Where do you rank Dr. J in your ATL?

[G35]

12-15

Went to 4 NBA finals.

Beat Bird's Celtics twice in the playoff's. Swept Magic and Kareem.

Who else could have done better in that position......

You have to remember when Moses was the guy, though.

Yeah he had Moses. But then when people say that he lost to Bird/McHale/Parish, or when he lost to KAJ/Magic/Worthy/Nixon/Cooper/Wilkes.

I mean look at who he lost to and what Erving actually did in those series and Dawkins or Cheeks was his 2nd best player. This is exactly what I'm talking about when people change the standards. Erving didn't have a dominating team, Bird and Magic did. Erving had to go through both teams every year to win a ring. When else in history has a player had to go through two near dyansties?


1980 Finals
http://www.basketball-reference.com/pla ... ml#LAL-PHI

25 ppg/7reb/5 ast/ 2stl/ 2.3 blks/ 52% FG% (this is in the NBA finals, so the highest level)

1982 Finals
http://www.basketball-reference.com/pla ... ml#LAL-PHI
25 ppg/ 8 reb/ 3 ast/ 1.8 stl/ 1.3 blk/ .543% FG%

Erving had Dawkins going up against Paish and Kareem. Let's play the what if game that I hear so much in KG narratives, What if Erving would have had Moses the entire time in the NBA, how many titles would he have had then? Erving showed once that he would destroy the league and that's when he wasn't in his prime......

[Grandpa Waiters]

Top 30-35 for me. His play came to screeching halt once he hit the NBA, and the only time he won, it was due to a peak Moses. It's actually debatable as to who's better between him and Pippen

You're probably the first person I've ever seen who thinks that Erving vs Pippen is debatable.

You're wrong that Doc was just a shell of his former self once he got to the NBA. He was the best player in the NBA alongside Kareem (and briefly Walton) from 1976-77 to 1978-79, and I'd say he was better than Magic and Bird from 1979-80 to 1981-82. He also won the MVP in 1981, so I don't know how you can really say what you actually said, with a straight face.

Bird was on the cover of Sports Illustrated in 1981 with the caption "The Best All Around Player In The NBA". He posted better regular season stats and playoff stats than Erving. He led the Celts to the best record in the east. He also led the Celts back from a 3-1 deficit against Erving and the Sixers in the ECF, winning games 5/6/7 by a combined total of FIVE points. In reality, it was of a lifetime achievement MVP for Doc as the writers were not going to give the MVP to a second year player like Bird. Bird and the Celts won the title in '81. I think you could make the case for Bird as the better player. Just saying....

[acrossthecourt]

Technically, the nba wasnt that much stronger in terms of weaker league. You could say he played with weaker talent but so did the nba'ers of that period. Until 76 than all the talent was put back together.

Id probably have him between 12-16

Sent from my SCH-I800 using RealGM Forums mobile app

Nope. If Dr. J came to the NBA in '77 and his stats remained constant you could argue that the two leagues (NBA and ABA) were on par talent wise. If he came in and his stats exploded you could argue that the NBA was a weaker league. However, his stats (especially scoring) decreased across the board when he arrived in '77. You can make the best case by arguing that the NBA was that much better and had superior talent and that's why his numbers tanked.

You're going to base the strength of an entire league on the stats of one player?

You're not making a best case at all. The ABA was swept under the rug by the NBA, but more comprehensive analysis shows they were very close in strength by '76.

[Grandpa Waiters]

Technically, the nba wasnt that much stronger in terms of weaker league. You could say he played with weaker talent but so did the nba'ers of that period. Until 76 than all the talent was put back together.

Id probably have him between 12-16

Sent from my SCH-I800 using RealGM Forums mobile app

Nope. If Dr. J came to the NBA in '77 and his stats remained constant you could argue that the two leagues (NBA and ABA) were on par talent wise. If he came in and his stats exploded you could argue that the NBA was a weaker league. However, his stats (especially scoring) decreased across the board when he arrived in '77. You can make the best case by arguing that the NBA was that much better and had superior talent and that's why his numbers tanked.

You're going to base the strength of an entire league on the stats of one player?

You're not making a best case at all. The ABA was swept under the rug by the NBA, but more comprehensive analysis shows they were very close in strength by '76.

I have a book called "Loose Balls". It's a book about the ABA comprised of tidbits and interviews conducted with players, coaches, executives and announcers like Bob Costas who were a part of the league. The general consensus was that the top tier stars (Erving, Moses, Thompson, Gervin, Gilmore, Barry etc) were NBA caliber but that the second tier players were not. Also, it was a run and gun league full of gimmicks used to inflate stats (3 pointers) and attract fans (red, white and blue ball, dunk contest etc). Most of the players who only played in the ABA claimed it was on par with the NBA but the players who transitioned made it clear that the NBA was a superior league all the way around including competition. Their words, not mine. Anyway, it's a good read, check it out if the ABA interests you.

[Amares]

21-23, but it's without his ABA career. His NBA career was not so impressive.

[Clyde Frazier]

Technically, the nba wasnt that much stronger in terms of weaker league. You could say he played with weaker talent but so did the nba'ers of that period. Until 76 than all the talent was put back together.

Id probably have him between 12-16

Sent from my SCH-I800 using RealGM Forums mobile app

Nope. If Dr. J came to the NBA in '77 and his stats remained constant you could argue that the two leagues (NBA and ABA) were on par talent wise. If he came in and his stats exploded you could argue that the NBA was a weaker league. However, his stats (especially scoring) decreased across the board when he arrived in '77. You can make the best case by arguing that the NBA was that much better and had superior talent and that's why his numbers tanked.

I see you read loose balls, so i'm not about to call you ignorant.

That said, you're generalizing WAY too much. Did you bother to compare his shot attempts in his last 2 seasons in the ABA vs. his first 2 seasons in the NBA? It was 21.5 and 22.3 vs. 16.7 and 16.4. If you calculate his pts per shot season to season over those 4 seasons, they're nearly identical.

When he came to philly, the team essentially had 3 other gunners in mcginnis, free, and collins. He was asked to play a different role than he did with the nets, and his shot attempts intentionally went down. I'm not denying that the style of the ABA somewhat inflated his stats. That said, there's no doubt in my mind that he would've been just as dominant from an impact standpoint on the floor in the NBA.

And yes, when he got to the NBA he was in his late 20s, so not past his prime, but I think it's clear the best Dr. J was left in the ABA. He deserves the benefit of the doubt being such a transcendent talent.

As far as i'm concerned, he's underrated by the average fan because his ABA accomplishments almost get thrown out the window. It also isn't a surprise that he, gervin, and thompson made all NBA their first yr in the league. Moses and gilmore finished 2nd and 3rd in RPG, gilmore finished 2nd in win shares, etc.

As far as not winning a ring til moses came around, the fact remains great players need enough talent around them to win championships. They can't do it on their own.

[Grandpa Waiters]

Technically, the nba wasnt that much stronger in terms of weaker league. You could say he played with weaker talent but so did the nba'ers of that period. Until 76 than all the talent was put back together.

Id probably have him between 12-16

Sent from my SCH-I800 using RealGM Forums mobile app

Nope. If Dr. J came to the NBA in '77 and his stats remained constant you could argue that the two leagues (NBA and ABA) were on par talent wise. If he came in and his stats exploded you could argue that the NBA was a weaker league. However, his stats (especially scoring) decreased across the board when he arrived in '77. You can make the best case by arguing that the NBA was that much better and had superior talent and that's why his numbers tanked.

I see you read loose balls, so i'm not about to call you ignorant.

That said, you're generalizing WAY too much. Did you bother to compare his shot attempts in his last 2 seasons in the ABA vs. his first 2 seasons in the NBA? It was 21.5 and 22.3 vs. 16.7 and 16.4. If you calculate his pts per shot season to season over those 4 seasons, they're nearly identical.

When he came to philly, the team essentially had 3 other gunners in mcginnis, free, and collins. He was asked to play a different role than he did with the nets, and his shot attempts intentionally went down. I'm not denying that the style of the ABA somewhat inflated his stats. That said, there's no doubt in my mind that he would've been just as dominant from an impact standpoint on the floor in the NBA.

And yes, when he got to the NBA he was in his late 20s, so not past his prime, but I think it's clear the best Dr. J was left in the ABA. He deserves the benefit of the doubt being such a transcendent talent.

As far as i'm concerned, he's underrated by the average fan because his ABA accomplishments almost get thrown out the window. It also isn't a surprise that he, gervin, and thompson made all NBA their first yr in the league. Moses and gilmore finished 2nd and 3rd in RPG, gilmore finished 2nd in win shares, etc.

As far as not winning a ring til moses came around, the fact remains great players need enough talent around them to win championships. They can't do it on their own.

Nice. Thanks for not calling me ignorant. Seriously, you can reason that his scoring went down due to shot attempts but his rebounding in the NBA never approached his ABA levels either. Food for thought. Once again, their words, not mine. I'm old enough to have watched NBA Doc but my memories of him are from '84-'87 so most of my ABA knowledge of Doc is from his autobiography and Loose Balls.

[acrossthecourt]

Nope. If Dr. J came to the NBA in '77 and his stats remained constant you could argue that the two leagues (NBA and ABA) were on par talent wise. If he came in and his stats exploded you could argue that the NBA was a weaker league. However, his stats (especially scoring) decreased across the board when he arrived in '77. You can make the best case by arguing that the NBA was that much better and had superior talent and that's why his numbers tanked.

You're going to base the strength of an entire league on the stats of one player?

You're not making a best case at all. The ABA was swept under the rug by the NBA, but more comprehensive analysis shows they were very close in strength by '76.

I have a book called "Loose Balls". It's a book about the ABA comprised of tidbits and interviews conducted with players, coaches, executives and announcers like Bob Costas who were a part of the league. The general consensus was that the top tier stars (Erving, Moses, Thompson, Gervin, Gilmore, Barry etc) were NBA caliber but that the second tier players were not. Also, it was a run and gun league full of gimmicks used to inflate stats (3 pointers) and attract fans (red, white and blue ball, dunk contest etc). Most of the players who only played in the ABA claimed it was on par with the NBA but the players who transitioned made it clear that the NBA was a superior league all the way around including competition. Their words, not mine. Anyway, it's a good read, check it out if the ABA interests you.

Tidbit and anecdotes have all the scientific rigor of astronomy.

And yes, I know the basic history of the league that nearly everyone parrots about the myths and weaknesses of the ABA.

How about this?

I grabbed every player from the 1977 season who played 500+ minutes that season and in the ABA or NBA the previous season. I looked at how their Win Shares per 48 minutes changed from '76 to '77. There was indeed a small drop in stats from the ABA to the NBA ... but there was a larger drop from the NBA players from the '76 season to '77. People forget this, but a few ABA teams folded and the players absorbed the NBA. This is in essence a contraction, and it makes the league a little more competitive. I looked at some of the other seasons in translating the ABA stats to the NBA. In the early years there was a huge drop from the ABA to the NBA, but not in the last three or four seasons of the league.

Win Shares is faulty? Doesn't prove anything? Okay, but a number of other people have done the same using different metrics and found the same result.

If you try to gauge league strength based on how the ABA teams did in the NBA, you'll come out with a distorted view. Since the NBA was angry at the ABA for being a pain in its side for years, when the merger happened ABA teams had to sell off their best players to cover entrance fees and other expenses (ABA teams could receive no money from TV for the rest of the 70's, a harsh penalty.) Thus, teams like the Nets did much worse in the NBA, but that's because the Nets (for example) watched Dr. J leave them.

But what if there was one strong ABA team that stayed intact? Maybe then we'd get more reliable data. Oh wait ... the Denver Nuggets stayed intact through the merger, so how did they do? Their SRS went from 5.5 to 5. (Remember, the league had the net effect of a contraction.) Their defense was actually the best in the league (but the ABA didn't play defense, right?)

Then you have the exhibition games between the ABA and NBA. For the last three seasons before the merger, the ABA beat the NBA teams by a large percentage, and even if you introduce HCA the ABA still has the strength to be on equal footing with the NBA.

But the ABA didn't win a title, so what's it matter? Well, five out of the ten starters in the championship game in 1977 were previous ABA players. Ten of the 24 all-star players that season were from the ABA. Four of the ten top scorers. They clearly had strength. Concentrating on ONE player's stats to prove the strength of an ENTIRE league is dubious. Maybe Dr. J peaked at age 25, but so what? He's an athletic forward; that's pretty normal. Plus, playing next to McGinnis and everyone else hurt his game, like LeBron in 2011. When he adapted, his stats were better than they were when he was 27. Does that mean he reversed the aging process? Of course not. It means you should do more complete analysis than "looks his points are down the ABA sucks.)

By the way, that Denver team that stayed together and led the NBA in defensive efficiency? That's the team Dr. J roasted in the title series -- 37.7ppg, 14.2rpg, 6.0apg, 3.0spg and 2.2bpg against one of the best defensive forwards ever in Bobby Jones.

Given your name of "Grandpa" and how you're condescendingly recommending a far from obscure book ("Oh there there, young one, calm down and check out some information I already knew!"), it's funny how you're the one who's trying to teach me about the ABA when it appears you're the one who's ignorant of its history.

I'll end with quotes from Loose Balls, which I'm actually not sure you've even read before it contradicts your statements:

The NBA felt that the ABA played no defense, certainly no team defense as it was known in the NBA. You could drive down the middle and do anything you wanted, because they had no real centers until Artis Gilmore. Really, we figured it was a glorified Eastern League -- at least that was the opinion until we started playing exhibition games.

When the exhibition games began, the view in the NBA was, "Now we'll show those guys." But then you know what happened -- the ABA teams won nearly as often as the NBA did. So the NBA took a different tack. They said, "Well, to us those games were exhibitions, while the ABA was playing them like the playoff finals. Besides, a lot of those games were in ABA arenas.

I distinctly recall a game at the Island Garden where the Nets beat the Celtics on Rick Barry's 3-pointer at the buzzer. Barry didn't surprise me, but Billy Paultz did. I considered Paultz just another nobody ABA center, but he showed no respect for Dave Cowens. He rebounded over Cowens. I saw that and I said, "What's this?" I also started to wonder if I had dismissed the ABA too quickly.

Those NBA-ABA games were intense. In one, Dave Cowens was ejected by Jack Madden for punting a basketball. Madden was one of the "renegade refs" who had jumped from the NBA to the ABA. In another game, Madden gave Tom Heinsohn seven technicals and ejected him. I went to ABA games, saw the Julius Ervings, the George Gervins, and the rest, and i respected their individual talent. But I never saw an ABA team play defense like the NBA did. Maybe I just didn't want to see it. So I refused to take the league seriously. When writers such as Jim O'Brien and Peter Vecsey wrote that the two leagues were very close, that some ABA teams were among the top five of all pro basketball teams, I thought they had no objectivity and that they were too close to the teams they were writing about to really understand pro basketball. Then came the merger, and Denver and San Antonio won division titles. What could I say? Guys like Jim O'Brien were right.

-- Bob Ryan

[lorak]

But what if there was one strong ABA team that stayed intact? Maybe then we'd get more reliable data. Oh wait ... the Denver Nuggets stayed intact through the merger, so how did they do? Their SRS went from 5.5 to 5. (Remember, the league had the net effect of a contraction.) Their defense was actually the best in the league (but the ABA didn't play defense, right?)

Intact? That myth is often repeated, but in reality:

Code: Select all

1976   MP ▾
Ralph Simpson   3121
David Thompson   3101
Dan Issel   2856
Bobby Jones   2845
Chuck Williams   2529
Byron Beck   1586
Claude Terry   1349
Gus Gerard   1185
Monte Towe   576
Marvin Webster   398
James Foster   352
Roger Brown   291
Jim Bradley   107
George Irvine   14


1977   MP ▾
David Thompson   3001
Dan Issel   2507
Bobby Jones   2419
Ted McClain   2002
Paul Silas   1959
Fatty Taylor   1548
Willie Wise   1403
Jim Price   1384
Marvin Webster   1276
Mack Calvin   625
Byron Beck   480
Gus Gerard   456
Monte Towe   409
Chuck Williams   311



So 6 new players (and five of them played more than 1300 minutes) + Webster played much more in 1977.

[Warspite]

In 1977 every NBA team essentialy dropped its 10,11,12th man and added 3 ABA players. 1 was an allstar and 2 were rotation players.


I dont understand the watered down argument when there were a max of 21 NBA/ABA teams but we have 30 NBA teams today and fewer players.

DrJs resume is slightly ahead of LBJ so whereever he is DrJ is right there.

[Grandpa Waiters]

You're going to base the strength of an entire league on the stats of one player?

You're not making a best case at all. The ABA was swept under the rug by the NBA, but more comprehensive analysis shows they were very close in strength by '76.

I have a book called "Loose Balls". It's a book about the ABA comprised of tidbits and interviews conducted with players, coaches, executives and announcers like Bob Costas who were a part of the league. The general consensus was that the top tier stars (Erving, Moses, Thompson, Gervin, Gilmore, Barry etc) were NBA caliber but that the second tier players were not. Also, it was a run and gun league full of gimmicks used to inflate stats (3 pointers) and attract fans (red, white and blue ball, dunk contest etc). Most of the players who only played in the ABA claimed it was on par with the NBA but the players who transitioned made it clear that the NBA was a superior league all the way around including competition. Their words, not mine. Anyway, it's a good read, check it out if the ABA interests you.

Tidbit and anecdotes have all the scientific rigor of astronomy.

And yes, I know the basic history of the league that nearly everyone parrots about the myths and weaknesses of the ABA.

How about this?

I grabbed every player from the 1977 season who played 500+ minutes that season and in the ABA or NBA the previous season. I looked at how their Win Shares per 48 minutes changed from '76 to '77. There was indeed a small drop in stats from the ABA to the NBA ... but there was a larger drop from the NBA players from the '76 season to '77. People forget this, but a few ABA teams folded and the players absorbed the NBA. This is in essence a contraction, and it makes the league a little more competitive. I looked at some of the other seasons in translating the ABA stats to the NBA. In the early years there was a huge drop from the ABA to the NBA, but not in the last three or four seasons of the league.

Win Shares is faulty? Doesn't prove anything? Okay, but a number of other people have done the same using different metrics and found the same result.

If you try to gauge league strength based on how the ABA teams did in the NBA, you'll come out with a distorted view. Since the NBA was angry at the ABA for being a pain in its side for years, when the merger happened ABA teams had to sell off their best players to cover entrance fees and other expenses (ABA teams could receive no money from TV for the rest of the 70's, a harsh penalty.) Thus, teams like the Nets did much worse in the NBA, but that's because the Nets (for example) watched Dr. J leave them.

But what if there was one strong ABA team that stayed intact? Maybe then we'd get more reliable data. Oh wait ... the Denver Nuggets stayed intact through the merger, so how did they do? Their SRS went from 5.5 to 5. (Remember, the league had the net effect of a contraction.) Their defense was actually the best in the league (but the ABA didn't play defense, right?)

Then you have the exhibition games between the ABA and NBA. For the last three seasons before the merger, the ABA beat the NBA teams by a large percentage, and even if you introduce HCA the ABA still has the strength to be on equal footing with the NBA.

But the ABA didn't win a title, so what's it matter? Well, five out of the ten starters in the championship game in 1977 were previous ABA players. Ten of the 24 all-star players that season were from the ABA. Four of the ten top scorers. They clearly had strength. Concentrating on ONE player's stats to prove the strength of an ENTIRE league is dubious. Maybe Dr. J peaked at age 25, but so what? He's an athletic forward; that's pretty normal. Plus, playing next to McGinnis and everyone else hurt his game, like LeBron in 2011. When he adapted, his stats were better than they were when he was 27. Does that mean he reversed the aging process? Of course not. It means you should do more complete analysis than "looks his points are down the ABA sucks.)

By the way, that Denver team that stayed together and led the NBA in defensive efficiency? That's the team Dr. J roasted in the title series -- 37.7ppg, 14.2rpg, 6.0apg, 3.0spg and 2.2bpg against one of the best defensive forwards ever in Bobby Jones.

Given your name of "Grandpa" and how you're condescendingly recommending a far from obscure book ("Oh there there, young one, calm down and check out some information I already knew!"), it's funny how you're the one who's trying to teach me about the ABA when it appears you're the one who's ignorant of its history.

I'll end with quotes from Loose Balls, which I'm actually not sure you've even read before it contradicts your statements:

The NBA felt that the ABA played no defense, certainly no team defense as it was known in the NBA. You could drive down the middle and do anything you wanted, because they had no real centers until Artis Gilmore. Really, we figured it was a glorified Eastern League -- at least that was the opinion until we started playing exhibition games.

When the exhibition games began, the view in the NBA was, "Now we'll show those guys." But then you know what happened -- the ABA teams won nearly as often as the NBA did. So the NBA took a different tack. They said, "Well, to us those games were exhibitions, while the ABA was playing them like the playoff finals. Besides, a lot of those games were in ABA arenas.

I distinctly recall a game at the Island Garden where the Nets beat the Celtics on Rick Barry's 3-pointer at the buzzer. Barry didn't surprise me, but Billy Paultz did. I considered Paultz just another nobody ABA center, but he showed no respect for Dave Cowens. He rebounded over Cowens. I saw that and I said, "What's this?" I also started to wonder if I had dismissed the ABA too quickly.

Those NBA-ABA games were intense. In one, Dave Cowens was ejected by Jack Madden for punting a basketball. Madden was one of the "renegade refs" who had jumped from the NBA to the ABA. In another game, Madden gave Tom Heinsohn seven technicals and ejected him. I went to ABA games, saw the Julius Ervings, the George Gervins, and the rest, and i respected their individual talent. But I never saw an ABA team play defense like the NBA did. Maybe I just didn't want to see it. So I refused to take the league seriously. When writers such as Jim O'Brien and Peter Vecsey wrote that the two leagues were very close, that some ABA teams were among the top five of all pro basketball teams, I thought they had no objectivity and that they were too close to the teams they were writing about to really understand pro basketball. Then came the merger, and Denver and San Antonio won division titles. What could I say? Guys like Jim O'Brien were right.

-- Bob Ryan

LOL. "Grandpa" is the nickname of ex Michael Jordan teammate and Chicago Bull center Granville Waiters. They called him Grandpa Waiters because he was balding George Jefferson style and it made him look old beyond his years. I chose the handle because I thought it was funny not because of my age. Nice try. Also, good job posting one page of a 437 page book.

[Johnlac1]

Erving deserves to be in the top twenty. Along with Barry, they were the two best sfs of the seventies. Erving's totals naturally dropped when he went to the NBA. Philly had other excellent scorers. But what did Philly do. They went to the finals Erving's first year. Dr. J had 40 pts in the last game which can be watched on the internet. He posterized Walton, Jabbar, and whoever else was a big name center from that time. In the early '80s the Sixers were battling two of the greatest teams of all time---Boston and L.A. Remember Erving didn't play in the NBA until six or seven seasons. Obviously, if he had played in Philly from the start, he'd had more big NBA seasons. He's in the top three of greatest open court players. He was a an excellent ball stealer AND shot-blocker. His reputation is totally deserved. And I was fortunate to see him play in person.

[MojoPharoah]

Doc is in the top 10, imo. At worst top 12. He's arguably the best SF ever, though LeBron is pressing his case.

[Drummer Boy]

Doc is in the top 10, imo. At worst top 12. He's arguably the best SF ever, though LeBron is pressing his case.

Havlicek?

[Drummer Boy]

Top 30-35 for me

Get serious now..

Top 30-35 for me. His play came to screeching halt once he hit the NBA, and the only time he won, it was due to a peak Moses. It's actually debatable as to who's better between him and Pippen

You're probably the first person I've ever seen who thinks that Erving vs Pippen is debatable.

You're wrong that Doc was just a shell of his former self once he got to the NBA. He was the best player in the NBA alongside Kareem (and briefly Walton) from 1976-77 to 1978-79, and I'd say he was better than Magic and Bird from 1979-80 to 1981-82. He also won the MVP in 1981, so I don't know how you can really say what you actually said, with a straight face.

Of course, on MY fav-players list, he's top 10 without question. I love my Sixers team, and love Julius, so I'm not gonna get too much into this debate. I'll end my two cents with this though: that the ABA was a different league than the NBA (take from that what you choose), and that Pippen vs. Erving still stands to be a great debate in my mind.

[MojoPharoah]

Doc is in the top 10, imo. At worst top 12. He's arguably the best SF ever, though LeBron is pressing his case.

Havlicek?

He's on the list, but I have Doc, Bird and LeBron all over him. Durant is trying to creep in there too. A couple more years and it will be 4 at the top.

[CaliBullsFan]

I have Pippen ahead of Dr J

[wigglestrue]

Overrated as a player. Had all the tools to be Jordan/Kobe like but was a bit unpolished and never improved his weaknesses. Average ball handler and couldn't hit a 15 footer. Gets the benefit of the doubt because he was an eloquent spokesman and ambassador for two leagues (ABA and NBA) at a time when both leagues were struggling. Played his best ball in an inferior league and when he transitioned to the NBA in 1977 his stats went down across the board. Led Sixers to a 2-0 lead in the '77 Finals only to drop four straight to Blazers. Lost game 6 of the 1980 Finals at home with Kareem back in LA. Got outplayed by Magic (42/15/7) and Jamaal Wilkes (37). Blew a 3-1 lead against Boston in the '81 ECF by losing games 5/6/7 by a combined total of FIVE points. Blew a 3-1 lead to the Celts in the '82 ECF only to win game 7 at Boston and then LOSE the Finals to the Lakers. Won the title in '83 only after picking up the reigning league MVP (Moses Malone) but lost to the New Jersey Nets in the first round of the '84 playoffs while trying to defend their title. Michael Jordan is everything he COULD'VE been. As it stands, I have him ranked between 20-25 more so because of what he meant to the game vs what he accomplished.

This is rich.

Did it occur to you that Michael Jordan was everything Julius could have been in no small part because to scale the championship mountain Jordan didn't have to vanquish four of the absolute best peak-players in basketball history? Walton in 1977 is on the GOAT-peak shortlist. Then you listed peak Kareem, peak Bird, peak Magic. As great a gauntlet he faced in terms of average team quality over the course of six title runs, Jordan was only able to break his trophy cherry against a declining Magic, young Shaq in one series ever, the Bad Boys Pistons on their way down after owning Jordan for years, Ewing, Reggie Miller, Clyde Drexler, Charles Barkley, Gary Payton, John Stockton, Karl Malone, not Hakeem, not Duncan, not Bird. Dr. J regularly went up against and was thwarted by players who are consensus Top 5-10 peak players of all time. Jordan went up against one such guy in his last good year, one such guy as a raw specimen and a slew of Top 15-50 players. It's a qualitatively different caliber of opponent blocking/unlocking the way. JORDAN LUCKED OUT, quite a bit. Julius Erving is something Jordan EASILY could've been.

(Edited to reflect Shaq.)

[wigglestrue]

Overrated as a player. Had all the tools to be Jordan/Kobe like but was a bit unpolished and never improved his weaknesses. Average ball handler and couldn't hit a 15 footer. Gets the benefit of the doubt because he was an eloquent spokesman and ambassador for two leagues (ABA and NBA) at a time when both leagues were struggling. Played his best ball in an inferior league and when he transitioned to the NBA in 1977 his stats went down across the board. Led Sixers to a 2-0 lead in the '77 Finals only to drop four straight to Blazers. Lost game 6 of the 1980 Finals at home with Kareem back in LA. Got outplayed by Magic (42/15/7) and Jamaal Wilkes (37). Blew a 3-1 lead against Boston in the '81 ECF by losing games 5/6/7 by a combined total of FIVE points. Blew a 3-1 lead to the Celts in the '82 ECF only to win game 7 at Boston and then LOSE the Finals to the Lakers. Won the title in '83 only after picking up the reigning league MVP (Moses Malone) but lost to the New Jersey Nets in the first round of the '84 playoffs while trying to defend their title. Michael Jordan is everything he COULD'VE been. As it stands, I have him ranked between 20-25 more so because of what he meant to the game vs what he accomplished.

This is rich.

Did it occur to you that Michael Jordan was everything Julius could have been in no small part because to scale the championship mountain Jordan didn't have to vanquish four of the absolute best peak-players in basketball history? Walton in 1977 is on the GOAT-peak shortlist. Then you listed peak Kareem, peak Bird, peak Magic. As great a gauntlet he faced in terms of average team quality over the course of six title runs, Jordan was only able to break his trophy cherry against a declining Magic, young Shaq in one series ever, the Bad Boys Pistons on their way down after owning Jordan for years, Ewing, Reggie Miller, Clyde Drexler, Charles Barkley, Gary Payton, John Stockton, Karl Malone, not Hakeem, not Duncan, not Bird. Dr. J regularly went up against and was thwarted by players who are consensus Top 5-10 peak players of all time. Jordan went up against one such guy in his last good year, one such guy as a raw specimen and a slew of Top 15-50 players. It's a qualitatively different caliber of opponent blocking/unlocking the way. JORDAN LUCKED OUT, quite a bit. Julius Erving is something Jordan EASILY could've been.

(Edited to reflect Shaq.)

Oh, wait, and he DID overcome Magic at Magic's peak, PLUS Kareem in Kareem's prime, rather than, say, last-year Magic and Vlade. Had the help of Moses, sure. Jordan had Pippen. And he and Moses swept those Lakers, the vastly superior version of the Lakers compared to 1991.

[wigglestrue]

And let's not forget that Dr. J did win a few championships, one NBA, two ABA (which we can estimate to be worth about 1.5 NBA championships) and also carried his team to three other NBA Finals, each of which went 6 games, two of which were against BOTH peak Magic and peak/prime Kareem. Dr. J has become UNDERRATED, folks.