How is Rick Barry ranked lower than Julius Erving

[Cavsfansince84]

people are saying that erving is underated cause he doesnt look like an all time great is supposed to

i dont know if that is true

elite athletism, lenght and height, rebounding, transition monster, finisher inside and hard to stop slashing, can pass the ball, good defender, meh but usable jumpshot, not as mobile laterally as in a sttaight line and can handle the ball

that literally is young lebron james profile, even if he was not as good how does julius not look like an all time great by player profile?

the biggest issue for julius is that he peaked too long ago and his aba rings are seen as an afterthought

Agree with pretty much all of that. More so for the era he played in his body/skill set translated extremely well(but his size/athleticism/hands are going to translate well in any era). I'm not going to penalize him 40+ years later for not being a 3 pt shooter or having an inconsistent jumper when Kobe is top 12-15 without having a good 3 pt shot in a time where it was in wide use. He had 5-6 incredible years in the aba which I think by themselves are among the best 5 year stretches in bb history tbh. I don't think playing in a combined league would have made much difference either other than maybe he doesn't win 2 rings but maybe he still wins 1 or 2. Plus even in the nba he still led the league in bpm 3-4 times over Kareem and Moses.

[sp6r=underrated]

Here is another way to look at Dr J. for the skeptics. Bill James is a baseball writer who played a significant role in the analytical sports revolution. He came up with a list of questions that he asked when evaluating players for the HOF. I slightly re-worded em to fit basketball and removed a couple that are overly baseball specific (position centric).

1. Was he ever regarded as the best player in basketball? Did anybody, while he was active, ever suggest that he was the best player in basketball?

During his time, Dr. J had a couple of seasons when he was regarded as the best basketball player in the world. The general consensus was he was the second best player of his era behind Kareem.

2. Was he the best player on his team?

Yes for much of his career.

3. Did he have an impact on a number of playoffs?

He was the driving force behind one title team, a significant contributor to another and played on multiple other contending teams.

4. Was he good enough that he could play regularly after passing his prime?

Yes, despite a game built around athleticism he played until his mid 30s.

6. Would he be the very best basketball player in history who is not in the Hall of Fame if he wasn't a member?

Yes

7. Are most players who have comparable statistics in the Hall of Fame?

Yes

8. Do the player’s numbers meet Hall of Fame standards?

Yes

9. Is there any on/off stats to suggest that the player was significantly better or worse than is suggested by his counting statistics?

The on/off numbers for his early NBA career are disappointing. But the numbers are limited and he rebounds in this category in the early 80s indicating it might have been bad team building that diluted his on/off profile.

10. How many MVP-type seasons did he have? Did he ever win an MVP award? If not, how many times was he close?

He finished his career 13th all time in MVP votes. And had multiple seasons when he was a serious contender.

11. If this man were the best player on his team, would it be likely that the team could they make a deep playoff run?

Yes, and they could win.

12. What impact did the player have on basketball history? Was he responsible for any rule changes? Did he introduce any new equipment? Did he change the game in any way?

He is one of the major figures in the Slasher basketball profile. Basketball loosened up its carry rules in response to the popularity of this style of play.

13. How was the player regarded by his teammates, coaches and basketball community?

Universally admired during his career

[trex_8063]

How?

Well, some of the very metrics cited favour Dr. J [by at least a small margin] in peak v peak, or prime v prime, for one.

And then there's longevity: Erving played 16 seasons to Barry's 14, while never playing fewer than 60 games in any season [that 60-game season was his final year, and is the ONLY year he missed more than 13 games]. Barry played <60 games in THREE of his 14 seasons.
The result is that in terms of games and/or minutes played, Erving played the equivalent of THREE full, injury-free seasons MORE than Barry did........which is not an insignificant consideration given how good they were as players.

It's also worth noting that in Barry's final two seasons he'd declined to a level that is likely lower than anything Erving EVER declined to.

[sp6r=underrated]

How?

Well, some of the very metrics cited favour Dr. J [by at least a small margin] in peak v peak, or prime v prime, for one.

And then there's longevity: Erving played 16 seasons to Barry's 14, while never playing fewer than 60 games in any season [that 60-game season was his final year, and is the ONLY year he missed more than 13 games]. Barry played <60 games in THREE of his 14 seasons.
The result is that in terms of games and/or minutes played, Erving played the equivalent of THREE full, injury-free seasons MORE than Barry did........which is not an insignificant consideration given how good they were as players.

It's also worth noting that in Barry's final two seasons he'd declined to a level that is likely lower than anything Erving EVER declined to.

There is a much higher burden of proof required when you are trying to make a revisionist case that a lesser regarded player was better than his contemporary.

Here all the data is saying the people watching at the time got it right and Dr J was better.

[DQuinn1575]

Why are you so sure that the Bullets were better than the Nuggets? The following year when the Nuggets came to the NBA and did very well...and considerably better than the Bullets, just for perspective. .

The Bullets won 60 games in the NBA. Denver won 50 in the NBA.
Chenier, Unseld, and Hayes were all in the Top 10 in mvp voting, Hayes was 1st team All-NBA, Chenier was 2nd team All-NBA.
Team went to FInals 4 times in the decade, this was their winningest team ever and the best SRS ever.
So pretty sure the Bullets were better.



And yes, GS shot better if you look at shooting add, but the Nets were the best defensive team in the ABA.
3 of the other top 4 guys in minutes, Beard, CJ, Ray never averaged in double figures again.

Taylor was an all-star in 75 and 76. Williamson averaged 22 a game in the playoffs. In 75 both were better than Wilkes.
And yes, Hughes was bad, but CJ who played the 2nd most minutes on the team in the playoffs, was also bad.

Hold on:

The Bullets won 60 games in a pre-merger NBA. Once the merger occurred, no one was winning 60 games.

By your logic, the runner-up from the NBA when it only had a partial set of the best pros in the land was better than anything that came soon after the merger. That to me isn't reasonable.

Re: Hayes first team. I mean, nothing against Hayes defense, but to me the fact that Washington had an offense based around Hayes basically screams "sub-optimal" even back then.

Re: Nets great defense. Sure, and who led the team in rebounds, blocks, and steals? Erving. Now he wasn't out there by himself and Erving had defensive issues, but simply put: If you lead the #1 defensive team in rebounds, blocks, and steals, you're a key part of what is giving that team a competitive advantage.

I'm trying to compare the 75 Bullets who the Warriors beat to the 76 Nuggets
The Bullets beat the 74 and 76 champs in the 75 playoffs
they tied with the 74 and 76 champs for the best record in the league.
The Nuggets won 60 games by going 12-0 against Virginia, and 3-0 against teams that folded.
The Bullets SRS was about 1 better, with Denver getting a big advantage in those Virginia games.
None of the starting players for Virginia started ever again, their presence is really the main difference between the two leagues, as 1/7 of the players and stats were from a lousy team, which inflates the other teams.
Bullets were really probably the best team in basketball in 75, just lost to a hot team.

And basically the Bullets in 78 and 79 were probably not as good as they were in 75 and did make the Finals twice; they weren't noticeably better - Hayes and Unseld were older, Chenier was replaced by Dandridge, which is about a push, but Porter was better than Henderson.

[Doctor MJ]

The Bullets won 60 games in the NBA. Denver won 50 in the NBA.
Chenier, Unseld, and Hayes were all in the Top 10 in mvp voting, Hayes was 1st team All-NBA, Chenier was 2nd team All-NBA.
Team went to FInals 4 times in the decade, this was their winningest team ever and the best SRS ever.
So pretty sure the Bullets were better.



And yes, GS shot better if you look at shooting add, but the Nets were the best defensive team in the ABA.
3 of the other top 4 guys in minutes, Beard, CJ, Ray never averaged in double figures again.

Taylor was an all-star in 75 and 76. Williamson averaged 22 a game in the playoffs. In 75 both were better than Wilkes.
And yes, Hughes was bad, but CJ who played the 2nd most minutes on the team in the playoffs, was also bad.

Hold on:

The Bullets won 60 games in a pre-merger NBA. Once the merger occurred, no one was winning 60 games.

By your logic, the runner-up from the NBA when it only had a partial set of the best pros in the land was better than anything that came soon after the merger. That to me isn't reasonable.

Re: Hayes first team. I mean, nothing against Hayes defense, but to me the fact that Washington had an offense based around Hayes basically screams "sub-optimal" even back then.

Re: Nets great defense. Sure, and who led the team in rebounds, blocks, and steals? Erving. Now he wasn't out there by himself and Erving had defensive issues, but simply put: If you lead the #1 defensive team in rebounds, blocks, and steals, you're a key part of what is giving that team a competitive advantage.

I'm trying to compare the 75 Bullets who the Warriors beat to the 76 Nuggets
The Bullets beat the 74 and 76 champs in the 75 playoffs
they tied with the 74 and 76 champs for the best record in the league.
The Nuggets won 60 games by going 12-0 against Virginia, and 3-0 against teams that folded.
The Bullets SRS was about 1 better, with Denver getting a big advantage in those Virginia games.
None of the starting players for Virginia started ever again, their presence is really the main difference between the two leagues, as 1/7 of the players and stats were from a lousy team, which inflates the other teams.
Bullets were really probably the best team in basketball in 75, just lost to a hot team.

And basically the Bullets in 78 and 79 were probably not as good as they were in 75 and did make the Finals twice; they weren't noticeably better - Hayes and Unseld were older, Chenier was replaced by Dandridge, which is about a push, but Porter was better than Henderson.

I understand what you're trying to do, but the notion that the merged NBA just happens to have much worse teams than the NBA that came before is pretty weird. The reality is that both the pre-merger leagues had teams with great records, then the merger happened, and parity reigned. You're looking at that situation and instead of seeing the symmetry of the two situations, you're interpreting great NBA records to be legit and great ABA records to be the product of an inferior league.

Re: Bullets better team just lot to a hot team. Hmm, a few things here: 1. The situation is almost entirely analogous to the Nets & the Nuggets so believe me, I get the relationship between the teams you present. 2. By calling the Warriors a hot team, I'd say you actually knock the achievement you're attempted to praise. 3. The Warriors actually were the best team in the league the next regular season so it wasn't just that they were hot - they had found something that worked really well which notably didn't require Barry to chuck so much. 4. But of course, next year's Warriors got upset just like the Bullets did, so we should be careful lest we argue that really it was the 42-40 Suns who were more impressive than any of these other teams we're discussing.

Re: Chenier replaced by Dandridge about a push. Dandridge was acquired in part based on the theory that he'd be effective guarding Dr. J, who had immediately beaten all comers in the East when joining the 76ers in '76...and from everything I've heard, people were very impressed indeed by the effect he had on Erving. On that alone, I'd be inclined to say that there's no reason to expect the Bullets would have gotten to the Finals had they not acquired Dandridge, and that's before we talk about the fact that Dandridge was a more efficient scorer who had already proved extraordinarily valuable as the 3rd star on a prior champion (Bucks).