Dr. J. - Julius Erving

[D.Brasco]

We know who Dr J was.

Were you alive and watching him play in the 70s and 80s (in particular before he teamed up with Moses Malone)?

I've seen some on RealGM rank SFs like Lebron, Durant, or Kawhi higher than the Doctor. But I don't know anyone who actually saw him play in the 70s and early 80s that believe that any of the 3 were better than Julius. Maybe as good as, but not better.

Kinda like some in the "who's greater Lebron or Kareem" thread. I'd be willing to bet the vast majority of those who chose Lebron never saw Kareem play before he played with Magic, or even know who Lew Alcindor was.

I hate this "were you alive?" argument. 99.999% of human history happened before anyone of us were born should would just not have any opinions on humanity that occurred before our birth dates?

There is a lot of information available now more than ever, if you have the motivation to you can find out a lot about past players. Sometimes when I'm bored I even look up old articles on players like Wilt in the Google newspaper archive feature.

[kcktiny]

I hate this "were you alive?" argument.

So you do not believe that first hand knowledge of a subject is of import?

99.999% of human history happened before anyone of us were born should would just not have any opinions on humanity that occurred before our birth dates?

And how much of that human history would you know about if it was not for the work of archeologists? You know, the ones who's livelihoods and careers discovers all kinds of aspects of human history? That's clearly second hand knowledge, using evidence left behind.

You by chance an archeologist? Or do you just read about what they have discovered? Do you believe what they have found, or do you dismiss it outright? Did you yourself find these artifacts, or do you simply believe the opinions of those that did find them and their interpretations of what they mean?

I would love to watch video of Egyptians building the pyramids, to see how it was actually done. But in lieu of that, what we currently know was discovered by those who's job it was to find evidence for it.

There is a lot of information available now more than ever

Correct. But other than questioning those that actually watched players play back in the day video of old games is the last vestige we have of first hand knowledge, right?

There are some on this board that always seem to question all-NBA selections, or all-defensive team selections. That is clearly their right, but again is this not first hand knowledge of people that actually saw players at that time play as part of their livelihoods/careers? Sure you can disagree with their opinions, but how much more correct would your opinion be?

I for one value their opinions greatly. As I do the authors of any books/magazines that came out at the time players actually played. In lieu of video I find the opinions of those that actually watched these players play in real time to be of import.

So, what is your opinion of the Doctor's defense? What available information are you using to determine this?

[Goudelock]

For those here not alive when Dr. J. played:

Watch on YouTube

As the person who watched all of Dr. J's available ABA games (as of when that video was made) and edited the clips so others could enjoy his highlights, I find your aggressive tone to be weird.

Julius Erving's prime ocurred almost 50 years ago, and anyone who watched him as a 12 year old is in their late 50s or early 60s. There's also risk in relying on people's memories from 50 years ago and treating that as gospel. And while I agree that primary sources and journalism from contemporaries is an extremely valuable tool, it's not the be all, end all. There is value in research that was conducted after the fact too.

[Cavsfansince84]

For those here not alive when Dr. J. played:

Watch on YouTube

As the person who watched all of Dr. J's available ABA games (as of when that video was made) and edited the clips so others could enjoy his highlights, I find your aggressive tone to be weird.

Julius Erving's prime ocurred almost 50 years ago, and anyone who watched him as a 12 year old is in their late 50s or early 60s. There's also risk in relying on people's memories from 50 years ago and treating that as gospel. And while I agree that primary sources and journalism from contemporaries is an extremely valuable tool, it's not the be all, end all. There is value in research that was conducted after the fact too.

The issue also is that even with today's ways of measuring things like defensive(which includes all play by play data) it's still not that close to a 100% measure of a player's impact on defense. So then rewind 50+ years(even before blocks and steals were recorded) and it beomes based just on watching somewhere between 15-80 games of a given player(while keeping in mind no one just watches one player on the court while a game is active) and its way more nebulous to say for certain how good any of these guys were on defense though I think with guys like Russell and Wilt what they did on the court would stand out more. Watching film is the best way because you can actually focus just on one player compared to when watching a game live. The same way that coaches in bb or fb spend hours upon hours watching film of opponents to understand player tendencies and what was going on. Our eyes can't possibly capture it all in the moment. We just get a rough idea for the most part and most of us back before cable tv weren't seeing that many games of a given team unless it was our home team.

[D.Brasco]

I hate this "were you alive?" argument.

So you do not believe that first hand knowledge of a subject is of import?

It's important but it's only one factor, your whole argument seems to hinge that only those who witnessed something first hand can make educated statements. There have been studies that first hand experiences actually tend to become quite muddled and often biased as the subject ages. Talk to any older person and you can see recollection is not always superb when describing a decades old life event.

The main thing is finding sources that are trustworthy and unbiased, as I mentioned first hand subjects themselves are not always unbiased.

[kcktiny]

As the person who watched all of Dr. J's available ABA games (as of when that video was made) and edited the clips so others could enjoy his highlights, I find your aggressive tone to be weird.

Well, if you watched all of his available games, what is your opinion of his defense?

Julius Erving's prime ocurred almost 50 years ago

Erving was all-NBA 1st team 1979-80 to 1982-83, all in his 30s, that last one at the age of 32. Some 41 years ago. He had a long prime, was all-ABA/NBA 1st team from 1972-73 to 1982-83.

and anyone who watched him as a 12 year old is in their late 50s or early 60s.

Yes some of us are up there in age. Way up there.

There's also risk in relying on people's memories from 50 years ago and treating that as gospel.

OK, so then who's opinions are the gospel? Those that watched him play on a regular basis 40-50 years ago, or those who watch his old videos now that did not watch him in real time?

I'd trust the opinion of someone who watched him play at the time he played long before I would the opinion of someone who did not watch him in real time and who only watched all of his available games on video.

Not saying the latter is not important, because it is for another opinion. But the former opinion is far more valuable. Especially if we are talking about someone who watched a lot of NBA games, like an NBA sportswriter or superfan or former player.

Remember the person or persons who watched him in real time also likely discussed Erving with others of their kind (sportswriters, fans, other players, friends that watched the NBA) who also watched him on a continual basis and got their opinions, and read all the available NBA books and annual magazines, just like we do now for the players we watch today.

When you watched your games on video long after the fact who were you also talking to - others that were watching every Erving game on video? Did they corroborate your findings?

And while I agree that primary sources and journalism from contemporaries is an extremely valuable tool, it's not the be all, end all.

No? Then what is? What is the be all and end all? You seem so sure what is not gospel, but you conveniently do not mention what you think is gospel.

There is value in research that was conducted after the fact too.

Are you saying we can't know how good a player is, even on defense, until years after? What kind of nonsense is that?

Really? Fine. Tell us what your research has told you about Julius Erving that the people that watched him play some 40-50 years ago did not know.

This should be interesting.

and its way more nebulous to say for certain how good any of these guys were on defense

Which is exactly why you refer to those people that saw these players play on a regular basis when they did in fact play, and read every scrap of material available about the NBA/ABA from back then.

Why are Dave DeBusschere and Walt Frazier considered all-time great defenders? Or Gus Johnson. Or Jerry West? Is it because we have defensive data for them? Or is it because the people that saw them play the most back then have told us?

Watching film is the best way because you can actually focus just on one player compared to when watching a game live.

Fine. Has all the film you watched changed your opinions of players' defensive abilities different from what you have read about them? Or different from the awards they have received (DPOY or all-defensive team)? Can you give us an example?

Our eyes can't possibly capture it all in the moment.

Have you watched any of this year's finals? If so what do you think of Derrick Whites' defense?

your whole argument seems to hinge that only those who witnessed something first hand can make educated statements.

Where have I made this statement? I simply stated that I trust the opinions of those that watched players play when they actually played far more than those that did not, no matter how much video of old games the latter watch.

On the contrary, it is you who are inferring just the opposite:

There's also risk in relying on people's memories from 50 years ago and treating that as gospel

There have been studies that first hand experiences actually tend to become quite muddled and often biased as the subject ages.

Oh I get it. You've read some studies and now you don't trust the opinions of anybody older than (insert your age here)?

Boy I'd sure hate to see you in a jury box if a friend of mine was on trial.

Talk to any older person and you can see recollection is not always superb when describing a decades old life event.

You mean like Biden and Trump? Or just anyone older than you?

The main thing is finding sources that are trustworthy and unbiased

A generalized statement that in this instance is completely worthless.

How about mentioning the sources you reference that are trustworthy and unbiased for Julius Erving's defense? Or any NBA player's defense from 30-60 years ago? Can you do that?

Again, this should be interesting.

[70sFan]

Still a great game to watch - Big Mac going for 34 points and 22 rebounds with the series on the line.

Yeah, it's a cool game to watch.

Did you know that at that time in NBA history McAdoo was the league's 3rd highest per game scorer at 28.5 pts/g (and had averaged 32.1 pts/g the previous 3 seasons)? Only Chamberlain and Jabbar had scored more per game.

I didn't know that, but such accomplishments don't mean much to me. Bob played only a few seasons during that time (so did Kareem actually), you can't compare that to Elgin Baylor's whole career for example.

You watch the other games? If so, what is your assessment of the Doctor's defense?

Extremely good help defender and secondary rim protector, not the best against quicker perimeter players who could blow him by. Generally only a solid man defender, but amazing in transition and in help situations. At his best, I do think you can make a case for him being all-defensive level guy, but he wasn't the most consistent defender I have seen.

[Goudelock]

You watch the other games? If so, what is your assessment of the Doctor's defense?

Extremely good help defender and secondary rim protector, not the best against quicker perimeter players who could blow him by. Generally only a solid man defender, but amazing in transition and in help situations. At his best, I do think you can make a case for him being all-defensive level guy, but he wasn't the most consistent defender I have seen.

If Dr. J was 6-foot-9 instead of 6-7 and could have played the PF fulltime, I really believe that he could've been a GOAT level defender. His help defense would have been magnified and he wouldn't have been asked to get stops on the perimeter very often.

And on that note, I always thought that Erving's good but not great perimeter defense was surprising for someone who gave good effort and was a supreme athlete.

[kcktiny]

I didn't know that, but such accomplishments don't mean much to me.

Perhaps had you been alive then, watched McAdoo play, watched the player many considered at the time the greatest shooting big man the league had ever seen, you might have appreciated his accomplishments.

Bob played only a few seasons during that time

Come again? Do you know who Bob McAdoo was?

That was the early to mid 70s. Heck, his first 8 years in the league (1972-73 to1979-80) he played the 4th most minutes among all NBA players - only the Big E, Jabbar, and Randy Smith played more, and McAdoo scored the 2nd most points among all players (only Jabbar scored more) during that time.

It wasn't until the early 1980s that he missed major time with injuries.

you can't compare that to Elgin Baylor's whole career for example.

Oh yes you can.

McAdoo's first 8 years in the league he scored 26.8 pts/g shooting 50.7% on 2s when the league average 2pt FG% was 46.8%. He shot 4% better.

Baylor's first 8 years in the league he scored 28.6 pts/g playing 40 min/g shooting just 42.4% on 2s when just the league average 2pt FG% was 42.3%.

Extremely good help defender and secondary rim protector, not the best against quicker perimeter players who could blow him by. Generally only a solid man defender, but amazing in transition and in help situations. At his best, I do think you can make a case for him being all-defensive level guy, but he wasn't the most consistent defender I have seen.

Why for everything you said positive about him defensively did you feel the need to add something negative?

Did you know that the last 3 seasons (1973-74 to 1975-76) of the ABA the New York Nets were their top defensive team? They allowed only 99.2 pts/100poss. The next best team defensively was the Kentucky Colonels, who had Artis Gilmore, the league's all-defensive 1st team C each of those 3 seasons.

Those 3 seasons here's who played the most minutes for the Nets:

10044 Julius Erving
06849 Brian Taylor
06391 John Williamson
06073 Larry Kenon
05422 Billy Paultz
03721 Bill Melchionni
02855 Al Skinner

Just these 7 players combined to play 2/3 of the total team's minutes played those 3 years. Erving alone played 1/6 of the team's total minutes played.

Care to guess why they ranked 1st in defense over those 3 seasons? First and foremost because Dr. J. was an excellent all-around defender. Plus those 3 seasons he was 4th in the league in defensive rebounds (1854), 4th in blocked shots (521), and 3rd in steals (583) - all that from just one player.

And as I mentioned before:

from 1976-77 to 1981-82, 6 seasons, Philadelphia won the most regular season games among all teams, went to 3 Finals, and they were the 3rd best team defensively during that time, with Erving himself playing 1/7 of their total minutes played

[Goudelock]

Also, since we're on the topic of Dr. J, he was a much, much, much better shooter than people give him credit for. He wasn't Walter Davis or Larry Bird, but he could make defenses pay out to 17 feet (which was all he needed in that era). Handles were solid too.

[Samurai]

You watch the other games? If so, what is your assessment of the Doctor's defense?

Extremely good help defender and secondary rim protector, not the best against quicker perimeter players who could blow him by. Generally only a solid man defender, but amazing in transition and in help situations. At his best, I do think you can make a case for him being all-defensive level guy, but he wasn't the most consistent defender I have seen.

If Dr. J was 6-foot-9 instead of 6-7 and could have played the PF fulltime, I really believe that he could've been a GOAT level defender. His help defense would have been magnified and he wouldn't have been asked to get stops on the perimeter very often.

And on that note, I always thought that Erving's good but not great perimeter defense was surprising for someone who gave good effort and was a supreme athlete.

While the bolded sentence may well be true, couldn't the same argument be made for Dave DeBusschere? At 6-6, Big D played both the 3 and 4 (mostly the 3 in Detroit and mostly the 4 with the Knicks). He was able to use his excellent anticipation to guard quick guys on the wing and had the muscle to fight for position down low. He just didn't have the height to prevent taller guys from shooting over the top of him. Of course, in both examples we have to make assumptions (that may or may not be true) that Big D wouldn't lose any lateral quickness if he were 6-9 and Dr. J would still retain his elite hops if he were bigger and heavier.

[70sFan]

Also, since we're on the topic of Dr. J, he was a much, much, much better shooter than people give him credit for. He wasn't Walter Davis or Larry Bird, but he could make defenses pay out to 17 feet (which was all he needed in that era). Handles were solid too.

Definitely, these two supposed weaknesses in his game came out of nowhere. It is so strange to watch him and think "he had such a bad handles for his era".

[70sFan]

Perhaps had you been alive then, watched McAdoo play, watched the player many considered at the time the greatest shooting big man the league had ever seen, you might have appreciated his accomplishments.

I appreciate his accomplishments, just not this particular one.

Come again? Do you know who Bob McAdoo was?

Of course I don't know who Bob McAdoo was. How the biggest 1970s NBA fan on this forum can know who the 1975 MVP Bob McAdoo was?

You seem to be a full grown man, so act like one. McAdoo started his career in 1972-73 and the game you posted is from 1976 playoffs, which means he played only 4 full seasons. That's the definition of "a few" as far as I know.

Oh yes you can.

McAdoo's first 8 years in the league he scored 26.8 pts/g shooting 50.7% on 2s when the league average 2pt FG% was 46.8%. He shot 4% better.

Baylor's first 8 years in the league he scored 28.6 pts/g playing 40 min/g shooting just 42.4% on 2s when just the league average 2pt FG% was 42.3%.

I said you can't compare Bob's first 4 years to Baylor's whole career and you come up with a random 8 years stats comparison. Do you even read what I wrote, or you argue for arguing sake?

Why for everything you said positive about him defensively did you feel the need to add something negative?

To show a short, but clear picture of how I view him as a defender. He wasn't flawless, so for anyone who hasn't watched him much it'd be valuable to know his weaknesses.

Did you know that the last 3 seasons (1973-74 to 1975-76) of the ABA the New York Nets were their top defensive team? They allowed only 99.2 pts/100poss. The next best team defensively was the Kentucky Colonels, who had Artis Gilmore, the league's all-defensive 1st team C each of those 3 seasons.

Yes, I knew that.

Those 3 seasons here's who played the most minutes for the Nets:

10044 Julius Erving
06849 Brian Taylor
06391 John Williamson
06073 Larry Kenon
05422 Billy Paultz
03721 Bill Melchionni
02855 Al Skinner

Just these 7 players combined to play 2/3 of the total team's minutes played those 3 years. Erving alone played 1/6 of the team's total minutes played.

Care to guess why they ranked 1st in defense over those 3 seasons? First and foremost because Dr. J. was an excellent all-around defender. Plus those 3 seasons he was 4th in the league in defensive rebounds (1854), 4th in blocked shots (521), and 3rd in steals (583) - all that from just one player.

So an excellent all-around defender can't have any weaknesses? Julius struggled against quick guards, that's a fact and it doesn't take away anything from what he did on the court. Start looking at oldschool players like real basketball players, instead of dismissing any criticism regarding their games.

[EmpireFalls]

Is Dr. J a legit top 10 all time candidate?

For me he’s the closest historical parallel to LeBron James.

[kcktiny]

Also, since we're on the topic of Dr. J, he was a much, much, much better shooter than people give him credit for.

Used the bank shot more than most, seemed like he was always hitting outside shots off the glass.

It is so strange to watch him and think "he had such a bad handles for his era".

Doc was all about getting to the basket. Straight line drives or a one-move drive to the hoop. His baseline drives are legendary.

People talk about needing a quick first step to get past a defender. Erving seemed to accelerate after his first step.

How the biggest 1970s NBA fan on this forum

And you were anointed this moniker how?

You seem to be a full grown man

And I seem to remember you're a mid-20s physicist, nowhere near the NBA in the 70s, calling himself the "...biggest 1970s NBA fan on this forum...".

Right.

So an excellent all-around defender can't have any weaknesses? Julius struggled against quick guards, that's a fact

Erving was a SF/PF in the ABA. Artis Gilmore was an all-D center 4 times in the ABA. Could he guard quick guards?

Brian Taylor, all-D twice in the ABA, could he guard PFs and Cs?

It's like saying Ginger Rogers and Marilyn Monroe were two of the most gorgeous women ever. But they couldn't cook, that's a fact. Valuable to know.

Start looking at oldschool players like real basketball players

Old school for you maybe, young man. They were real for me because I actually watched them when they were real.

In the 1970s. When you weren't even a hadron.

Is Dr. J a legit top 10 all time candidate? For me he’s the closest historical parallel to LeBron James.

Erving is absolutely arguably the greatest SF in NBA history. Right up there with Bird, Lebron James, Durant, Leonard, Baylor, Barry, anyone else one may consider the best SF ever. All have their reasons for being called the best, and all legitimate.

Won two titles - in just his 4th and 5th seasons. Did or did not Lebron have to join a superteam to win his first title? Durant too?

Then the Doc went on to play in 4 more Finals (just 1 title).

When Erving retired he was 3rd on the NBA/ABA all-time scoring list (30,026 pts), behind only Chamberlain and Jabbar.

[kcktiny]

And should anyone think all those points Dr. J. scored in the ABA shouldn't count on an all-time scoring list, because the ABA was an "inferior" league:

Watch on YouTube

The best of the NBA versus the best of the ABA, then called a "supergame".

Listen to what the commentators had to say about Erving - when he was just a rookie with the Virginia Squires.

More on the Doctor:

Watch on YouTube

[SinceGatlingWasARookie]

Dr J had a smooth grace where as Dominique was more choppy.

[70sFan]

I won't waste more time on discussing anything with you, thank you for letting me know that.

[kcktiny]

and thank you:

Watch on YouTube

Watch on YouTube

Watch on YouTube

Watch on YouTube

Watch on YouTube