The Dr J 76ers is an underrated run

[Dr Positivity]

From 77-86 they have 1 dominant title, 3 other finals, and 3 other ECF, and average 56 Ws. They make ECF 7 of 9 years from 77-85. They're in the mix almost every year and unlike some regular season overperformer teams, have good playoff performances but just at the wrong time usually. 1981 ECF is probably the real finals with the 40-42 Rockets in the finals, so that's like 4 other finals for the Dr J era before Moses which is pretty impressive and West-lite. Their "bad years" in that stretch:

1978 - This could've been their 2009 Lakers. Lose to the 77 Blazers, Walton gets injured, 76ers had next best record at 55 Ws, so presumably were the favorite. They lose in ECF to champion Bullets, with Game 6 being 2 pts. Blown opportunity, but still a good contending "3rd place" season. This is their 5th best season just from 77-82, which is pretty damn good.

1979 - Can partially blame this one on injury as Doug Collins has season ending injury, they were 30-17 on him and 17-18 without him. The 76ers by now have put together most of their 80s core with Jones and Cheeks and no McGinnis, Cunningham as coach. With prime Collins this could have been an interesting year for them. They lose to Spurs in 7 in rd 2 which could be worse I guess.

From 77-82 they peak in the exact WRONG years. The best years to peak would be 78, 79 and 81 when they'd play Sonics x2 and Rockets in finals. The worst years would be 77, 80 and 82 when they'd play Blazers and Lakers x2. Those are the exact years they made the finals. While they can only blame themselves for being upset by Bullets or blowing 3-1 lead by combined 5 pts to Celtics in 81, some of it is bad luck, just like how the Rockets in the 90s were lucky to peak in the non MJ years and teams like the Jazz, Suns and Sonics were not.

I find the post title years disappointing with 84 being your 2022 LA Rams hangover type of season, although they were 50 Ws+ each year 84-86 and made ECF (not competitive) in 85. You can also say that they benefitted from fairly weak period from 77-82, and that's part of why they got so close in those years. That's true but I still think contextual years should be taken into account and they have excellent backup years for a 1 ring team.

[Cavsfansince84]

I'm most curious whether the 83 Sixers would have gotten it done without Moses and how that might change the perception of Dr. J today due to Moses getting largely viewed as the best player in the league that year.

[kcktiny]

I'm most curious whether the 83 Sixers would have gotten it done without Moses and how that might change the perception of Dr. J today due to Moses getting largely viewed as the best player in the league that year.

Why? What is your perception of Dr. J. now?

If someone claimed Julius Erving was the greatest SF in the history of the league they'd have some excellent arguments and data to back that up. He has two ABA titles, one NBA title, was all-NBA 1st team 5 times, including 1982-83 (with Malone) when he was age 33.

From 1976-77 to 1981-82, his 6 NBA years prior to Malone on the sixers, Philadelphia won the most regular season games, and he was clearly the best player on that team all that time.

Don't hold back on greatness just because a player didn't win multiple NBA titles. Karl Malone and Charles Barkley never won titles but you'd be hard pressed to find many better PFs.

[homecourtloss]

I'm most curious whether the 83 Sixers would have gotten it done without Moses and how that might change the perception of Dr. J today due to Moses getting largely viewed as the best player in the league that year.

Why? What is your perception of Dr. J. now?

If someone claimed Julius Erving was the greatest SF in the history of the league they'd have some excellent arguments and data to back that up. He has two ABA titles, one NBA title, was all-NBA 1st team 5 times, including 1982-83 (with Malone) when he was age 33.

From 1976-77 to 1981-82, his 6 NBA years prior to Malone on the sixers, Philadelphia won the most regular season games, and he was clearly the best player on that team all that time.

Don't hold back on greatness just because a player didn't win multiple NBA titles. Karl Malone and Charles Barkley never won titles but you'd be hard pressed to find many better PFs.

No he doesn’t, and it’s actually the opposite. When Pollack’s On/Off data became available, I was frankly surprised at how poorly Dr. J graded out. He was rarely the most impactful player on his team and other players such as Mo cheeks, Moses Malone, and Bobby Jones were often more impactful. He just has too many seasons of relatively substandard impact to elevate him retrospectively. He has

[Cavsfansince84]

Why? What is your perception of Dr. J. now?

If someone claimed Julius Erving was the greatest SF in the history of the league they'd have some excellent arguments and data to back that up. He has two ABA titles, one NBA title, was all-NBA 1st team 5 times, including 1982-83 (with Malone) when he was age 33.

From 1976-77 to 1981-82, his 6 NBA years prior to Malone on the sixers, Philadelphia won the most regular season games, and he was clearly the best player on that team all that time.

Don't hold back on greatness just because a player didn't win multiple NBA titles. Karl Malone and Charles Barkley never won titles but you'd be hard pressed to find many better PFs.

You seem to be sort of assuming that I am low on him now or something. I just think it adds something to his resume to have titles in both the aba and nba as the best player on those teams. Does it change who he is as a player? No, but I think he tends to get underrated if anything most of the time so that title may change that if he had beaten Magic and Kareem's Lakers without Moses. I'd also say that there's zero argument for Dr. J over LeBron now.

[Jaivl]

The Dr. J era 76ers are an underrated run, but I'm not sure it really says anything about Julius in particular.

Top 3-6 guy in the league basically every year, top 15-20ish guy ever, that much we all know. But those teams were just loaded as hell. 1983 in particular is beyond superteam level.

[migya]

This 76ers performed well those years but they were also talented. Cheeks, Toney and Bobby Jones is a very, very good level of talent.

Karl Malone's Jazz run from 1990 to 1998 was a better run and with far less talented teams. That averaged 55 wins a season, made two finals losing only to the legendary Jordan Bulls and made three other wcfs. They lost in 93 in the elimination game to the Sonics, who lost to Phoenix in the wcf in the elimination game, who lost to the legendary Jordan Bulls in game 6 on a game winning shot. In 94 they lost in the elimination game to the champion Rockets. In 97 they lost in overtime in the elimination game against the Sonics, who lost in 6 games to the 72 win Jordan Bulls.

That's a run.

[giberish]

IMO They're hurt by the feeling that from 1977-79 the league was ripe for the taking, but the Sixers didn't take it despite Erving and a bunch of other talent. The 1977 Blazers were really a year early (only 49 wins in the regular season with a young roster that was just figuring it out late in the year). Then when injuries kept the Blazers from really taking over Philly couldn't even get past Washington.

They don't look as disappointing from 1980 on but Boston and LA look better than Philly in those years.

[70sFan]

This 76ers performed well those years but they were also talented. Cheeks, Toney and Bobby Jones is a very, very good level of talent.

Karl Malone's Jazz run from 1990 to 1998 was a better run and with far less talented teams. That averaged 55 wins a season, made two finals losing only to the legendary Jordan Bulls and made three other wcfs. They lost in 93 in the elimination game to the Sonics, who lost to Phoenix in the wcf in the elimination game, who lost to the legendary Jordan Bulls in game 6 on a game winning shot. In 94 they lost in the elimination game to the champion Rockets. In 97 they lost in overtime in the elimination game against the Sonics, who lost in 6 games to the 72 win Jordan Bulls.

That's a run.

What's up with your strange fascination of comparing Erving to Karl Malone?

[Stalwart]

I don't think it is underrated actually. Erving seems to be a consensus top 11-20 player of all time largely due to his run with the 76ers. Even those who don't value his ABA career much still often have him top 20. The Dr J 76ers were viewed as a staple of NBA history, a dynasty even, all the way though the 1990s despite winning only one title. The reason for this is because the generation that watched Dr J considered the 76ers to be neck and neck with the Celtics and Lakers.

When it comes to Dr. J it feels like he gets dismissed or underrated but I don't think he actually does. Hes already considered top 15 for alot of people. He had his opportunities to be a top 10 ATG but failed to capitalize. Had the 76ers been able to bring it all the way home in '77 and '80 you'd be seeing Dr. J in the top 10 for alot of people.

[Djoker]

Timing is everything sometimes as the OP said. If the Sixers made the Finals in 1978, 1979 and 1981 instead of 1977, 11980 and 1982... they could have had a few rings before Moses.

With that being said, I don't think Dr J is underrated. He's a top 20 player on many lists which is roughly where he belongs. In fact I think one can easily argue that Oscar/West/KD are all better than him.

[70sFan]

Timing is everything sometimes as the OP said. If the Sixers made the Finals in 1978, 1979 and 1981 instead of 1977, 11980 and 1982... they could have had a few rings before Moses.

With that being said, I don't think Dr J is underrated. He's a top 20 player on many lists which is roughly where he belongs. In fact I think one can easily argue that Oscar/West/KD are all better than him.

I agree with that take and hypothetical rings won in 1978, 1979 or 1981 shouldn't have changed the way people rank Julius. Erving is a top 20 player to me, but I don't think his case for top 10 is that strong.

I think it's reasonable to consider all three over Erving, but he can also be ranked ahead of them. Personally, I'd put West/Oscar over Julius, but I still have him ahead of Durant.

[Owly]

76ers 76-77 to 85-86 (misses Erving's final year but that gives us 10 years and we live in a base-10 world) is a very good 10 year run. For my database through 2019 was the 76ers best run and 71st overall in 10 year average SRS (at 4.448 - top being 98-99 to 07-08 Spurs with San Antonio 6.838). Obviously many of those above are near duplicates (Spurs have 13 of the top 19 stretches - all stretches between the 98 to 07 and 10 to 19), so of "unique" teams that rank would be higher. It's a pretty consistently good or better team. I don't know if there is a convention on how to rate long team stretches of differing lengths but I don't think they're ignored in the history books. I'd say 90s Jazz, 90s Supersonics, 2000s Mavericks, 80s Bucks, 90s Suns and 90s Blazers (perhaps especially the Bucks who didn't get bested by an MJ team or make a finals) would be more ignored but on average better as would the 70s Bucks (tilted heavily by a dominant but mainstream unheralded early 70s juggernaut). If I had to guess I'd say they're held about right ... though that's a pretty wild guess at where others have them and even a spitballing on my own end of where I think they "should" be.

As far as Erving himself, as others have noted, others (perhaps especially Cheeks and Bobby Jones) show more in the impact data. I can see a wide range on his ABA career but am pretty convinced his NBA career is often overrated.

[HeartBreakKid]

While the Sixers slightly underachieved it's worth noting that Julius' ABA teams overachieved (generally speaking). His ABA accomplishments tend to get generically brushed over as "he was good during that time too".

[Stalwart]

Timing is everything sometimes as the OP said. If the Sixers made the Finals in 1978, 1979 and 1981 instead of 1977, 11980 and 1982... they could have had a few rings before Moses.

With that being said, I don't think Dr J is underrated. He's a top 20 player on many lists which is roughly where he belongs. In fact I think one can easily argue that Oscar/West/KD are all better than him.

I agree with that take and hypothetical rings won in 1978, 1979 or 1981 shouldn't have changed the way people rank Julius. Erving is a top 20 player to me, but I don't think his case for top 10 is that strong.

I think it's reasonable to consider all three over Erving, but he can also be ranked ahead of them. Personally, I'd put West/Oscar over Julius, but I still have him ahead of Durant.

In order for the 76ers to win those hypothetical rings it would presumably require more dominate performances from Julius which would then change his ranking based on superior play.

[Owly]

Timing is everything sometimes as the OP said. If the Sixers made the Finals in 1978, 1979 and 1981 instead of 1977, 11980 and 1982... they could have had a few rings before Moses.

With that being said, I don't think Dr J is underrated. He's a top 20 player on many lists which is roughly where he belongs. In fact I think one can easily argue that Oscar/West/KD are all better than him.

I agree with that take and hypothetical rings won in 1978, 1979 or 1981 shouldn't have changed the way people rank Julius. Erving is a top 20 player to me, but I don't think his case for top 10 is that strong.

I think it's reasonable to consider all three over Erving, but he can also be ranked ahead of them. Personally, I'd put West/Oscar over Julius, but I still have him ahead of Durant.

In order for the 76ers to win those hypothetical rings it would presumably require more dominate [sic] performances from Julius which would then change his ranking based on superior play.

Why?

Erving doing better is one possible cause. Others would be teammates playing better, opponents playing worse, better net injury luck (e.g. opponent injuries), better net refereeing luck, better/more efficient point margin distribution "luck" (i.e. not being "net" any better but eking out victories and taking all their punishment in fewer but heavier losses) ...

It is no more the case that Erving would be required to play better than it is he is to blame for the losses. Teams win. Teams lose.

[70sFan]

Timing is everything sometimes as the OP said. If the Sixers made the Finals in 1978, 1979 and 1981 instead of 1977, 11980 and 1982... they could have had a few rings before Moses.

With that being said, I don't think Dr J is underrated. He's a top 20 player on many lists which is roughly where he belongs. In fact I think one can easily argue that Oscar/West/KD are all better than him.

I agree with that take and hypothetical rings won in 1978, 1979 or 1981 shouldn't have changed the way people rank Julius. Erving is a top 20 player to me, but I don't think his case for top 10 is that strong.

I think it's reasonable to consider all three over Erving, but he can also be ranked ahead of them. Personally, I'd put West/Oscar over Julius, but I still have him ahead of Durant.

In order for the 76ers to win those hypothetical rings it would presumably require more dominate performances from Julius which would then change his ranking based on superior play.

That's not the only possible scenario though.

[Stalwart]

I agree with that take and hypothetical rings won in 1978, 1979 or 1981 shouldn't have changed the way people rank Julius. Erving is a top 20 player to me, but I don't think his case for top 10 is that strong.

I think it's reasonable to consider all three over Erving, but he can also be ranked ahead of them. Personally, I'd put West/Oscar over Julius, but I still have him ahead of Durant.

In order for the 76ers to win those hypothetical rings it would presumably require more dominate [sic] performances from Julius which would then change his ranking based on superior play.

Why?

Erving doing better is one possible cause. Others would be teammates playing better, opponents playing worse, better net injury luck (e.g. opponent injuries), better net refereeing luck, better/more efficient point margin distribution "luck" (i.e. not being "net" any better but eking out victories and taking all their punishment in fewer but heavier losses) ...

It is no more the case that Erving would be required to play better than it is he is to blame for the losses. Teams win. Teams lose.

Keyword: presumably

[Owly]

In order for the 76ers to win those hypothetical rings it would presumably require more dominate [sic] performances from Julius which would then change his ranking based on superior play.

Why?

Erving doing better is one possible cause. Others would be teammates playing better, opponents playing worse, better net injury luck (e.g. opponent injuries), better net refereeing luck, better/more efficient point margin distribution "luck" (i.e. not being "net" any better but eking out victories and taking all their punishment in fewer but heavier losses) ...

It is no more the case that Erving would be required to play better than it is he is to blame for the losses. Teams win. Teams lose.

Keyword: presumably

Well one I would argue the all the words are key. Including the highlighted one: "require". if you say something is required then you are saying it is necessary. Saying something is presumably required is to say you think it is very likely that it is necessary.

My post illustrates that by no means is it necessary. From the starting premise that the 76ers win each of the series you could probably say it is "likely" that he players better in any one of those renewed series (though '77 might depend on how much you blame his D for Gross's scoring as it's a productive baseline). This is very different from presuming better performances are required.

People are correct to state that team wins - intrinsically and without any notion of the players contribution to such - should not be a basis to move a player. To do so is an endorsement of a crude "Ringz" like philosophy. I think necessarily so, because different posters can have no way of knowing where others are imagining if or to what degree a given player's performance changes. And indeed the players performance could have improved to any one persons an the team lost if other teammates play worse or opponents better or .... (see prior post). So the only thing we can safely presume changes is the thing stated, i.e. the team level outcome.

[Stalwart]

Why?

Erving doing better is one possible cause. Others would be teammates playing better, opponents playing worse, better net injury luck (e.g. opponent injuries), better net refereeing luck, better/more efficient point margin distribution "luck" (i.e. not being "net" any better but eking out victories and taking all their punishment in fewer but heavier losses) ...

It is no more the case that Erving would be required to play better than it is he is to blame for the losses. Teams win. Teams lose.

Keyword: presumably

Well one I would argue the all the words are key. Including the highlighted one: "require". if you say something is required then you are saying it is necessary. Saying something is presumably required is to say you think it is very likely that it is necessary.

My post illustrates that by no means is it necessary. From the starting premise that the 76ers win each of the series you could probably say it is "likely" that he players better in any one of those renewed series (though '77 might depend on how much you blame his D for Gross's scoring as it's a productive baseline). This is very different from presuming better performances are required.

People are correct to state that team wins - intrinsically and without any notion of the players contribution to such - should not be a basis to move a player. To do so is an endorsement of a crude "Ringz" like philosophy. I think necessarily so, because different posters can have no way of knowing where others are imagining if or to what degree a given player's performance changes. And indeed the players performance could have improved to any one persons an the team lost if other teammates play worse or opponents better or .... (see prior post). So the only thing we can safely presume changes is the thing stated, i.e. the team level outcome.

I qualified my assertion that Dr. J would rank higher if he had more dominant performances in route to those NBA titles. I don't disagree that wpuld not require such.