What if Julius Erving had entered the NBA at an earlier age?

[Lebron23]

Dr. J was already 26-27 yrs.old when he first played his first NBA game. Erving won 2 titles in the ABA,3x ABA MVP, and he was also a 2x ABA Playoffs MVP. Do you think he could have done so much better if He played in the NBA at an earlier age?

http://26.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lr569zSM5J1qhhvydo1_500.jpg

http://mit.zenfs.com/207/2011/11/ErvingVS.jpg

http://i.cdn.turner.com/sivault/si_online/covers/images/1974/0114_large.jpg

[CardiacKemba]

http://mit.zenfs.com/207/2011/11/ErvingVS.jpg

http://danksongs.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/Kid-Cudi-new-song-download.png

Just realised Dr J looked like Cudi. :rockon:

[D-Wade316]

What if Julius Erving played his prime/peak in the 80s NBA? That's a better question.

[Lebron23]

What if Julius Erving played his prime/peak in the 80s NBA? That's a better question.

:bowdown: :bowdown: :bowdown:

Sixers or whatever NBA teams that drafted Erving vs. Bird and his Celtics in the Eastern Conference Finals through the 1980s

[jlip]

:bowdown: :bowdown: :bowdown:

Sixers or whatever NBA teams that drafted Erving vs. Bird and his Celtics in the Eastern Conference Finals through the 1980s

This actually was the NBA's best rivalry of the early 80's. From '80-'85 Dr. J's Sixers and Bird's Celtics faced each other 4 times in the ECF with each team winning twice.

http://20secondtimeout.blogspot.com/2009/03/best-of-rivals-julius-erving-versus.html

[L.Kizzle]

His avg would hav went down slightly, but not as much as one thinks. Easily the 2nd best player in the league bttling with Lew Alcindor for the title (just like he did in 76.)

[D-Wade316]

This actually was the NBA's best rivalry of the early 80's. From '80-'85 Dr. J's Sixers and Bird's Celtics faced each other 4 times in the ECF with each team winning twice.

http://20secondtimeout.blogspot.com/2009/03/best-of-rivals-julius-erving-versus.html
I know. It lasted longer than the Bird-Magic rivalry, yet few talk tales of their clashes. '81 Eastern Conference Finals. :bowdown: :bowdown: :bowdown:

[bwink23]

Off topic but those hands are insanely huge....:wtf:

[JMT]

Don't know how many of you actually were alive to see the game at the time, but Doc was a very unpolished player coming out of college. Incredible athleticism, very average handle, zero outside shot. A dunker and rebounder, pure and simple. Those clips you see of him racing downcourt, pushing the ball way out in front of him and flying to the hoop are pretty representative of his game at the start.

He would have faced bigger, stronger fontcourts in the NBA than the ABA. The ABA had an amazing group of star players, but the overall depth (even inside of starting fives) was very minor league. He'd have struggled a bit more, especially considering he was pulling down 15 reb per gm in the ABA as a rookie.

Seeing him evolve as a player next to a second year Kareem, veteran Oscar, and really solid players like Bob Dandridge, Lucious Allen, John McGlocklin etc would have been amazing, though he wouldn't have posted the numbers he did in either Philly or the ABA..

It could have changed the direction of the NBA for years to come, as that core may have enticed Kareem to stay longer, rather than setting up LA for a decade+ of excellence.

[JMT]

His avg would hav went down slightly, but not as much as one thinks. Easily the 2nd best player in the league bttling with Lew Alcindor for the title (just like he did in 76.)

Had he come in when drafted he'd have been a Buck, and not close to the 2nd best player in the league..

[L.Kizzle]

Had he come in when drafted he'd have been a Buck, and not close to the 2nd best player in the league..
I thought the Hawks drafted him?

[JMT]

I thought the Hawks drafted him?

#12 overall pick to the Bucks in the 1972 NBA draft.

[L.Kizzle]

#12 overall pick to the Bucks in the 1972 NBA draft.
Alright cool ... but those sttements saying Doc was raw out of college and he wouldn't do nearly s good goin to the NBA first instead of the ABA? We'll, you could compare it to Rick Barry goin to the ABA after being a star in the NBA. With a weaker competiton level his numbers went down in his four ABA seasons. Atfter avg 35 in the NBA he went to 34 his first season (in the late 60s when the ABA was at its weakest) to in the high 20s by the time Doc was drafted in 71. So scoring wise their numbers were the same, but Docs boards were off the charts.

[greymatter]

Off topic but those hands are insanely huge....:wtf:

From the looks of those pics, I estimate that if he lined up the base of his palm with the bottom of his chin, his fingers would reach slightly past the beginning of his hairline.

So yes, they're indeed fcuking huge.

[upside24]

He would have been an absolute monster. His true high-flying days were in the ABA.

[JMT]

Alright cool ... but those sttements saying Doc was raw out of college and he wouldn't do nearly s good goin to the NBA first instead of the ABA? We'll, you could compare it to Rick Barry goin to the ABA after being a star in the NBA. With a weaker competiton level his numbers went down in his four ABA seasons. Atfter avg 35 in the NBA he went to 34 his first season (in the late 60s when the ABA was at its weakest) to in the high 20s by the time Doc was drafted in 71. So scoring wise their numbers were the same, but Docs boards were off the charts.


Sure you could if all you wanted to do was look at stats without knowing the context.

In his first ABA season in Oakland, Barry tore up his knee. The next season he was shipped to Washington and refused to report. Still recovering from injury and unhappy, he was second in the league, scoring 27.7. Traded to the Nets in 70-71 he had another knee injury, scoring 29.4 in 59 games. Finally healthy in 71-72 (the year Doc joined the ABA) Barry played 80 games averaging 31.5.

The next season he returned to the NBA and averaged 22ppg.

The ABA in the late 60's wasn't appreciably different than the ABA at any other time in it's existence. There was a core group of superstars (Connie Hawkins, Mel Daniels, Charlie Scott, Roger Brown, Spencer Haywood, Barry, Dan Issel, Zelmo Beaty) and not much depth. People know the names of the latter day ABA players because of the merger. The league didn't begin and end with Dr. J.

Doc was raw out of college. He was just like the ABA. Even at it's best, the ABA wasn't nearly as polished basketball as the NBA. Sure, their All Stars could compete with the best of the more established league. But the #3-6 players on most NBA teams of the time were significantly better than their ABA counterparts. Hell, Larry Brown was a perennial All Star. The league was fun. It was exciting. It's best players were incredible. But overall it wasn't near the quality of the NBA.

[Lebron23]

#12 overall pick to the Bucks in the 1972 NBA draft.


Jabbar, erving, and past his prime Oscar = Multiple NBA titles in the 1970's.

[Owl]

I thought the Hawks drafted him?
Hawks tried to to sign him anyway, despite, as JMT mentioned, the Bucks owning his rights.

Though JMTs talk about what Erving would have done as Buck is slightly misleading too, at least insofar as there was little chance of him coming to the Bucks, or being available to them had he stayed in college.

He'd only have become a Buck if he'd entered the NBA at 22 with his senior class, and he wouldn't/couldn't have done that (and didn't) if, as is the case, he went to the ABA. Erving's selection at 12 (the penultimate pick of the first round) was a result of him already being an ABA player. Had Erving been available (rather than an ABA players rights being stashed) he would have been sooner.

[Owl]

Sure you could if all you wanted to do was look at stats without knowing the context.

In his first ABA season in Oakland, Barry tore up his knee. The next season he was shipped to Washington and refused to report. Still recovering from injury and unhappy, he was second in the league, scoring 27.7. Traded to the Nets in 70-71 he had another knee injury, scoring 29.4 in 59 games. Finally healthy in 71-72 (the year Doc joined the ABA) Barry played 80 games averaging 31.5.

The next season he returned to the NBA and averaged 22ppg.

The ABA in the late 60's wasn't appreciably different than the ABA at any other time in it's existence. There was a core group of superstars (Connie Hawkins, Mel Daniels, Charlie Scott, Roger Brown, Spencer Haywood, Barry, Dan Issel, Zelmo Beaty) and not much depth. People know the names of the latter day ABA players because of the merger. The league didn't begin and end with Dr. J.

Doc was raw out of college. He was just like the ABA. Even at it's best, the ABA wasn't nearly as polished basketball as the NBA. Sure, their All Stars could compete with the best of the more established league. But the #3-6 players on most NBA teams of the time were significantly better than their ABA counterparts. Hell, Larry Brown was a perennial All Star. The league was fun. It was exciting. It's best players were incredible. But overall it wasn't near the quality of the NBA.
The first years of the ABA were worse than later years. Hawkins (coming from the Globetrotters) was more dominant than Erving ever was and a large part of that is because the league was so much worse. Only in the 70s did the ABA start consistently taking good NBA players and would be NBA draftees (Gilmore, McGinnis, Erving, Cunningham, Haywood, Beaty, Caldwell, Issel, Malone etc).

Your point regarding Barry (that his ABA numbers "falling" is misleading and indeed atypical, see Beaty) is valid, and ABA numbers are somewhat soft but I'd argue to a varying degree (much more so earlier on).

[Dr.J4ever]

Sure you could if all you wanted to do was look at stats without knowing the context.

In his first ABA season in Oakland, Barry tore up his knee. The next season he was shipped to Washington and refused to report. Still recovering from injury and unhappy, he was second in the league, scoring 27.7. Traded to the Nets in 70-71 he had another knee injury, scoring 29.4 in 59 games. Finally healthy in 71-72 (the year Doc joined the ABA) Barry played 80 games averaging 31.5.

The next season he returned to the NBA and averaged 22ppg.

The ABA in the late 60's wasn't appreciably different than the ABA at any other time in it's existence. There was a core group of superstars (Connie Hawkins, Mel Daniels, Charlie Scott, Roger Brown, Spencer Haywood, Barry, Dan Issel, Zelmo Beaty) and not much depth. People know the names of the latter day ABA players because of the merger. The league didn't begin and end with Dr. J.

Doc was raw out of college. He was just like the ABA. Even at it's best, the ABA wasn't nearly as polished basketball as the NBA. Sure, their All Stars could compete with the best of the more established league. But the #3-6 players on most NBA teams of the time were significantly better than their ABA counterparts. Hell, Larry Brown was a perennial All Star. The league was fun. It was exciting. It's best players were incredible. But overall it wasn't near the quality of the NBA.
The ABA DOMINATED the NBA the last 3 years in inter league competition. Overall, the ABA defeated the NBA 79-76 games. Read the article below as the games were very intense and competitive. So both leagues played with pride and wanted to win despite being exhibition games. But those last 3 years are interesting. Many observers at the time believed that by the time the 2 leagues merged, the ABA had achieved parity with the NBA.

To answer the thread question, Doc would have won more than 1 NBA MVP, at least a couple of titles, and would be considered surely one of the top 10 players of all time.

http://www.remembertheaba.com/abastatistics/abanbaexhibitions.html

[La Frescobaldi]

The first years of the ABA were worse than later years. Hawkins (coming from the Globetrotters) was more dominant than Erving ever was and a large part of that is because the league was so much worse. Only in the 70s did the ABA start consistently taking good NBA players and would be NBA draftees (Gilmore, McGinnis, Erving, Cunningham, Haywood, Beaty, Caldwell, Issel, Malone etc).

Your point regarding Barry (that his ABA numbers "falling" is misleading and indeed atypical, see Beaty) is valid, and ABA numbers are somewhat soft but I'd argue to a varying degree (much more so earlier on).

JMT is mostly right though. Even the later years ABA still had only a few valid teams. The league overall was not all that much better than it was in the 60s. Media blitz notwithstanding.
The stars were there but depth was always a problem for those cash strapped squads. Teams often won simply by keeping their stars on the court a whopping 2 or 3 more minutes, when the other team's starters were getting a rest. At that point it was guys like David Thompson or Artis Gilmore playing against college level guys, not ABA level.

A Train was like a scythe moving through wheat against bench players, and so was Erving.

[La Frescobaldi]

The ABA DOMINATED the NBA the last 3 years in inter league competition. Overall, the ABA defeated the NBA 79-76 games. Read the article below as the games were very intense and competitive. So both leagues played with pride and wanted to win despite being exhibition games. But those last 3 years are interesting. Many observers at the time believed that by the time the 2 leagues merged, the ABA had achieved parity with the NBA.

To answer the thread question, Doc would have won more than 1 NBA MVP, at least a couple of titles, and would be considered surely one of the top 10 players of all time.

http://www.remembertheaba.com/abastatistics/abanbaexhibitions.html

They may have won exhibition games but there was not 1 single ABA team that would have gone far in the NBA playoffs. Which was proven clearly in the '77 season.

By far the best of the 4 teams that transitioned was the Nuggets, with David Thompson & Dan Issel, Willie Wise & Bobby Jones & ancient legs Paul Silas driving that squad to the 2nd round.... where the Portland TrailBlazers with Bill Walton were waiting with a feral grin.

Pacers, Nets were laughingstocks in the NBA although it is true they were both treated just like dirt by the NBA. The Spurs with Special K & Iceman were all flash, no substance first round exits although they did contend to a surprising degree imo.

No ABA team was ever able to contend against a first-rate NBA team in a playoff series, not even the Nets would have been able to do it. That '74 championship squad with Special K & the Doc was high flying, great fun to watch.... but the '74 Celtics of Havlicek, Cowens & JoJo would have easily eaten that just like breakfast cereal.

The '70s contrary to most belief was not the weakest era in fact I would argue it was the BEST era for the NBA overall due to the fact so many cities had incredibly great teams that could and did contend for NBA Championships. Huge levels of league-wide parity that I have never seen in any other decade. The '80s by and large was not the same quality in terms of league wide greatness and of course the '90s was flat terrible in terms of just garbage teams that should not have been allowed on an NBA court.

That said, I do think you are right about the Doctor. The man was incredible talent.
In fact if he had gone to the NBA he would have learned high level defense much earlier in his career, something he struggled with bad when he first moved over to the NBA.

[La Frescobaldi]

The first years of the ABA were worse than later years. Hawkins (coming from the Globetrotters) was more dominant than Erving ever was and a large part of that is because the league was so much worse. Only in the 70s did the ABA start consistently taking good NBA players and would be NBA draftees (Gilmore, McGinnis, Erving, Cunningham, Haywood, Beaty, Caldwell, Issel, Malone etc).

Your point regarding Barry (that his ABA numbers "falling" is misleading and indeed atypical, see Beaty) is valid, and ABA numbers are somewhat soft but I'd argue to a varying degree (much more so earlier on).

other thing too.... there is some point about the league being weaker, yes. But the Hawk is forgotten.
It was very arguable in those days who was the better player between the two of them.

[Dr.J4ever]

They may have won exhibition games but there was not 1 single ABA team that would have gone far in the NBA playoffs. Which was proven clearly in the '77 season.

By far the best of the 4 teams that transitioned was the Nuggets, with David Thompson & Dan Issel, Willie Wise & Bobby Jones & ancient legs Paul Silas driving that squad to the 2nd round.... where the Portland TrailBlazers with Bill Walton were waiting with a feral grin.

Pacers, Nets were laughingstocks in the NBA although it is true they were both treated just like dirt by the NBA. The Spurs with Special K & Iceman were all flash, no substance first round exits although they did contend to a surprising degree imo.

No ABA team was ever able to contend against a first-rate NBA team in a playoff series, not even the Nets would have been able to do it. That '74 championship squad with Special K & the Doc was high flying, great fun to watch.... but the '74 Celtics of Havlicek, Cowens & JoJo would have easily eaten that just like breakfast cereal.

The '70s contrary to most belief was not the weakest era in fact I would argue it was the BEST era for the NBA overall due to the fact so many cities had incredibly great teams that could and did contend for NBA Championships. Huge levels of league-wide parity that I have never seen in any other decade. The '80s by and large was not the same quality in terms of league wide greatness and of course the '90s was flat terrible in terms of just garbage teams that should not have been allowed on an NBA court.

That said, I do think you are right about the Doctor. The man was incredible talent.
In fact if he had gone to the NBA he would have learned high level defense much earlier in his career, something he struggled with bad when he first moved over to the NBA.
Don't forget the Nets went into the NBA without their best player, Julius Erving. You forgot about that one. It is still a fact that many observers believed that by the time the 2 leagues merged, there was parity, and the ABA's domination in the last 3 years before the merger proves it.

[LAZERUSS]

Don't forget the Nets went into the NBA without their best player, Julius Erving. You forgot about that one. It is still a fact that many observers believed that by the time the 2 leagues merged, there was parity, and the ABA's domination in the last 3 years before the merger proves it.

Aside from Dr. J, Gilmore, Thompson, Issel, and Gervin (who really came into his own in the NBA), the ABA's best players had already long since jumped to the NBA. And the teams that the ABA sent to the NBA during the merger were basically their best teams (and only four of them.)

Fans forget that the ABA's best players were fleeing to the NBA, most after only 1-2 seasons in the ABA. Barry, Cunningham, Haywood, Scott, Hawkins, and others. Furthermore, those players would be nowhere near as dominant in the NBA.

And, aside from Gilmore, and later Moses, who again was nowhere near his peak, the ABA did not contribute any quality centers to the NBA.

The talent levels of the best teams in the ABA were nowhere near the talent levels of the NBA in the early 70's, either. No ABA team would have come close to beating the '70 Knicks, '71 Bucks, '72 Lakers, or '73 Knicks. In fact, I would contend that had the two leagues merged in the early 70's, that the '71 Bucks and '72 Lakers would have probably won well over 70 games in those seasons. And KAJ would have probably averaged 40 ppg in the early 70's, and McAdoo probably the same. And Chamberlain would have been averaging well over 20 rpg, and on well over .700 shooting.

I am not knocking Dr. J here. He would have been among the greatest players in the NBA in the 70's. But as his NBA numbers showed, he was not nearly as dominant against the NBA as he had been against the ABA.

[La Frescobaldi]

Don't forget the Nets went into the NBA without their best player, Julius Erving. You forgot about that one. It is still a fact that many observers believed that by the time the 2 leagues merged, there was parity, and the ABA's domination in the last 3 years before the merger proves it.
Yeah I didn't forget.... like I said Nets & Pacers got treated like dirt by the NBA. They really did. The Nets never did recover from the huge entry fee they had to pay.

There was a lot of media hoopla on the ABA but nobody that watched hoops in those days really thought there was anything close to parity. They played at a high level, but not NBA playoff level. They were not getting ever to the Finals. Not even that truly great Denver team.

[SamuraiSWISH]

I feel like Dr. Js influence on basketball was greater than his actual game, and / on court impact. Perimeter players before him, and after him were clearly better all around basketball players. Dr. J wasn't very polished. Bad handle, bad defender, average passer, average at best shooter. He was a great leaper, finisher, and rebounder due to his athleticism, length, and hand size.

[Owl]

Aside from Dr. J, Gilmore, Thompson, Issel, and Gervin (who really came into his own in the NBA), the ABA's best players had already long since jumped to the NBA. And the teams that the ABA sent to the NBA during the merger were basically their best teams (and only four of them.)

Fans forget that the ABA's best players were fleeing to the NBA, most after only 1-2 seasons in the ABA. Barry, Cunningham, Haywood, Scott, Hawkins, and others. Furthermore, those players would be nowhere near as dominant in the NBA.

And, aside from Gilmore, and later Moses, who again was nowhere near his peak, the ABA did not contribute any quality centers to the NBA.

The talent levels of the best teams in the ABA were nowhere near the talent levels of the NBA in the early 70's, either. No ABA team would have come close to beating the '70 Knicks, '71 Bucks, '72 Lakers, or '73 Knicks. In fact, I would contend that had the two leagues merged in the early 70's, that the '71 Bucks and '72 Lakers would have probably won well over 70 games in those seasons. And KAJ would have probably averaged 40 ppg in the early 70's, and McAdoo probably the same. And Chamberlain would have been averaging well over 20 rpg, and on well over .700 shooting.

I am not knocking Dr. J here. He would have been among the greatest players in the NBA in the 70's. But as his NBA numbers showed, he was not nearly as dominant against the NBA as he had been against the ABA.
That would very much depend on your bar for quality. Beyond Gilmore and Malone (a pretty impressive start) the ABA brought Dan Issel and at a lower level Caldwell Jones, Swen Nater, Billy Paultz, Jim Chones, Dave Robisch and Tom Owens all of whom had productive spells in the NBA (the latter few less consistently so).


JMT is mostly right though. Even the later years ABA still had only a few valid teams. The league overall was not all that much better than it was in the 60s. Media blitz notwithstanding.
The stars were there but depth was always a problem for those cash strapped squads. Teams often won simply by keeping their stars on the court a whopping 2 or 3 more minutes, when the other team's starters were getting a rest. At that point it was guys like David Thompson or Artis Gilmore playing against college level guys, not ABA level.

A Train was like a scythe moving through wheat against bench players, and so was Erving.
I think the ABA grew substantially over time. Red Robbins was an elite center in the early ABA, but he was just a sixth round (59th pick) in the '66 NBA Draft, who didn't make a team.
Larry Jones was an elite guard in the early ABA. He had played just 359 minutes in the NBA and hadn't made a team for the past two seasons before he became part of the ABA.

I'm not going to argue the depth point (at least too much, though my list of big men above shows it wasn't just the stars that could be productive in the NBA) but I think there is a substantial difference between the early ABA where they were clearly a 2nd tier league (their best players were NBA-banned players like Hawkins and Moe, or castoffs like Jones and Robbins) and later years when some talent chose to go to the ABA.


They may have won exhibition games but there was not 1 single ABA team that would have gone far in the NBA playoffs. Which was proven clearly in the '77 season.

By far the best of the 4 teams that transitioned was the Nuggets, with David Thompson & Dan Issel, Willie Wise & Bobby Jones & ancient legs Paul Silas driving that squad to the 2nd round.... where the Portland TrailBlazers with Bill Walton were waiting with a feral grin.

Pacers, Nets were laughingstocks in the NBA although it is true they were both treated just like dirt by the NBA. The Spurs with Special K & Iceman were all flash, no substance first round exits although they did contend to a surprising degree imo.

No ABA team was ever able to contend against a first-rate NBA team in a playoff series, not even the Nets would have been able to do it. That '74 championship squad with Special K & the Doc was high flying, great fun to watch.... but the '74 Celtics of Havlicek, Cowens & JoJo would have easily eaten that just like breakfast cereal.

The '70s contrary to most belief was not the weakest era in fact I would argue it was the BEST era for the NBA overall due to the fact so many cities had incredibly great teams that could and did contend for NBA Championships. Huge levels of league-wide parity that I have never seen in any other decade. The '80s by and large was not the same quality in terms of league wide greatness and of course the '90s was flat terrible in terms of just garbage teams that should not have been allowed on an NBA court.

That said, I do think you are right about the Doctor. The man was incredible talent.
In fact if he had gone to the NBA he would have learned high level defense much earlier in his career, something he struggled with bad when he first moved over to the NBA.
Firstly the '77 season didn't "prove" that no team could go far in the playoffs (though there were those, pre-season who suspected that no ABA team would even make the playoffs). For one what happened wasn't predestined and secondly Denver and the Spurs acquitted themselves fairly well.

Denver fought the eventual champs harder than any other team, losing 4-2 (as star studded Philly did in the finals with Erving and McGinnis), but did so with a much tighter points differential Denver lost 639-629 over the series or 106.5 to 104.8 per game (10 points over the series a 1.7 per game deficit) whilst Portland won the Philly series more decisively 669 to 630 or 111.3 to 105 per game (an advantage of 39 points or 6.3 points per game). Denver were, based on this and their regular season performance very clearly a legit contender.

The Spurs, as they were, were more ordinary. But to look just at that is to ignore that they were missing their best player. In the year prior to the merger James Silas was (correctly) considered the Spurs best player. A healthy Spurs would thus represent a second legitimate contender (at very least a peripheral one) from the ABA. Given that the Nets, due to their location, were basically forced to give up Dr J and you've got three ABA teams that could have done well in the NBA. The Pacers can fairly be labelled a poor team, though they got into the NBA based on some combination of history and ABA politics (which owners wanted in the most etc), the Colonels would have represented another plenty competent NBA team (especially after they added Lucas).

Of course whether any of this is relevent to the typical strength of ABA and NBA teams is arguable as the ABA contracted in its final years making its remaining teams deeper, and then after the merger the NBA teams benefited in picking of the best players of the non-merging teams (the Blazers for example netting Lucas, Malone and Twardzik).

[bizil]

If you consider overall pro basketball history (NBA and ABA), Doc still has a case for the GOAT SF crown. So if Doc got to the NBA sooner, it could have resulted in 3-4 titles, who knows. His career point total is over 30,000 points NBA and ABA combined. So if he got to the NBA earlier, he would padded his resume even more with NBA numbers and prestige. He may not have been as dominant as he was in the ABA, but he still would have been dominant enough to be the premier perimeter player in the world at his peak. And keep in mind, he played on deep ass teams where he didn't have to dominate as often either. You had Collins, World B Free, Moses, Toney, McGinnis,, etc. on those teams. So naturally, his scoring numbers dropped with that kind of offensive punch.

His ABA shit while epic, many rank him at this point a top 12-15 GOAT legend. But in terms of his OVERALL career and impact on basketball, Doc should frankly really be around 6-8. And be seen at the GOAT SF. Bird has a better NBA career than Doc, but if u include Doc's overall NBA and ABA stuff, Doc had the better career. This may sound crazy to some, but I would rather have Doc's career than Bird's career. Doc won just as much, revolutionized the game, has more individual accolades, better longevity being great, etc. So GOAT SF IN NBA history Bird or Bron. GOAT SF in pro basketball history is Doc.

[bizil]

Sure you could if all you wanted to do was look at stats without knowing the context.

In his first ABA season in Oakland, Barry tore up his knee. The next season he was shipped to Washington and refused to report. Still recovering from injury and unhappy, he was second in the league, scoring 27.7. Traded to the Nets in 70-71 he had another knee injury, scoring 29.4 in 59 games. Finally healthy in 71-72 (the year Doc joined the ABA) Barry played 80 games averaging 31.5.

The next season he returned to the NBA and averaged 22ppg.

The ABA in the late 60's wasn't appreciably different than the ABA at any other time in it's existence. There was a core group of superstars (Connie Hawkins, Mel Daniels, Charlie Scott, Roger Brown, Spencer Haywood, Barry, Dan Issel, Zelmo Beaty) and not much depth. People know the names of the latter day ABA players because of the merger. The league didn't begin and end with Dr. J.

Doc was raw out of college. He was just like the ABA. Even at it's best, the ABA wasn't nearly as polished basketball as the NBA. Sure, their All Stars could compete with the best of the more established league. But the #3-6 players on most NBA teams of the time were significantly better than their ABA counterparts. Hell, Larry Brown was a perennial All Star. The league was fun. It was exciting. It's best players were incredible. But overall it wasn't near the quality of the NBA.

Exactly! The ABA's best guys (forwards and guards) were for sure on par with the NBA's forwards and guards. Doc, Gervin, and Thompson for example were so ahead of their time. And really were the templates for the freak athletic Batman scoring machines (Doc and Skywalker) and the big scoring guard with an epic scoring skillset (Gervin). Jordan was basically a combo of all these guys scoring wise down the road.

But with that said, the NBA still had the overall depth edge and was clearly the better league. That's not a knock to the ABA because for them to have influenced the game as much as it has says a lot. And the ABA at its best still featured world class basketball. It wasn't the CBA,XFL, etc. It was like the AFL or Negro Leagues.

[Dr.J4ever]

Yeah I didn't forget.... like I said Nets & Pacers got treated like dirt by the NBA. They really did. The Nets never did recover from the huge entry fee they had to pay.

There was a lot of media hoopla on the ABA but nobody that watched hoops in those days really thought there was anything close to parity. They played at a high level, but not NBA playoff level. They were not getting ever to the Finals. Not even that truly great Denver team.
Again, this is not true. I was too young to watch the NBA, but I remember a 1978 SI article with Doc J in the front page titled, "Hey whats up with the Doc?".. In it, and this is where I got the notion of parity, the writer concludes and talks about the "myth" of NBA superiority, and "parity" between the 2 leagues. You can still see the article today if you check the SI front pages on Google.

[Dr.J4ever]

Aside from Dr. J, Gilmore, Thompson, Issel, and Gervin (who really came into his own in the NBA), the ABA's best players had already long since jumped to the NBA. And the teams that the ABA sent to the NBA during the merger were basically their best teams (and only four of them.)

Fans forget that the ABA's best players were fleeing to the NBA, most after only 1-2 seasons in the ABA. Barry, Cunningham, Haywood, Scott, Hawkins, and others. Furthermore, those players would be nowhere near as dominant in the NBA.

And, aside from Gilmore, and later Moses, who again was nowhere near his peak, the ABA did not contribute any quality centers to the NBA.

The talent levels of the best teams in the ABA were nowhere near the talent levels of the NBA in the early 70's, either. No ABA team would have come close to beating the '70 Knicks, '71 Bucks, '72 Lakers, or '73 Knicks. In fact, I would contend that had the two leagues merged in the early 70's, that the '71 Bucks and '72 Lakers would have probably won well over 70 games in those seasons. And KAJ would have probably averaged 40 ppg in the early 70's, and McAdoo probably the same. And Chamberlain would have been averaging well over 20 rpg, and on well over .700 shooting.

I am not knocking Dr. J here. He would have been among the greatest players in the NBA in the 70's. But as his NBA numbers showed, he was not nearly as dominant against the NBA as he had been against the ABA.
There are a lot of IFs here. If this, if that. The fact remains that in exhibition games in the last 3 years before the merger, the ABA dominated the NBA. You can pooh pooh exhibitions all you want, but if you read the article, the games were very intense, and there was a lot of pride involved, as you would imagine.

Let me be clear. I am not saying the ABA was superior, but you could make a case that Doc's Nets would have beaten the Celtics before the merger. Again, it's hard to comment about teams we never saw play live or on TV, but I have read commentators who watched these teams say this.

[SHAQisGOAT]

I feel like Dr. Js influence on basketball was greater than his actual game, and / on court impact. Perimeter players before him, and after him were clearly better all around basketball players. Dr. J wasn't very polished. Bad handle, bad defender, average passer, average at best shooter. He was a great leaper, finisher, and rebounder due to his athleticism, length, and hand size.

Please just stop. :facepalm :facepalm :facepalm
Obviously never seen much from the Dr. He was a really good all-around player.

Bad handles? I don't know what you've watched (if you ever which is unlikely) but Doc had some nice handles, clear to see.

Bad defender? :wtf: Julius was a great off-ball defender and he could more than hold his own on-ball. You can call him similar to Lebron the way he played the passing lanes, and he was pretty good on them weakside blocks. He would give you like 2 steals and 2 blocks, finished top10 in steals and blocks (in the same season) twice. Many times top10 in dws and top10 in drtg more than twice.

Average passer? Again I don't know what you've watched because Erving was a solid enough passer, players don't average more than 4 apg at SF without being the main ballhandler while being average passers.

Average shooter at best is too low, not amongst the best shooters in any way, didn't have much range either, but he had a decent mid-range game and pretty good from close, and he was like 78% at the ft line.
Let's not forget that he was pretty good at posting-up.

Oh wait so let's discredit someone like Shaq for being 7', 325 lbs and a great athlete, right? :rolleyes: He was what he was, and while at it, great finisher is even underrating him, that man has a case for the best finisher ever.

Your post was just a terrible post all the way through.

[SamuraiSWISH]

You'd take Erving over any of these guys: Jordan, LeBron, Kobe, West, Oscar, Magic, Bird, Baylor? Cause I wouldn't. He didn't win a championship until he became a second fiddle to Moses. There is even other players I consider better, more skillful players than DR. J ever was ... As I said his influence, and style while entertaining was most likely greater than his actual abilities.

[Marchesk]

As I said his influence, and style while entertaining was most likely greater than his actual abilities.

You mean like rebounding, passing, defense, and scoring on over 50% for his career?

[bizil]

Please just stop. :facepalm :facepalm :facepalm
Obviously never seen much from the Dr. He was a really good all-around player.

Bad handles? I don't know what you've watched (if you ever which is unlikely) but Doc had some nice handles, clear to see.

Bad defender? :wtf: Julius was a great off-ball defender and he could more than hold his own on-ball. You can call him similar to Lebron the way he played the passing lanes, and he was pretty good on them weakside blocks. He would give you like 2 steals and 2 blocks, finished top10 in steals and blocks (in the same season) twice. Many times top10 in dws and top10 in drtg more than twice.

Average passer? Again I don't know what you've watched because Erving was a solid enough passer, players don't average more than 4 apg at SF without being the main ballhandler while being average passers.

Average shooter at best is too low, not amongst the best shooters in any way, didn't have much range either, but he had a decent mid-range game and pretty good from close, and he was like 78% at the ft line.
Let's not forget that he was pretty good at posting-up.

Oh wait so let's discredit someone like Shaq for being 7', 325 lbs and a great athlete, right? :rolleyes: He was what he was, and while at it, great finisher is even underrating him, that man has a case for the best finisher ever.

Your post was just a terrible post all the way through.

I agree! Doc was a very good all around player. Great scorer, great rebounder for a SF, good to at times very good defender, and a good passer. The parallel to Bron is interesting because until Bron became great at D, he was actually more in line with a Dr.J style of defender. Which is a very good, but not a great defender. The only SF's for sure I would take over a peak Dr. J are Bron and Bird. Even with Barry, Baylor, and Hondo, I'm not sure I would take them over Doc peak value wise. The only thing Barry for sure could do better than Doc was pass the rock. Hondo could do it all on both sides, but I think Doc but the fear more in a defense. And Baylor and Doc were very similar in what they brought to the table. Those freak athletes like Doc, Baylor, Nique, and Bron at SF are so devastating because they can put the pressure on D and go over the top. And they have other weapons in their arsenal as well that ensure they dominate scoring the rock.

[moe94]

You mean like rebounding, passing, defense, and scoring on over 50% for his career?
:roll: :applause:

[La Frescobaldi]

Again, this is not true. I was too young to watch the NBA, but I remember a 1978 SI article with Doc J in the front page titled, "Hey whats up with the Doc?".. In it, and this is where I got the notion of parity, the writer concludes and talks about the "myth" of NBA superiority, and "parity" between the 2 leagues. You can still see the article today if you check the SI front pages on Google.

Again, it is true. Apparently you didn't even read what I wrote:

"There was a lot of media hoopla on the ABA but nobody that watched hoops in those days really thought there was anything close to parity. "

The very magazine you talk about is one of them that was creating that hoopla - and that is all it was, hoopla.

I watched it unfold, the entire thing. I remember the ABA from when it first started, right through to the collapse. The owners made a shambles of it, the whole thing, with their short-sighted view and their ridiculous salaries and their asinine decisions, one after the other.

Those teams were not at the same level as the NBA, and never were. The league did get better, no question, but it wasn't ever the same quality as the NBA.

[Dr.J4ever]

Again, it is true. Apparently you didn't even read what I wrote:

"There was a lot of media hoopla on the ABA but nobody that watched hoops in those days really thought there was anything close to parity. "

The very magazine you talk about is one of them that was creating that hoopla - and that is all it was, hoopla.

I watched it unfold, the entire thing. I remember the ABA from when it first started, right through to the collapse. The owners made a shambles of it, the whole thing, with their short-sighted view and their ridiculous salaries and their asinine decisions, one after the other.

Those teams were not at the same level as the NBA, and never were. The league did get better, no question, but it wasn't ever the same quality as the NBA.
Hoopla? What hoopla? This article came out 2 years after the ABA collapsed. It was an article addressing some of Doc's struggles with the sixers at the time. The article then addressed the "myth" of NBA superiority over the ABA. The article, if I remember correctly, was written by Frank Kirpatrick, a veteran watcher of hoops and one of the most respected SI writers. So when you say nobody watching hoops at the time believed the ABA was at par with the NBA, this is clearly false.

[La Frescobaldi]

Hoopla? What hoopla? This article came out 2 years after the ABA collapsed. It was an article addressing some of Doc's struggles with the sixers at the time. The article then addressed the "myth" of NBA superiority over the ABA. The article, if I remember correctly, was written by Frank Kirpatrick, a veteran watcher of hoops and one of the most respected SI writers. So when you say nobody watching hoops at the time believed the ABA was at par with the NBA, this is clearly false.

Unfortunately, if you listened to the announcers in those days you'd get a very different view than if you watched the games yourself. There was a whole media blitz trying to promote that old ABA. But the fact was, there was just so many real poor quality games in that league - I sat bleachers for a whole lot of em.

I know you love the Doc, and this seems to be important to you friend so I'll let you have the last word. A real fan of those old school players is rare especially on this board

[SHAQisGOAT]

You'd take Erving over any of these guys: Jordan, LeBron, Kobe, West, Oscar, Magic, Bird, Baylor? Cause I wouldn't. He didn't win a championship until he became a second fiddle to Moses. There is even other players I consider better, more skillful players than DR. J ever was ... As I said his influence, and style while entertaining was most likely greater than his actual abilities.

Over Jordan, Bird, Magic and Lebron I definitely wouldn't, now for the rest I would think more than twice, really tough choice, most likely not above Oscar and West though.
Just look at those names though, you just mentioned the greatest perimeter players the game has ever seen, you just held him in such high regard without even noticing it.

In the 1976 ABA Finals he absolutely destroyed a pretty good Nuggets team that went on to have a 50-32 record in the NBA the next year, taking the eventual champions to 6 in the SF. A team with David Thompson, Issel and defensive great Bobby Jones. Best drtg in the NBA in 77.
Julius easily proved himself in the NBA, leading his team to the Finals in 1977 and again in 1980, MVP in 1981, amongst other things. Yes he was second fiddle to Moses in 1983 but still a big part of that team, at 32 years old, still playing great, and a champion.


I agree! Doc was a very good all around player. Great scorer, great rebounder for a SF, good to at times very good defender, and a good passer. The parallel to Bron is interesting because until Bron became great at D, he was actually more in line with a Dr.J style of defender. Which is a very good, but not a great defender. The only SF's for sure I would take over a peak Dr. J are Bron and Bird. Even with Barry, Baylor, and Hondo, I'm not sure I would take them over Doc peak value wise. The only thing Barry for sure could do better than Doc was pass the rock. Hondo could do it all on both sides, but I think Doc but the fear more in a defense. And Baylor and Doc were very similar in what they brought to the table. Those freak athletes like Doc, Baylor, Nique, and Bron at SF are so devastating because they can put the pressure on D and go over the top. And they have other weapons in their arsenal as well that ensure they dominate scoring the rock.

Same here, speaking of peaks at SF I would take Bird 1st, Lebron 2nd then Erving. Peak Julius was a beast.
As far as careers I may have Hondo at #3 after Bird and Lebron then Julius and Baylor.

[BoutPractice]

Dr. J I think is underrated by some today because of the bias for a completely arbitrary, very limited (modern) view of what "skills" are: I'm caricaturing a bit but basically it's as if everyone needs to display fancy dribbling, step back 3s, complex footwork, and flashy passing all the time otherwise they're not "skilled".

The real basketball skills that actually make a difference on the court are diminished or sometimes ignored altogether (it's even more egregious with bigmen: I've heard people claim Bill Russell wasn't skilled!).

Things like being in the right place in the right time, receiving the ball in the best position, reacting on the fly to the defense, using your body in intelligent ways (I'm looking at you, JaVale McGee), decisively attacking the basket in one dribble for some reason aren't considered skills. Transition play and finishing near the basket are also considered "easy" as opposed to perimeter shots which are necessarily more "difficult". As a result they're not deemed particularly praiseworthy (see the hate LeBron gets for making "easy" shots he's the only one in the entire league to be in a position to make so often).

At the highest level of competition, production can only be evidence of ability, and Dr. J had plenty of it. Not only was he a more well-rounded player than usually given credit for, but what he was great at, he was truly great at.

[La Frescobaldi]

Dr. J I think is underrated by some today because of the bias for a completely arbitrary, very limited (modern) view of what "skills" are: I'm caricaturing a bit but basically it's as if everyone needs to display fancy dribbling, step back 3s, complex footwork, and flashy passing all the time otherwise they're not "skilled".

The real basketball skills that actually make a difference on the court are diminished or sometimes ignored altogether (it's even more egregious with bigmen: I've heard people claim Bill Russell wasn't skilled!).

Things like being in the right place in the right time, receiving the ball in the best position, reacting on the fly to the defense, using your body in intelligent ways (I'm looking at you, JaVale McGee), decisively attacking the basket in one dribble for some reason aren't considered skills. Transition play and finishing near the basket are also considered "easy" as opposed to perimeter shots which are necessarily more "difficult". As a result they're not deemed particularly praiseworthy (see the hate LeBron gets for making "easy" shots he's the only one in the entire league to be in a position to make so often).

At the highest level of competition, production can only be evidence of ability, and Dr. J had plenty of it. Not only was he a more well-rounded player than usually given credit for, but what he was great at, he was truly great at.

Should be required reading on ish & repped with a rocket!!

When the Doc acclimatized to the NBA his defense took off. His first couple of years were really bad; but he worked his tail off and became a really fine defender, especially when Moses Malone showed up.
Those two guys were really something to see on the court - at both ends!!

[bizil]

Dr. J I think is underrated by some today because of the bias for a completely arbitrary, very limited (modern) view of what "skills" are: I'm caricaturing a bit but basically it's as if everyone needs to display fancy dribbling, step back 3s, complex footwork, and flashy passing all the time otherwise they're not "skilled".

The real basketball skills that actually make a difference on the court are diminished or sometimes ignored altogether (it's even more egregious with bigmen: I've heard people claim Bill Russell wasn't skilled!).

Things like being in the right place in the right time, receiving the ball in the best position, reacting on the fly to the defense, using your body in intelligent ways (I'm looking at you, JaVale McGee), decisively attacking the basket in one dribble for some reason aren't considered skills. Transition play and finishing near the basket are also considered "easy" as opposed to perimeter shots which are necessarily more "difficult". As a result they're not deemed particularly praiseworthy (see the hate LeBron gets for making "easy" shots he's the only one in the entire league to be in a position to make so often).

At the highest level of competition, production can only be evidence of ability, and Dr. J had plenty of it. Not only was he a more well-rounded player than usually given credit for, but what he was great at, he was truly great at.

Awesome points! The number one goal of any sport is being able to be as dominant as you can be. And get the most out of your ability. Some guys on a technical level have all the tricks. And are completely fundamentally sound. And hell some guys have the "And 1" handles and passes. But HOW DO YOU UTILIZE that in the NBA? A guy like Doc would be a freak athlete in ANY ERA. And ultimately its about your production.

If u are great at something and it translates come game time, u ARE AUTOMATICALLY highly skilled at it. It's just more of a matter how TECHNICALLY SKILLED u are at it. For example, Clyde Drexler dribbled with his head down on a fast break. But yet he's one of the greatest finishers of all time. Jamal Wilkes had a butt ugly shooting form. But he had one of the best midrange games EVER at the SF. Shaq's scoring skillset isn't anywhere close to guys like Hakeem, Ewing, or Robinson, but Shaq was the most dominant and unstoppable scorer of the bunch. Who altered a defense like nobody else in NBA history. So u go by results FIRST, then break down the technical or versatility aspects later. Pippen is as technically sound on both sides of the ball as any SF ever. But would I take him over Dr. J, HELL NO! Why? Because Doc was simply more dominant.

And also keep in mind at the SF position, point forward skills are a bonus and not prerequisite. Other than guys like Bron, Pip, Hondo, Bird, Pierce, and Barry, most of the other great or HOF SF's were dominant scorers not point forward kind of guys. I'm talking Doc, Nique, Baylor, King, Worthy, English, Dantley, Melo, Durant (i know he tries it at times and does good, but that's not his thing), Aguirre, Wilkes, etc.

[JMT]

Again, this is not true. I was too young to watch the NBA, but I remember a 1978 SI article with Doc J in the front page titled, "Hey whats up with the Doc?".. In it, and this is where I got the notion of parity, the writer concludes and talks about the "myth" of NBA superiority, and "parity" between the 2 leagues. You can still see the article today if you check the SI front pages on Google.


SI recently wrote a big expose' on Oklahoma State footbasll. How'd that work out?

Magazines are (were) made to sell copies. Tough to sell your cover story while admitting he played in an inferior league.

Really, this discussion should begin here: how much ABA and NBA ball did you watch at the time? I watched LOTS. Attended ABA games to see Doc and, before him, Connie Hawkins. And forget the "former Globetrotter" stuff; Hawkins was acknowledged as among the best players in the world but was unjustly banned from the NBA due to a point shaving scandal in college. When he wasn't even eligible to play. Dumb, illiterate kid who signed a paper thinking it was exonerating him, only to find that he was kicked out of school and banned from the NBA. He became a Globie only after the other league (ABL) folded.

Anyway, I watched and LOVED the ABA. But believe what you want. Give credence to exhibition games. The overall talent level between the two leagues wasn't that close. The All Stars from each league were great contests, but the quality of the depth in the NBA was far superior. As stated by others, there wasn't an ABA team that could have won in the NBA playoffs. I'm not sure many could have evenh come close to making it.

Erving matured into a far better player in the NBA, though much of the flash and ball dominance had to go. He became a decent defender, always rebounded well, developed far better shooting touch and selection. He had to. He coulodn't simply jump over guys who weren't all that interested in playing defense anyway like he could as a youngster in the ABA.

[Dr.J4ever]

SI recently wrote a big expose' on Oklahoma State footbasll. How'd that work out?

Magazines are (were) made to sell copies. Tough to sell your cover story while admitting he played in an inferior league.

Really, this discussion should begin here: how much ABA and NBA ball did you watch at the time? I watched LOTS. Attended ABA games to see Doc and, before him, Connie Hawkins. And forget the "former Globetrotter" stuff; Hawkins was acknowledged as among the best players in the world but was unjustly banned from the NBA due to a point shaving scandal in college. When he wasn't even eligible to play. Dumb, illiterate kid who signed a paper thinking it was exonerating him, only to find that he was kicked out of school and banned from the NBA. He became a Globie only after the other league (ABL) folded.

Anyway, I watched and LOVED the ABA. But believe what you want. Give credence to exhibition games. The overall talent level between the two leagues wasn't that close. The All Stars from each league were great contests, but the quality of the depth in the NBA was far superior. As stated by others, there wasn't an ABA team that could have won in the NBA playoffs. I'm not sure many could have evenh come close to making it.

Erving matured into a far better player in the NBA, though much of the flash and ball dominance had to go. He became a decent defender, always rebounded well, developed far better shooting touch and selection. He had to. He coulodn't simply jump over guys who weren't all that interested in playing defense anyway like he could as a youngster in the ABA.
Just to set the record straight. The article in SI(not sure if it was a cover story), was " Hey whats up with the Doc?" is a story about Doc's struggles with the Sixers. Written in 1978, it spoke of Doc's struggles adjusting to life in the NBA, and yes, why his numbers are less that what they were in the ABA. The writer, Kirpatrick, is one of the best SI writers maybe in history.
Not to demean your views, but if Kipatrick says the NBA's superiority at the time of the merger was a "myth", I kinda believe that. He mentioned there was a "parity" right before the merger.

Some of the reasons for the struggles were mentioned such as a better league post merger, age and Doc's knees, style of play, and clogged lanes due to more sophisticated defenses. There was no attempt at hoopla or selling articles, or hype, but it was a very rough and critical assessment on doc's struggles just before his dominance from 1979-1983.

Also, I have read some other writers talk about Doc's Nets ABA champion team and conclude that they may have beaten the NBA champion Celtics before the merger. With regards to your comment about no ABA team could have won in the NBA Playoffs, well didn't Denver the very first year post a 50-32 record in the NBA? One of the NBA's best teams, I believe. Did they win in the Playoffs? Haven't checked. Please enlighten us.

[Lebron23]

Just watched some highlights of Julius Erving in the ABA he was a better rebounder and scorer.