The Dr J 76ers is an underrated run

[kcktiny]

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

Come again?

From 1976-77 to 1981-82, Erving's six seasons before Moses arrived:

- the 76ers had the league's best regular season W-L record, averaged 55 wins over the 6 seasons
- Erving scored 11189 points, no other Sixers player scored even 5000, he alone scored 1/5 the team's points
- he was 1st on the team in steals, 2nd in rebounds, 2nd in assists, 2nd in blocks
- he was all-NBA 1st team 4 times, no other 76ers player was named to an all-NBA team

Did you also know that those 6 seasons Erving scored - by far - the most points in the playoffs, 2233. The next closest scorer - on any team - scored 700 less points.

He just has too many seasons of relatively substandard impact to elevate him retrospectively.

Uh-huh.

I think he tends to get underrated if anything

Absolutely. I don't think there is any question this is true. Those who do not consider him one of the very best SFs ever clearly were not alive and watching him play in the late 70s and early 80s.

I'd also say that there's zero argument for Dr. J over LeBron now.

Erving did not play in the NBA until age 26. James at age 26 was starting his 9th season in the NBA.

You include Erving's ABA seasons and he is a top 5 SF of all time in my opinion.

I personally would want a peak Erving rather than a peak James. It's close, but I'd opt for Erving. James was the better passer but Erving the far better offensive rebounder, better at steals, was almost twice the shot blocker.

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.

Spot on. Again those of us that actually watched him during his career know this. When the 76ers won the title in 1982-83 people back then said this was great because the Doctor deserved it. And at that time many considered him the greatest SF in the history of the game.

In fact I think one can easily argue that Oscar/West/KD are all better than him.

Why do you feel Kevin Durant is better than Erving? Durant went to a 73 win team that had already won a title the year before after a 67 win season.

but am pretty convinced his NBA career is often overrated.

Erving was all-NBA 7 of his first 8 seasons in the league, 5 times all-NBA 1st team. Alot of people thought he was really good.

His ABA accomplishments tend to get generically brushed over

Now, but not back then. Pretty much the whole reason the NBA merged with the ABA was to get Erving into the league. He was adamant about not leaving the ABA to sign with an NBA team.

[AEnigma]

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

Come again?

From 1976-77 to 1981-82, Erving's six seasons before Moses arrived:

- the 76ers had the league's best regular season W-L record, averaged 55 wins over the 6 seasons
- Erving scored 11189 points, no other Sixers player scored even 5000, he alone scored 1/5 the team's points
- he was 1st on the team in steals, 2nd in rebounds, 2nd in assists, 2nd in blocks
- he was all-NBA 1st team 4 times, no other 76ers player was named to an all-NBA team

Did you also know that those 6 seasons Erving scored - by far - the most points in the playoffs, 2233. The next closest scorer - on any team - scored 700 less points.

He just has too many seasons of relatively substandard impact to elevate him retrospectively.

Uh-huh.

1977: +5.2 on, +6 on/off
1978: +4.9 on, +0.6 on/off
1979: +1.7 on, -0.1 on/off
1980: +4.9 on, +3 on/off
1981: +5.7 on, -6.7 on/off
1982: +8.6 on, +10 on/off
1983: +11.4 on, +10.3 on/off (by contrast, Moses was +11.5 and +15.6)
1984: +3.6 on, +4.4 on/off
1985: +2.9 on, -3.2 on/off
1986: +4.1 on, +4.6 on/off

Not exactly a giant. Just because a team is successful and you are the lead scorer on that team does not mean all success is automatically attributed to you.

I'd also say that there's zero argument for Dr. J over LeBron now.

Erving did not play in the NBA until age 26. James at age 26 was starting his 9th season in the NBA.

You include Erving's ABA seasons and he is a top 5 SF of all time in my opinion.

I personally would want a peak Erving rather than a peak James. It's close, but I'd opt for Erving. James was the better passer but Erving the far better offensive rebounder, better at steals, was almost twice the shot blocker.

Yeah that is why I take Bobby Jones and Andrei Kirilenko over both.



You guys really just look for any reason to justify these nonsensical Lebron takes, huh. This might be the new bar though. Ignore the dramatically better scoring. Brush off the passing and creation. Throw away regularly being his team’s best defender and twice finishing second in DPoY because of total steals and blocks. All before the drastic, drastic disparities in success and real impact. What are we doing.

[Owly]

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.

I would argue you appeared to be defending a position that asserts player movement stating only on changes in team performance based on the premise that an (undefined) improvement would be "presumably require[d]" (see above). It does not read merely as a statement that with improved performances contributing to a greater titles total Erving would rank higher.

Given this I thought perhaps you are referring to your original post which wasn't the direct subject of our discussion and seems tangential to it? Here you say "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." Entirely unobjectionable as it refers to popular perception. But this too offers nothing in terms of a simple clear statement in which individual and team performance aren't confused.

Feel free to clarify what you actually meant or whatever you want to do, I'm out on this.

[Owly]

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

Come again?

From 1976-77 to 1981-82, Erving's six seasons before Moses arrived:

- the 76ers had the league's best regular season W-L record, averaged 55 wins over the 6 seasons
- Erving scored 11189 points, no other Sixers player scored even 5000, he alone scored 1/5 the team's points
- he was 1st on the team in steals, 2nd in rebounds, 2nd in assists, 2nd in blocks
- he was all-NBA 1st team 4 times, no other 76ers player was named to an all-NBA team

Did you also know that those 6 seasons Erving scored - by far - the most points in the playoffs, 2233. The next closest scorer - on any team - scored 700 less points.

Suspect you'll get better engagement on what people mean and more meaningful conversation if you quote them with their name, but this of course is up to you.

So, for what it's worth total playoff points in a span seems a curious measure in any context given it is highly dependent on context an includes some perverse incentives (better for series to go long, better to not be a top seed and get a bye through the first round) and gives no indication of efficiency. There are better measures to say he's productive/good.

I think though that you haven't understood the above. The person had high expectations for Erving, indicating an awareness of his general production, accolades and reputation. They then found that the on-off data came out substantially more pedestrian than had been their expectation. The "most impactful" sentence is fuzzy as it refers to the player not the numbers and thus may be read as anindication of very great trust of these numbers, though it could well - given the context - simply be a slightly clumsy statement that he was rarely the highest ranked player by this measure. Regardless, posting box production to someone whose concerns were raised by somewhat pedestrian on-off family (i.e. "impact") metrics seems unlikely to be persuasive and isn't really engaging with their argument. You may feel your measures are superior but you might be better served including why you feel that as otherwise you comments don't seem to directly pertain to the quoted post.

[Dr Positivity]

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.

I have some questions about Jazz playoff performance

89 Warriors
90 Suns
91 and 92 Blazers - good team but not a champion
93 Sonics
94 and 95 Rockets to champion - but more like losing to Bullets than 82 Lakers
96 Sonics - similar to Blazers, good team non title
97 Bulls was near guaranteed loss, but 98 Bulls are easily the most beatable of their six
99 if you count it to Blazers

The Jazz are great fit for regular season because they are the consummate professionals and are ready to play physically every night. You don't want to stay to up 3 AM the night before and be half hungover when playing the Jazz the next day or else it's going to be a bad time. I think some teams like Thibs Bulls and Casey Raptors in modern day had more trouble in the playoffs for this reason as well. They were outworking everyone in the regular season but not in the playoffs.

[kcktiny]

1977: +5.2 on, +6 on/off
1978: +4.9 on, +0.6 on/off
1979: +1.7 on, -0.1 on/off
1980: +4.9 on, +3 on/off
1981: +5.7 on, -6.7 on/off
1982: +8.6 on, +10 on/off
1983: +11.4 on, +10.3 on/off (by contrast, Moses was +11.5 and +15.6)
1984: +3.6 on, +4.4 on/off
1985: +2.9 on, -3.2 on/off
1986: +4.1 on, +4.6 on/off

I think though that you haven't understood the above. The person had high expectations for Erving, indicating an awareness of his general production, accolades and reputation. They then found that the on-off data came out substantially more pedestrian than had been their expectation.

You do realize that these numbers are in no way, shape, or form any kind of individual player rating, do you not? They simply show the a team's point differential on a 48 minute basis of a specific player with his teammates, regardless of the statistics any of the players accumulate.

Using it in lieu of actual statistical data is foolish. Or do you consider Derek Fisher or Danny Green all-time great players?:

https://www.statmuse.com/nba/ask/who-has-the-highest-career-plus-minus

Not exactly a giant.

Try looking at pertinent, meaningful statistical data.

Also awards help, as the people that actually watched these players play on a regular based voted. You don't get to be named all-ABA 1st team 4 times and all-NBA 1st team 5 times unless you are a great player.

Just because a team is successful and you are the lead scorer on that team does not mean all success is automatically attributed to you.

Again, he was by far the 76ers best scorer but was also 2nd/3rd in a number of other statistical categories.

Yeah that is why I take Bobby Jones and Andrei Kirilenko over both.

I don't see either listed on these lists of greatest small forwards:

https://www.espn.com/nba/story/_/page/nbarankSFs/ranking-top-10-small-forwards-ever

https://bleacherreport.com/articles/2853584-nba-all-time-player-rankings-top-10-small-forwards

https://hoop-social.com/top-10-greatest-small-forwards-in-nba-history/

But I do see Erving listed 3rd twice, 4th in the another.

If you are routinely listed among the top 5, then you are in conversation for the all-time best.

You guys really just look for any reason to justify these nonsensical Lebron takes, huh. This might be the new bar though. Ignore the dramatically better scoring. Brush off the passing and creation. Throw away regularly being his team’s best defender and twice finishing second in DPoY because of total steals and blocks. All before the drastic, drastic disparities in success and real impact. What are we doing.

It's what we did, not what we are doing. We actually watched Julius Erving play throughout his career, saw his greatness. Did you?

I've watched the NBA since the 1960s (and the ABA in the mid 1970s some). Lebron James is an all-time great, and has had a long career. But I would still take peak Julius Erving (or peak Larry Bird) over peak Lebron.

[AEnigma]

1977: +5.2 on, +6 on/off
1978: +4.9 on, +0.6 on/off
1979: +1.7 on, -0.1 on/off
1980: +4.9 on, +3 on/off
1981: +5.7 on, -6.7 on/off
1982: +8.6 on, +10 on/off
1983: +11.4 on, +10.3 on/off (by contrast, Moses was +11.5 and +15.6)
1984: +3.6 on, +4.4 on/off
1985: +2.9 on, -3.2 on/off
1986: +4.1 on, +4.6 on/off

I think though that you haven't understood the above. The person had high expectations for Erving, indicating an awareness of his general production, accolades and reputation. They then found that the on-off data came out substantially more pedestrian than had been their expectation.

You do realize that these numbers are in no way, shape, or form any kind of individual player rating, do you not? They simply show the a team's point differential on a 48 minute basis of a specific player with his teammates, regardless of the statistics any of the players accumulate.

Using it in lieu of actual statistical data is foolish.

That is “actual statistical data”, data which expectedly you reject for not conforming to a poor eyetest. Chasing boxscores is how we get people obsessing over guys like Demarcus Cousins and Andre Drummond.

Or do you consider Derek Fisher or Danny Green all-time great players?:

https://www.statmuse.com/nba/ask/who-has-the-highest-career-plus-minus

Wow what a brilliant “gotcha”, you clearly understand how this type of data is used.

Fortunately, by your own standards, all I need to point out is that neither is on any top five list.

Not exactly a giant.

Try looking at pertinent, meaningful statistical data.

Like blocks and steals?

Also awards help, as the people that actually watched these players play on a regular based voted. You don't get to be named all-ABA 1st team 4 times and all-NBA 1st team 5 times unless you are a great player.

Who disputed that he was great. The standard is other all-timers. He falls short. He did not drive as much success.

Just because a team is successful and you are the lead scorer on that team does not mean all success is automatically attributed to you.

Again, he was by far the 76ers best scorer but was also 2nd/3rd in a number of other statistical categories.

Cool, that is not the goal of basketball. Garnett regularly led the Timberwolves in basically everything; is he your #1 power forward.

Yeah that is why I take Bobby Jones and Andrei Kirilenko over both.

I don't see either listed on these lists of greatest small forwards…

But I do see Erving listed 3rd twice, 4th in the another.

If you are routinely listed among the top 5, then you are in conversation for the all-time best.

So Kobe and Wade are in conversation for the all-time best shooting guard? Barkley and Dirk are in conversation for the all-time best power forward?

You guys really just look for any reason to justify these nonsensical Lebron takes, huh. This might be the new bar though. Ignore the dramatically better scoring. Brush off the passing and creation. Throw away regularly being his team’s best defender and twice finishing second in DPoY because of total steals and blocks. All before the drastic, drastic disparities in success and real impact. What are we doing.

It's what we did, not what we are doing. We actually watched Julius Erving play throughout his career, saw his greatness. Did you?

I've watched the NBA since the 1960s (and the ABA in the mid 1970s some). Lebron James is an all-time great, and has had a long career. But I would still take peak Julius Erving (or peak Larry Bird) over peak Lebron.

Which is the problem with blind nostalgia. The league evolves; it would be nice if your ability to watch the sport did too.

[kcktiny]

That is “actual statistical data”

What are you missing? That is not actual statistical individual player data. Not whatsoever. Those numbers say absolutely nothing about any specific individual player.

It says what 5 man units did in terms of point differential. And adding up the point differentials of all the 5 man units that just happen to include a specific player in all of them tells you absolutely nothing about that individual player.

Like blocks and steals?

Exactly. A block takes a shot that has on average a say 40%-50% or somewhat near that chance of going in down to 0%.

A steal is a change in team possession without your opponent scoring.

And - both can be attributed to a single individual player. So again - what are you missing?

Garnett regularly led the Timberwolves in basically everything; is he your #1 power forward.

Kevin Garnett was not only all-NBA 1st team 4 times (3 times 2nd team), he was also NBA all-defensive 1st team 9 times. Plus he won a championsip. He's 4th in scoring among PFs, 6th in rebounds, 6th in blocks, 3rd in steals.

Anyone arguing for him being the best PF of all-time has a seriously cogent argument.

So Kobe and Wade are in conversation for the all-time best shooting guard?

Absolutely.

Barkley and Dirk are in conversation for the all-time best power forward?

Absolutely.

Are you of the opinion that your choices for the best players at a particular position are the only true choices?

Which is the problem with blind nostalgia.

"Blind" nostalgia? I actually watched these players play. Did you? Now who's blind?

it would be nice if your ability to watch the sport did too.

It would be nice had you actually watched these players, rather than having to depend on a certainly flawed concept of on/off data that is completely meaningless on an individual player level.

[AEnigma]

That is “actual statistical data”

What are you missing? That is not actual statistical individual player data. Not whatsoever. Those numbers say absolutely nothing about any specific individual player.

It says what 5 man units did in terms of point differential. And adding up the point differentials of all the 5 man units that just happen to include a specific player in all of them tells you absolutely nothing about that individual player.

Which is why we look at longer trends as lineups change.

Like blocks and steals?

Exactly. A block takes a shot that has on average a say 40%-50% or somewhat near that chance of going in down to 0%.

A steal is a change in team possession without your opponent scoring.

And - both can be attributed to a single individual player. So again - what are you missing?

Players do nothing individually. Why is Erving going for those steals? Does he get as many with different teammates? Does it help his team in the net? What if he got a deflection instead? Do we care about the failed attempts to get either and how that can affect a team too, or are we just chasing the boxscore results.

Garnett regularly led the Timberwolves in basically everything; is he your #1 power forward.

Kevin Garnett was not only all-NBA 1st team 4 times (3 times 2nd team), he was also NBA all-defensive 1st team 9 times. Plus he won a championsip. He's 4th in scoring among PFs, 6th in rebounds, 6th in blocks, 3rd in steals.

Anyone arguing for him being the best PF of all-time has a seriously cogent argument.

So Kobe and Wade are in conversation for the all-time best shooting guard?

Absolutely.

Barkley and Dirk are in conversation for the all-time best power forward?

Absolutely.

Are you of the opinion that your choices for the best players at a particular position are the only true choices?

Well, you like to quote “publications”, so how many of them have those players at #1.

Why is top five the marker. Does Bob Pettit have an argument for top power forward. Does Kevin McHale? Where is the cutoff, and why.

Which is the problem with blind nostalgia.

"Blind" nostalgia? I actually watched these players play. Did you? Now who's blind?

Yes, so the answer is still, “The guy pretending that the less successful scorer, defender, and passer, playing in the less developed league, is actually better.” Not that it really matters. Have you watched every Lebron game? Should I care if the answer is no?

it would be nice if your ability to watch the sport did too.

It would be nice had you actually watched these players, rather than having to depend on a certainly flawed concept of on/off data that is completely meaningless on an individual player level.

If watching the sport is telling you that steals and blocks are innately meaningful markers of defence in an absolute sense, then you have been doing a poor job of it. Aesthetic preference should be irrelevant in the face of demonstrable limits on a player’s ability to lead other players over an opponent.

[HeartBreakKid]

Garnett regularly led the Timberwolves in basically everything; is he your #1 power forward.

*whistles and slowly walks away from the conversation

[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.

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

I don't have any fascination. Maybe you do.

[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.

I have some questions about Jazz playoff performance

89 Warriors
90 Suns
91 and 92 Blazers - good team but not a champion
93 Sonics
94 and 95 Rockets to champion - but more like losing to Bullets than 82 Lakers
96 Sonics - similar to Blazers, good team non title
97 Bulls was near guaranteed loss, but 98 Bulls are easily the most beatable of their six
99 if you count it to Blazers

The Jazz are great fit for regular season because they are the consummate professionals and are ready to play physically every night. You don't want to stay to up 3 AM the night before and be half hungover when playing the Jazz the next day or else it's going to be a bad time. I think some teams like Thibs Bulls and Casey Raptors in modern day had more trouble in the playoffs for this reason as well. They were outworking everyone in the regular season but not in the playoffs.

I've explained some of what you seem to be asking in my first post.

It seems like you mean that if a team or team of a star loses to high winning teams that happen not to be the champions that year that team isn't any good or can't be considered a great team? The Magic and Kareem Lakers lost to the much less talented Moses Houston in 82, Olajuwon 86 Houston and 89 Suns, neither were champions. Those 80s Lakers teams were certainly alltime great runs.

[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?

I don't have any fascination. Maybe you do.

You always bring up Malone in Julius discussions, not me.

[Jaivl]

A lack of strong raw plus-minus impact is not to be taken at face value for multiple reasons, but is a concern.

I view it in a similar way to current Doncic, who lacks strong plus-minus impact and would probably be a top 3ish guy for me via eyetest/boxscore alone, but I "merely" rate as top 5 as it is. Similarly, when Pollack's data surfaced, it was probably enough to drop Dr. J from, say, #15 to #18 all-time (at the time). Maybe Dr. J was closer to the #5 or #6 guy in a given 80s season instead of #3. That's a change of... not much, honestly.

I would require **a lot** more evidence to drop him to Pippen level (25-35ish), for example.

[migya]

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

I don't have any fascination. Maybe you do.

You always bring up Malone in Julius discussions, not me.

No I don't so don't make such a statement. Would be average politeness.

[Owly]

1977: +5.2 on, +6 on/off
1978: +4.9 on, +0.6 on/off
1979: +1.7 on, -0.1 on/off
1980: +4.9 on, +3 on/off
1981: +5.7 on, -6.7 on/off
1982: +8.6 on, +10 on/off
1983: +11.4 on, +10.3 on/off (by contrast, Moses was +11.5 and +15.6)
1984: +3.6 on, +4.4 on/off
1985: +2.9 on, -3.2 on/off
1986: +4.1 on, +4.6 on/off

I think though that you haven't understood the above. The person had high expectations for Erving, indicating an awareness of his general production, accolades and reputation. They then found that the on-off data came out substantially more pedestrian than had been their expectation.

You do realize that these numbers are in no way, shape, or form any kind of individual player rating, do you not? They simply show the a team's point differential on a 48 minute basis of a specific player with his teammates, regardless of the statistics any of the players accumulate.

Using it in lieu of actual statistical data is foolish. Or do you consider Derek Fisher or Danny Green all-time great players?:

https://www.statmuse.com/nba/ask/who-has-the-highest-career-plus-minus

1) You will note that the post was more about your own coming across as a non-sequitur than about impact metrics versus production metrics.
2) Of course, I'm aware of this being rooted in team level data and the perils of collinearity. Though
2a) most interested in impact focus on on/off more than +/-. On (or +/-) is very much dictated by circumstance, where on a long time scale on-off would seem to have significant signal. Even for a single season the correlation between this guy has a circa 20 on-off and this guy is really good at basketball and helps his team is pretty clear.
3) Yes I am aware that box production doesn’t go into on-off.
4) I don't think anyone argued for using it "in lieu of" other data. Though fwiw …
4a) People far smarter than me appear to have been pushing the predominant all-in one/single number player goodness/utility measures very much in the direction of “impact” stats for at least a decade.
5) Calling it not "actual statistical data" is ... weird.

But I don't think this is going anywhere so I'm out on this.

[Owly]

A lack of strong raw plus-minus impact is not to be taken at face value for multiple reasons, but is a concern.

I view it in a similar way to current Doncic, who lacks strong plus-minus impact and would probably be a top 3ish guy for me via eyetest/boxscore alone, but I "merely" rate as top 5 as it is. Similarly, when Pollack's data surfaced, it was probably enough to drop Dr. J from, say, #15 to #18 all-time (at the time). Maybe Dr. J was closer to the #5 or #6 guy in a given 80s season instead of #3. That's a change of... not much, honestly.

I would require **a lot** more evidence to drop him to Pippen level (25-35ish), for example.

Okay ... the following isn't specific to Erving but more conceptual ...

I haven't ever properly integrated what I know/gather into a coherent ranking, it's difficult.

And those individual seasons may be fuzzy, and maybe different people are benefiting from the drop in each season. But if, say, he were to drop from a 3rd in his era (era stuff is messy too), say roughly putting the guys into the decade of their best play, down to tied 5th, he's dropped two and half places just within that era. Not every era will be exactly the same depth, different ranks mean different things in different eras depending on league size and whether talent levels are widely or narrowly distributed and I've tried to heavily caveat this but ... I hope you can see that that might see a couple of players each decade pass him.

Again there are many ifs and caveats but if you weren't just being loose with language speaking extemporaneously I'd think a circa 2.5 place (per season) would drop you circa a couple of places within era and thus substantially more than a 3 slots all time.

You do use "say" so my guess is this was just plucking numbers somewhat.


Fwiw, II think I'm open to a wide range on Erving, especially with differences on ABA quality, but with most of it being downside versus conventional norms. Certainly just like for like NBA on-off (though of course we should note here that that misses Erving's peak) I imagine he'd be at the bottom of the pile versus plausible circa top 30 guys with a decent chunk of career and good years in the impact era.
so looking this up
Curry: 11.6
Garnett: 11.3 (missing rookie)
Stockton: 10.8 (missing most, collinearity may blur)
Malone: 10.3
Paul: 10.1
Dirk: 9
Robinson: 6.1 (missing most - superior numbers 94-96 plus impact signal upon arrival)
(Barkley also 6.1, minimal sample)
Durant: 5.5
Wade: 5.1
Bryant: 4.6
If Kawhi's in there he's presently at 6.1, Harden 4.9.

Erving is at 2.5. No doubt ABA would boost that. This is data, a (noisy) tool rather than a ranking, some are active, some incomplete. Sitll to be 3rd/5th on their teams medium to long term data in this particular regard (regarding Jones, Cheeks as the locks, Toney and Malone as maybe debatable if you don't think they played enough [fwiw, Toney's lead is small], Barkley/Anderson as different era) ... I don't know but if a player did that for that long today, I think there'd be real doubts on them outside the mainsteam (though for a considerably shorter sample Doncic is somewhat of an example, though we know he fares much better in this regard in the playoffs, a time most weight heavily - and playoffs being big push factor for those who rate Doncic very high for the immediate past versus for skill and potential).

This isn't a hard statement just thinking aloud.