How good was Julius Erving?

[dhsilv2]

Yeah Moses is the all-timer version of the C who’s been pushed out of the league. 3 MVPs is outstanding but give me every MVP since over him.

I dunno about every MVP...

[CIN-C-STAR]

Without wasting time and energy. If you judge a player on how good they were at basketball compared to the guys they played against, KG is top 10 all time. If you're judging them on things they had no control over...well KG still has a great case given he lead one if not the most dominate defense of all time to a title.

He's 19th all-time in MVP Award shares.
That's really good but still quite a bit off from top 10.
That sounds like as good of an objective measure of "how good they were at basketball compared to the guys they played against" as any, so not sure what evidence you're looking at or what your basing this on.
Is this just a subjective eye test thing for you?
Also Ben Wallace led a dominant defense to a title and he isn't even close to top-10 all time, so your second criteria seems pretty obviously flawed as well.

The stat argument's for KG are about as well documented here as you could ask for.

MVP share is the subjective voting of journalists.

So it's the consensus opinion of professional journalists employeed at the time each player performed, versus your opinion based on some stats you saw on RealGM?
Tough call, but I think you can likely guess where I'm going to land here.

[Lalouie]

he gave basketball it's language

[BostonCouchGM]

Dr J playing with Moses, Mo Cheeks, and Andrew Toney was some beautiful basketball

they were every bit the super team that the 80s Lakers, Celtics and Pistons were. Dr. J is definitely a top 15 player. He was 2nd only to Kareem in the NBA until Bird and Magic arrived. He was MJ before MJ. You had to have been alive to witness what a massive star he was back then. Sadly, he falls by the wayside when it comes to these discussions because most of the people having them didn't see him play. As good as Steph is he JUST passed Dr. J with that last championship and Finals MVP. THAT is how good Dr. J was.

[70sFan]

Not a guy who would age quite as well as some others in league history
...
He'd suffer later in league evolution for not being a particularly good shooter, nor a dominant playmaker

Given what we know about Julius transition from the ABA to the NBA, I'd say quite opposite - Julius was born to play in pace and space era.We have seen someone like Jimmy Butler thriving in today's league (especially in postseason) and I don't think Julius was a worse shooter or passer than him.

[hauntedcomputer]

Yeah Moses is the all-timer version of the C who’s been pushed out of the league. 3 MVPs is outstanding but give me every MVP since over him.

Well, Moses was the best player in the world for a stretch in the early 80s. Most of the guys ranked above him were never the best player at any point in their careers.

On topic, Dr. J gets style points for what he did for the game. If you're making a cold-blooded analysis, yes, he had weaknesses and was never the best player in the world (and the ABA was a lot more competitive than people give it credit for now, as many of those players did succeed in the NBA later.) But you can't think of 70s basketball without thinking of Dr. J. I never think of KG. I barely think of Hakeem or Robinson. To me they were just very good players. Dr. J was great.

[SinceGatlingWasARookie]

I think Dr J peaked in the Late 1970s inthe ABA and not just because the ABA was weaker but because younger Dr J hit his physical peak.

[Calvin Klein]

He was quite good

[dhsilv2]

He's 19th all-time in MVP Award shares.
That's really good but still quite a bit off from top 10.
That sounds like as good of an objective measure of "how good they were at basketball compared to the guys they played against" as any, so not sure what evidence you're looking at or what your basing this on.
Is this just a subjective eye test thing for you?
Also Ben Wallace led a dominant defense to a title and he isn't even close to top-10 all time, so your second criteria seems pretty obviously flawed as well.

The stat argument's for KG are about as well documented here as you could ask for.

MVP share is the subjective voting of journalists.

So it's the consensus opinion of professional journalists employeed at the time each player performed, versus your opinion based on some stats you saw on RealGM?
Tough call, but I think you can likely guess where I'm going to land here.

Thousands of stats, huge deep analysis, from numerous people who have gone on to work in the industry with a heavy stats focus. But sure trust Steven A Smith.

[FluLikeSymptoms]

Yeah Moses is the all-timer version of the C who’s been pushed out of the league. 3 MVPs is outstanding but give me every MVP since over him.

I dunno about every MVP...

I’d even take Iverson and Rose.

Yeah Moses is the all-timer version of the C who’s been pushed out of the league. 3 MVPs is outstanding but give me every MVP since over him.

Well, Moses was the best player in the world for a stretch in the early 80s. Most of the guys ranked above him were never the best player at any point in their careers.

On topic, Dr. J gets style points for what he did for the game. If you're making a cold-blooded analysis, yes, he had weaknesses and was never the best player in the world (and the ABA was a lot more competitive than people give it credit for now, as many of those players did succeed in the NBA later.) But you can't think of 70s basketball without thinking of Dr. J. I never think of KG. I barely think of Hakeem or Robinson. To me they were just very good players. Dr. J was great.

I’ll have to take the word or others on Moses being the actual best player in the world, seems like people liked what he did(more than they would now) and thought he was cool, but yes that should be a thing. I’m just saying that if I’m drafting MVPs he’s low on my board because I don’t know what you’d do with that guy now.

[FluLikeSymptoms]

Yeah Moses is the all-timer version of the C who’s been pushed out of the league. 3 MVPs is outstanding but give me every MVP since over him.

I dunno about every MVP...

I’d even take Iverson and Rose. Westbrook? Gahhhhhhh

Yeah Moses is the all-timer version of the C who’s been pushed out of the league. 3 MVPs is outstanding but give me every MVP since over him.

Well, Moses was the best player in the world for a stretch in the early 80s. Most of the guys ranked above him were never the best player at any point in their careers.

On topic, Dr. J gets style points for what he did for the game. If you're making a cold-blooded analysis, yes, he had weaknesses and was never the best player in the world (and the ABA was a lot more competitive than people give it credit for now, as many of those players did succeed in the NBA later.) But you can't think of 70s basketball without thinking of Dr. J. I never think of KG. I barely think of Hakeem or Robinson. To me they were just very good players. Dr. J was great.

I’ll have to take the word or others on Moses being the actual best player in the world, seems like people liked what he did(more than they would now) and thought he was cool, but yes that should be a thing. I’m just saying that if I’m drafting MVPs he’s low on my board because I don’t know what you’d do with that guy now.

[dhsilv2]

Yeah Moses is the all-timer version of the C who’s been pushed out of the league. 3 MVPs is outstanding but give me every MVP since over him.

I dunno about every MVP...

I’d even take Iverson and Rose. Westbrook? Gahhhhhhh

Yeah Moses is the all-timer version of the C who’s been pushed out of the league. 3 MVPs is outstanding but give me every MVP since over him.

Well, Moses was the best player in the world for a stretch in the early 80s. Most of the guys ranked above him were never the best player at any point in their careers.

On topic, Dr. J gets style points for what he did for the game. If you're making a cold-blooded analysis, yes, he had weaknesses and was never the best player in the world (and the ABA was a lot more competitive than people give it credit for now, as many of those players did succeed in the NBA later.) But you can't think of 70s basketball without thinking of Dr. J. I never think of KG. I barely think of Hakeem or Robinson. To me they were just very good players. Dr. J was great.

I’ll have to take the word or others on Moses being the actual best player in the world, seems like people liked what he did(more than they would now) and thought he was cool, but yes that should be a thing. I’m just saying that if I’m drafting MVPs he’s low on my board because I don’t know what you’d do with that guy now.

AI and Rose are rough, but to the next point.

79. I cannot see ANY scenario where Moses was the better player than Kareem. By 1982 you now have a great case that both Bird and Magic were already better. Dr J was also seen as his equal or better as well.

For whatever it's worth a breakdown of Moses. https://thinkingbasketball.net/2018/01/08/backpicks-goat-24-moses-malone/

While Moses had a stretch where a lot of people thought he was among the best players. I'm not sure even those around for the early 80's would say he was the best player. Perhaps one of them in a stretch where Kareem was starting to show his age and Magic and Bird hadn't taken over yet.

[tsherkin]

Given what we know about Julius transition from the ABA to the NBA, I'd say quite opposite - Julius was born to play in pace and space era.We have seen someone like Jimmy Butler thriving in today's league (especially in postseason) and I don't think Julius was a worse shooter or passer than him.

Mmm. Butler's a superior FT shooter on higher volume and had a pretty good 5-year run from 3 before lapsing into this latest stretch of injuries. I don't know that I'd agree that Erving was on the same plane as a shooter. It's certainly not clear that he isn't, but there are some markers which suggest Butler was enough better to make a difference. Of course, that's in tandem with his more contemporary ball-handling and screen usage, which Erving did not have, though that raises the old question of how translation works and so forth. Butler is also ELITE at drawing fouls, and I do not think Erving would replicate that level of FTr. It isn't actually that common to be a .500+ FTr player.

I don't think pace and space would do him any favors. I think that him playing fewer minutes per game would suppress his volume output, as it did when he hit the NBA for real. I think that not having a 3pt shot and not being as good as Butler at drawing fouls would limit his top-end efficiency. He was not a bad passer, but he certainly wasn't a primary playmaker type guy. His D would help him, and I"m sure that there would be some adaptations to the modern game so that he would port forward more than just exactly the numbers he brought to the table in his own time due to the changes, of course. I just don't think he'd be received the way he was in his own time.

[ShaqAttac]

Where's that 70's guy when you need him with some footage? All I know is he was good enough to compete with Kareem, has some great highlights, and was a total badass in HBOMax's portrayal of him.

70's guy goes brrr in pc

[The Lamma]

Dr J playing with Moses, Mo Cheeks, and Andrew Toney was some beautiful basketball

they were every bit the super team that the 80s Lakers, Celtics and Pistons were. Dr. J is definitely a top 15 player. He was 2nd only to Kareem in the NBA until Bird and Magic arrived. He was MJ before MJ. You had to have been alive to witness what a massive star he was back then. Sadly, he falls by the wayside when it comes to these discussions because most of the people having them didn't see him play. As good as Steph is he JUST passed Dr. J with that last championship and Finals MVP. THAT is how good Dr. J was.

Said the same thing on the Knicks board about a month ago. The only other guy I can remember from that era that was flying above the rim with that kind of picturesque flair is James Worthy. I reckon Drexler needs to be mentioned also

[ShaqAttac]

If you never saw the ABA version of Doc, you cannot fully appreciate his creativity and greatness. The NBA version was very good, but the ABA version - especially for its time - was incredible. Think of the jaw-dropping plays that Ja puts out there. That was Doc literally every night in the ABA. And there were a lot of good players that he was going up against, too...it wasn't like the G-League or something.

If you have never seen an Erving ABA highlight reel, go to YouTube and watch one. And honestly, I don't think those highlight reels do justice to Doc's sheer artistry on the floor (and it WAS artistry).

i looked at some pockcandy stuff. he looks good mid-air. 70s d looks goofy tho

[MaxZaslofskyJr]

Best basketball player to ever put "New York" on his uniform.

[70sFan]

Mmm. Butler's a superior FT shooter on higher volume

True, although Julius wasn't really a bad shooter - he was 79% FT shooter in his prime.

and had a pretty good 5-year run from 3 before lapsing into this latest stretch of injuries.

35% on 3 threes attempts isn't something I'd call "pretty good". Butler only had one season in his whole career when he was clearly a positive three point shooter and it happened in 2015. He never replicated that in any other season, or even came close to it.

In his overall prime (2015-22), Butler averaged 32.4% from three on 2.8 attempts - that's worse efficiency than 1974-76 Julius and Julius didn't even take threes (0.9 per game).

I don't know that I'd agree that Erving was on the same plane as a shooter. It's certainly not clear that he isn't, but there are some markers which suggest Butler was enough better to make a difference.

We should also add the fact that Butler never was a good midrange shooter either, which means you have to be extremely low on Julius shooting ability. I'm not sure if I agree - Julius took quite a lot of midrange jumpers and although he certainly wasn't elite, I don't think Butler was more reliable.

I also don't think it would be hard for Julius to develop semi-reliable three point shot. Nothing extraoridinary, but something around 35% on low volume (2-4 per game) wouldn't be out of his capabilites in my opinion.

Of course, that's in tandem with his more contemporary ball-handling and screen usage, which Erving did not have, though that raises the old question of how translation works and so forth.

I think Julius handles would be more than fine with his large hands and good coordination, but I'm willing to hear what you'd like to say here.

Butler is also ELITE at drawing fouls, and I do not think Erving would replicate that level of FTr. It isn't actually that common to be a .500+ FTr player.

Yeah, Butler is a huge outlier in this regard. I don't see Julius approaching that level, but I also don't think it would make him a worse player.

I don't think pace and space would do him any favors.

Well, we have seen Julius in 1976 in "proto-modern" heliocentric system doing some incredible things and although we have to remember that it was the ABA, it does show that such system would definitely help his offense. Remember - Julius wouldn't need to be elite shooter to be a heliocentric (or semi-heliocentric) player today. More space in the paint, more shooters to kick out (Julius was a good kick out passer), much looser handles and traveling officiating would all give him huge advantage. It could be seen when he went to the NBA and his offense suffered on poorly constructed team with no spacing.

I think that him playing fewer minutes per game would suppress his volume output, as it did when he hit the NBA for real.

The thing is that the contrary happens in reality - stars play less minutes than ever, but their on-court load is so absurd that their stats still look better than ever.

As I said before, Julius played on poorly structured teams in the NBA.

I think that not having a 3pt shot and not being as good as Butler at drawing fouls would limit his top-end efficiency.

It depends on what you mean by "limit", but in an era where old LeBron with no touch outside the paint still scores fairly efficient 30 ppg I wouldn't be concerned about Julius efficiency.

I don't see Julius as 65 TS% scorer either, but with better coaching and more open game, I don't see any problems imaging Julius being 30 ppg scorer on 60 TS%. Don't forget that we're talking about one of the best slashers in NBA history and he's not Giannis in terms of jumpshot.

[tsherkin]

True, although Julius wasn't really a bad shooter - he was 79% FT shooter in his prime.

No, he was far from bad at the line. I only meant to highlight that Butler is better. Erving peaked at 84.5%, one of three seasons at 80%+. Butler thus far has averaged 84.2% and has six seasons of 85%+, including 86.3% and 87.0% in the two seasons preceding this one. I was trying to highlight an accumulation of things that ultimately limits Erving's upper-bound in terms of efficiency. Not to the point where he's a tragedy of a scorer, that certainly wouldn't be true, but it does help paint an overall picture of where he might rank as a scorer in the league. He isn't a first-tier scorer in today's game.

35% on 3 threes attempts isn't something I'd call "pretty good". Butler only had one season in his whole career when he was clearly a positive three point shooter and it happened in 2015. He never replicated that in any other season, or even came close to it.

I think that's a little off in the particulars, since two years later he shot 36.7% on 3.3 3PA/g... Compared to 2015 (3.0, 37.8%), it's fairly similar. And then you can make a semantic argument about 35% if you like, but it's still competent 3pt shooting and he wasn't overusing the shot, either. Certainly not elite, but good enough to make of himself a threat.

In his overall prime (2015-22), Butler averaged 32.4% from three on 2.8 attempts - that's worse efficiency than 1974-76 Julius and Julius didn't even take threes (0.9 per game).

A very specific sample, to be sure, but it's worth mentioning that Butler's volume and efficiency have been down in his injury-hampered seasons, so it's hard to separate the injury from the shooting ability. He's been 7-8% better this season so far than those super down years, and you have to consider the percentage of unassisted 3s he was taking, and the percentage of corner threes, which both play into his percentage. Again, not an elite 3pt shooter, but throwing in a little context does help examine why his percentages dipped.

We should also add the fact that Butler never was a good midrange shooter either, which means you have to be extremely low on Julius shooting ability. I'm not sure if I agree - Julius took quite a lot of midrange jumpers and although he certainly wasn't elite, I don't think Butler was more reliable.

Kind of depends on how you define "mid-range," though, since he's around 41% in both the 3-10 and 10-16 zones. It'd be more accurate to say that prior to this season, he has struggled on long twos.

I also don't think it would be hard for Julius to develop semi-reliable three point shot. Nothing extraoridinary, but something around 35% on low volume (2-4 per game) wouldn't be out of his capabilites in my opinion.

It's possible, especially with emphasis on catch-and-shoot 3s and the corner, for sure. He was far from incompetent.

I think Julius handles would be more than fine with his large hands and good coordination, but I'm willing to hear what you'd like to say here.

Watching him handle the ball wasn't as bad as watching Drexler, but I admit I have trouble evaluating him in that respect because the rules aren't quite the same. His R to L crossover was... let's say 'uninspiring' even by the standards of the time. There WERE guys in his era who were good ball handlers by modern standards, but even dudes like Walt Frazier, Isiah Thomas and Magic mostly weren't doing quite the same things as now. Erving was okay, I mean he could PROTECT the ball well, but I wouldn't really argue that he had strong handles. He could confidently dribble drive to the rim, but he wasn't like yo-yoing guys with good hesitation and exceptional east-west movement, he was mostly just blowing past dudes in transition or jumping over them. And of course he did have a post game, which is now en vogue again for wings, which is nice to see.

Yeah, Butler is a huge outlier in this regard. I don't see Julius approaching that level, but I also don't think it would make him a worse player.

I think it matters to upper bound efficiency, though, which is relevant for someone whose value comes a lot (though not exclusively) from scoring.

Well, we have seen Julius in 1976 in "proto-modern" heliocentric system doing some incredible things and although we have to remember that it was the ABA, it does show that such system would definitely help his offense. Remember - Julius wouldn't need to be elite shooter to be a heliocentric (or semi-heliocentric) player today.

Mmm, but then he'd be ONLY taking the hardest 3pt shots in the game and would necessarily be required to take a bunch of them in order to keep the D honest. And without truly elite foul drawing, that starts to diminish the efficacy of that move, particularly since I don't think he was as good a passer as guys like Doncic or Harden or other helio guys. It isn't just kick-out passing that these guys do, or we'd be that much more thrilled with the Marburys of the world. Penetrate and pitch is a starting point, but there's a degree of timing and vision involved in being that level of player and I don't think Erving was Drexler's level as a passer, let alone a truly elite helio playmaker. I don't mean to crap on Drexler there, meantime, that was more a compliment to that skillset in Clyde's game versus Erving's. Just watching him, he makes simple passes. Nothing particularly visionary, nothing that wasn't really obvious. Good passes, appropriate passes, but not so much that you have this notion he has excellent vision of the court. Shuffle passes, basic lead passes, moving it ahead in transition. The stuff you EXPECT a player to do. I will admit that he made good outlet passes, though.

The thing is that the contrary happens in reality - stars play less minutes than ever, but their on-court load is so absurd that their stats still look better than ever.

Yes, we have seen higher usage from some guys, but minutes played still does affect upper bound. Harden, for example, was still mostly playing about 36 mpg when he was leading the league in scoring. And again, competent volume 3pt shooting, elite FTAr, different skills and so forth.

As I said before, Julius played on poorly structured teams in the NBA.

On that, we certainly agree. I understand why, of course, and there's nothing he could have done about that, so better structure would certainly help basically anyone.

It depends on what you mean by "limit", but in an era where old LeBron with no touch outside the paint still scores fairly efficient 30 ppg I wouldn't be concerned about Julius efficiency.

Ah, but Lebron DOES have touch outside of the paint. And this season, of all seasons, while he's in the middle of setting a career-high from 16-23 feet, is not the season to make that crack about James... particularly since he's working on his 6th season of 40%+ from 16-23 feet. Elite? No. "No touch?" Wildly inaccurate, even if he IS struggling badly from 3 this year.

I don't see Julius as 65 TS% scorer either, but with better coaching and more open game, I don't see any problems imaging Julius being 30 ppg scorer on 60 TS%. Don't forget that we're talking about one of the best slashers in NBA history and he's not Giannis in terms of jumpshot.

I'm not worried about 65%. That's not reasonable given his skill set, nor is it a requirement for him to be a quality, efficient scorer.

59-60%? That's maybe attainable, and more desirable. I have trouble envisioning him as a 30 ppg scorer on a good team in this league. I don't think he would translate to quite that level. And no point in his actual NBA career did he exceed 26.9 PTS36. He had 4 seasons of 30+ PTS100, and his best inflation-adjusted PTS75 was 27.3. I don't think the changes in the league would be enough that he'd really push that particular scoring rate, personally. We can agree to disagree on that, it is less important, though. I think we both at least agree that Erving would be a quality player. I just happen to think he'd be one of those guys who was good enough on offense and then closed the gap with some of his peers with defensive value, more so than offensive brilliance.

30 ppg is a lot. Even now, and setting aside efficiency. The guys who are doing it in the league right now are also leveraging some kind of competitive advantage. Tatum is a considerably better shooter. Giannis is a physical monster. Doncic is far more skilled (and also a demon drawing fouls at the moment). Embiid is an athletic big with range who can draw fouls. Even the close guys are Lebron and Durant. Lillard is perhaps the second-best 3pt shooter in league history. SGA is a dramatically superior mid-range shooter than Erving, and faster to boot, etc, etc.

Meantime, I don't think that's really Erving's game to begin with. He didn't push volume in the 70s or 80s most of the time, particularly less so in the NBA. That wasn't really what he needed to do for Philly to compete. He picked his spots. I think he was more like Drexler in that regard, happy to sit back a little while the team game unfolded and then to try and assert his will as necessary apart from a season here or there.

[MaxZaslofskyJr]

I think Julius handles would be more than fine with his large hands and good coordination, but I'm willing to hear what you'd like to say here.

Everyone remembers Dr. J for his dunks. However, he was quite the ball-handler ... so much so that even when he was at UMass my best friend would criticize that he was nothing but a "hot dog" with fancy moves (iirc more or less ala Earl Monroe) but one that would never pan out in the pros. (he later changed his opinion!)