pool since then and don't exactly reflect an unbiased position.

The talent was less diluted. There are plenty of players who in a league with only 8-23 teams would never make the cut unlike today. There is a reason why win columns have spiked after expansions, especially after the last one. Most of the time these expansion led to even more teams being bottom feeders.

Pretending like their wasn't an ABA/NBA split is hilarious. DrJ never played in a league even close to the talent concentration of an 8 team league, there were 27 pro teams his peak '76 season.

[Pg81]

PER is largely meaningless, I agree, but statements about the DrJ's league being stronger or modern players not making that league completely ignore the huge increase in talent pool since then and don't exactly reflect an unbiased position.

The talent was less diluted. There are plenty of players who in a league with only 8-23 teams would never make the cut unlike today. There is a reason why win columns have spiked after expansions, especially after the last one. Most of the time these expansion led to even more teams being bottom feeders.

Pretending like their wasn't an ABA/NBA split is hilarious. DrJ never played in a league even close to the talent concentration of an 8 team league, there were 27 pro teams his peak '76 season.

The ABA had 11 teams for most of his career though some folded and some new came in but it ended with 6 teams, 4 of which joined the NBA iirc.
https://www.basketball-reference.com/leagues/NBA_1976.html
I count 18 teams in 1976 in the NBA.

https://www.basketball-reference.com/leagues/NBA_1976.html
And now I count, merely to confirm what history told me, 22 teams in 1977 the year after the merger.

Care to enlighten me how there were 27 teams in the NBA or ABA or how he played in a league with 27 teams? I cannot quite follow your argument here. It is not like he played ABA and NBA at the same time and even if he did it would have been still less than 27 and quite a lot less than the league has these days.

[12footrim]

PER is largely meaningless, I agree, but statements about the DrJ's league being stronger or modern players not making that league completely ignore the huge increase in talent pool since then and don't exactly reflect an unbiased position.

The talent was less diluted. There are plenty of players who in a league with only 8-23 teams would never make the cut unlike today. There is a reason why win columns have spiked after expansions, especially after the last one. Most of the time these expansion led to even more teams being bottom feeders.

Pretending like their wasn't an ABA/NBA split is hilarious. DrJ never played in a league even close to the talent concentration of an 8 team league, there were 27 pro teams his peak '76 season.

That proves absolutely nothing. What we have seen that players with terrific longevity like Kareem, Malone, Dr.J, Duncan etc. were excellent despite playing in very different eras during their time in the NBA so the claims you and your ilk are making about all time great players like Dr.J can be summarized in one word: unfounded.

Dr J's best PER season in the NBA was 25.9 at the age of 31. He was in the league from the time he was 26 years old, so that encompasses all his prime too. He only had 3 seasons over 23.0 PER. He wasn't even that dominate in his own era much less thinking he could do it today. The other players you mentioned they all had far more dominate seasons and many many more of them.

Durant has already had 8 freaking seasons rated higher than Dr J's all time best. Most in the high 20's. Even if you think Dr J was the greatest defender ever, Durant isn't bad and the fact is Dr J he has some marginal statistical seasons even by his era's standards.

PER doesn't work like that. Durant is compared to the avg player in a 30 team league while DrJ is compared to the avg player in a league with between 8 and 23 teams. Durant gets to compete with players who simply couldn't make an NBA team in a 8-23 team league. Add in the fact that DrJ played in a more talented era vs better players and the PER argument seems silly. Having a PER of 20 in the Gleague/Big10/WNBA/ EuroBasket doesn't mean the same thing and it doesn't in this case either.

For the PER geeks think about this: DrJ won the title in 76 with his 2nd option having a PER 16.1

Wrong. PER is adjusted to a league average, set at 15.0 and you most certainly can compare year by year for dominance to how dominate others were in years of past vs their competition, and more importantly apples to apples possessions per possession. That's all you really need to look at is per 100 possessions stats to know in 2 seconds who is superior though in a much better league no less.


1980 USA population 221 million

2016 USA population 326 million

That's not even taking in to account popularity of which the NBA was and after tought on tape delay in Dr J's era, or the other 7 billion people in the world today open to the talent pool is drawn from today that didn't even really start heavy until about 20 years ago

Stop with this nonsense. Today's NBA has a talent pool of 100s of millions more all over the world with the sport at it's peak of popularity globally too as well as in the US.