Julius Erving vs Kevin Durant

[Lebron23]

Better small forward Julius Erving or Kevin Durant??

[ILLsmak]

If you already have a system kd might be goat. Put him instead of kobe on lal 3 peat, even lal b2b.

Exchange both with ivo early 00s and dr j prol better.

-Smak

[Meticode]

Durant > Erving in every metric of a player. Better stats in almost every single statistical category and he has more accolades than Erving.

https://www.landofbasketball.com/player_comparison/kevin_durant_vs_julius_erving.htm

My question is why is this even a question?

[Phoenix]

Durant > Erving in every metric of a player. Better stats in almost every single statistical category and he has more accolades than Erving.

https://www.landofbasketball.com/player_comparison/kevin_durant_vs_julius_erving.htm

My question is why is this even a question?

Because some basketball fans have so much reverence for the OGs that we're afraid to say some of them have been passed as players, if not yet legacies which grow with the passage of time. Guys like Jerry West and Oscar, all due respect to their contributions, have been passed by Steph at this point but he's still too fresh and current, so we need his career to pass so this can be viewed with a clear lense in a few decades

[ShawkFactory]

Because some basketball fans have so much reverence for the OGs that we're afraid to say some of them have been passed as players, if not yet legacies which grow with the passage of time. Guys like Jerry West and Oscar, all due respect to their contributions, have been passed by Steph at this point but he's still too fresh and current, so we need his career to pass so this can be viewed with a clear lense in a few decades

I don't know that it's a fear so much as it's a complete unknown (shoutout Timmy Chalamet who killed it). What would Dr. J look like in this league? We have absolutely no idea.

And because we have no idea I think it's appropriate to revere them for the dominance and influence they had in their time. Not to say that should outweigh current dominance/influence, but it can be looked at equally. But KD > J is not a sure thing. Even if we're just counting accolades, if you include the ABA then J had 4 MVPs and 3 rings.

[Phoenix]

I don't know that it's a fear so much as it's a complete unknown (shoutout Timmy Chalamet who killed it). What would Dr. J look like in this league? We have absolutely no idea.

And because we have no idea I think it's appropriate to revere them for the dominance and influence they had in their time. Not to say that should outweigh current dominance/influence, but it can be looked at equally. But KD > J is not a sure thing. Even if we're just counting accolades, if you include the ABA then J had 4 MVPs and 3 rings.

It is an unknown but it seems like alot of people just default to the former player as being better when there is no way to really compare them across completely different eras. I didn't see Doc when he was playing, but looking at( at the least) his NBA accolades the level of era dominance seems comparable or maybe leans slightly his way, but accolades are circumstantial. I think the biggest knock on KD is winning two titles on an already dominant Warriors team didn't give him the props he thought he would get, and he hasn't been able to win a title outside of that situation ( and not due to lack of talent).

As for how Dr. J would look today, I default to the viewpoint that NBA 'alltime greats' are great due to innate talent which would develop skillsets relevant to the era. So I wouldn't just pluck 1980 Dr.J and drop him into today, I would give the benefit of doubt that he would do what all modern players do: develop a 3point shot and his ball-handling would reflect today's rules. KD in 1980 would similarly look like a player who came along in the 70s, and not one who came along in the 2000s/2010s. Stylistically, he'd likely resemble someone like Alex English alot more than the guy you've seen since 2007.

[ShawkFactory]

It is an unknown but it seems like alot of people just default to the former player as being better when there is no way to really compare them across completely different eras. I didn't see Doc when he was playing, but looking at( at the least) his NBA accolades the level of era dominance seems comparable or maybe leans slightly his way, but accolades are circumstantial. I think the biggest knock on KD is winning two titles on an already dominant Warriors team didn't give him the props he thought he would get, and he hasn't been able to win a title outside of that situation ( and not due to lack of talent).

As for how Dr. J would look today, I default to the viewpoint that NBA 'alltime greats' are great due to innate talent which would develop skillsets relevant to the era. So I wouldn't just pluck 1980 Dr.J and drop him into today, I would give the benefit of doubt that he would do what all modern players do: develop a 3point shot and his ball-handling would reflect today's rules. KD in 1980 would similarly look like a player who came along in the 70s, and not one who came along in the 2000s/2010s. Stylistically, he'd likely resemble someone like Alex English alot more than the guy you've seen since 2007.

So you agree that it's completely pointless to compare KD and Doc. It's impossible.

I know the current 3 point conversation revolves around Steph and rightfully so, but KD is low key as influential. Lot's of skinny 6'10 guys handling and launching now and I don't think that really existed before KD. Maybe Tmac had a say but he wasn't as long.

[warriorfan]

send kd in a time machine to the 70’s and his skinny ass would be getting cucked hard by J

[John8204]

I personally rank Dr. J over Durant. I can concede that Durants game is GOAT worthy but the success hasn't been there. But Dr J was far more accomplished...he didn't bounce around from Super Team to Super Team like Durant. He had 3 MVP's and 3 Titles...he was never injured, he was the second man to hit 30K points behind Wilt.

[iamgine]

Better? Definitely Durant. Dr J couldn't shoot threes and that alone is a huge deal.

[John8204]

Better? Definitely Durant. Dr J couldn't shoot threes and that alone is a huge deal.

KD can't play a full season, or win a title with MVP level talent/allstars.

in 2k you take Durant but in real life...it's Doc

[Phoenix]

So you agree that it's completely pointless to compare KD and Doc. It's impossible.

I know the current 3 point conversation revolves around Steph and rightfully so, but KD is low key as influential. Lot's of skinny 6'10 guys handling and launching now and I don't think that really existed before KD. Maybe Tmac had a say but he wasn't as long.

More or less. Generally I think the NBA has been around too long now to be able to accurately compare guys whose careers are 30-40 years apart. Plus, I try my hardest to avoid speaking too much about players I didn't really see much of. Me trying to speak with any degree of authority about Dr. J is like some of these 20 year olds who think youtube makes then an expert on the 90s.

As for KD, I see him as an evolution of Dirk, a 7 foot sniper but he added more athleticism and guard skills.

[Phoenix]

Better? Definitely Durant. Dr J couldn't shoot threes and that alone is a huge deal.

For a guy whose peak was before the 3point shot even came into the league, why would this be a fair knock? How hard is it really to judge people based on their eras? KD coming up in the 70s wouldn't be shooting 3's either. By this logic basically everyone who came before the 3point revolution is inherently inferior. Do we really want to boil the conversation down to that metric?

The best way to judge players across nearly 80 years is how dominant they were against their era, not someone who played 40 years before or after them.

[John8204]

For a guy whose peak was before the 3point shot even came into the league, why would this be a fair knock? How hard is it really to judge people based on their eras? KD coming up in the 70s wouldn't be shooting 3's either. By this logic basically everyone who came before the 3point revolution is inherently inferior. Do we really want to boil the conversation down to that metric?

The best way to judge players across nearly 80 years is how dominant they were against their era, not someone who played 40 years before or after them.

i agree the norms of Basketball change with every generation

[L.Kizzle]

Better? Definitely Durant. Dr J couldn't shoot threes and that alone is a huge deal.
The season the Sixers won the title, he shot the least attempts in his career at 7. So, they actually win when he takes less 3 point attempts.
On the other hand, in the ABA his first championship with the Nets he shot 40% from 3 point land (only took 43 but stilstill... you get the picture.)
Would you not pick Giannis over someone because he can't shoot 3s because that's basically what Dr J was. A smaller Giannis.

[dankok8]

Instead of being stuck in the time machine argument between completely different eras, just compare them on how good they were relative to the league they played in.

In my eyes, it's dead even maybe even KD is slightly better if you compare them just in the NBA but if you include ABA then I'd give the edge to the Doctor. 1976 Dr J reached a level that KD never did.

[1987_Lakers]

1976 Dr J reached a level that KD never did.

ABA, lol.

There is a reason Dr. J's game fell considerably once he entered the NBA, the competition/defense was better. Erving was still at his physical peak when he joined the Sixers.

He did have a few MVP caliber seasons in the early 80's but I personally feel he is kinda overrated by casuals for the fact that he was basically MJ before MJ in terms of marketability & popularity. Dr. J was more athletic, but he wasn't nearly as skilled as KD as a scorer & ball handler.

[L.Kizzle]

ABA, lol.

There is a reason Dr. J's game fell considerably once he entered the NBA, the competition/defense was better. Erving was still at his physical peak when he joined the Sixers.

He did have a few MVP caliber seasons in the early 80's but I personally feel he is kinda overrated by casuals for the fact that he was basically MJ before MJ in terms of marketability & popularity. Dr. J was more athletic, but he wasn't nearly as skilled as KD as a scorer & ball handler.
Lol, Dr J got to the NBA and literally led the Sixers to the NBA Finals.
How many ABA teammates can you name.
He got the the Sixers and actually didn't have to score 35 a night now. The 2nd best player from that team was also from the ABA, George McGinnis.

77, 80 and 82 he led his team to the Finals. 81, games 7 of East Conference Finals. 78 and 79, lost in the 2nd round to the eventual champs.

[dankok8]

ABA, lol.

There is a reason Dr. J's game fell considerably once he entered the NBA, the competition/defense was better. Erving was still at his physical peak when he joined the Sixers.

He did have a few MVP caliber seasons in the early 80's but I personally feel he is kinda overrated by casuals for the fact that he was basically MJ before MJ in terms of marketability & popularity. Dr. J was more athletic, but he wasn't nearly as skilled as KD as a scorer & ball handler.

There is more context there including playing on a team with a lot of scorers in Philly. He definitely could have scored more as evidence by his Finals numbers. Dr J was probably the best player in the league in the late 70's after Kareem, similar to how KD was the best after Lebron for several years. They are similar level. Obviously ABA is much weaker that's why I said that the way I did.

Dr J is also the better slasher, physically stronger, better rebounder... They had different strengths as players.

[John8204]

ABA, lol.

There is a reason Dr. J's game fell considerably once he entered the NBA, the competition/defense was better. Erving was still at his physical peak when he joined the Sixers.

He did have a few MVP caliber seasons in the early 80's but I personally feel he is kinda overrated by casuals for the fact that he was basically MJ before MJ in terms of marketability & popularity. Dr. J was more athletic, but he wasn't nearly as skilled as KD as a scorer & ball handler.

His game dropped off because he was playing against dynasty's but he was still making All-Star appearences, MVP rankings, and title runs well into the end of his career. Durant is one of the best players on paper to ever play, but he hasn't been able to translate his game when playing with the most talent in the league. Also I don't know why you are trashing the ABA, it was the better league and closest to what modern NBA is today.

[Phoenix]

Instead of being stuck in the time machine argument between completely different eras, just compare them on how good they were relative to the league they played in.


Exactly my point, and even that isn't an exact science. The strength of the league hasn't been consistent over its history so relative dominance also requires the proper context.

[iamgine]

For a guy whose peak was before the 3point shot even came into the league, why would this be a fair knock? How hard is it really to judge people based on their eras? KD coming up in the 70s wouldn't be shooting 3's either. By this logic basically everyone who came before the 3point revolution is inherently inferior. Do we really want to boil the conversation down to that metric?

The best way to judge players across nearly 80 years is how dominant they were against their era, not someone who played 40 years before or after them.

It's not a knock. Just like if we say Bam Adebayo is much better than George Mikan. It's just reality. Mikan was a lot more dominant in his era, and a much greater player overall. But Bam is just a better player. Heck, Kwame Brown probably was much better than Mikan.

[Phoenix]

It's not a knock. Just like if we say Bam Adebayo is much better than George Mikan. It's just reality. Mikan was a lot more dominant in his era, and a much greater player overall. But Bam is just a better player. Heck, Kwame Brown probably was much better than Mikan.

Except your entire premise for him being better is based on the 3point shot, which you said earlier is a huge deal, as if Dr. J didn't have advantages in things like slashing, finishing inside and rebounding. You're rating the 3 point shot as having higher value based on what it represents in todays game, ignoring that Dr. J played during the infancy of the shot being used in the NBA. Again, by your logic he's superior to everyone who played before the 3point shot was a major part of the game.

So yes, you are in essence knocking Doc for a specific skill his era didn't ask of him nor anyone else. Whereas things like driving, finishing and rebounding were and are inherent parts of the game no matter the time period. I don't even have a major issue with someone saying KD is better, but 'because he shoots 3's better' is a low-hanging fruit argument.

[iamgine]

Except your entire premise for him being better is based on the 3point shot, which you said earlier is a huge deal, as if Dr. J didn't have advantages in things like slashing, finishing inside and rebounding. You're rating the 3 point shot as having higher value based on what it represents in todays game, ignoring that Dr. J played during the infancy of the shot being used in the NBA. Again, by your logic he's superior to everyone who played before the 3point shot was a major part of the game.

So yes, you are in essence knocking Doc for a specific skill his era didn't ask of him nor anyone else. Whereas things like driving, finishing and rebounding were and are inherent parts of the game no matter the time period. I don't even have a major issue with someone saying KD is better, but 'because he shoots 3's better' is a low-hanging fruit argument.
Actually yes. KD might be superior to everyone in his position who doesn't shoot 3s. Such as Dr J.

[Phoenix]

Actually yes. KD might be superior to everyone in his position who doesn't shoot 3s. Such as Dr J.

Clever wording. Bird 'shot 3s' but also came along in an era where the shot wasn't prioritized. So on account of KD being a better 3point shooter based on volume/efficiency, would you have him over Bird as well?

KD could fairly be ranked as the 3rd or 4th best SF ever, but 'because he shot 3's better than those who didn't' isn't at the top of the reasons why. You haven't given any reason for why the 3point shot trumps Dr. J having advantages in other categories. You've just unilaterally determined that the 3pointer is the main metric for comparison. Which subsequently extends beyond the positional comparisons and then you're going down the rabbit hole of anyone who shoots 3's being better than those who didn't, even if those who didn't were better in other facets of the game. Again, KD being a flat-out better player isn't really a crazy take, but there has to be smarter arguments for why than what you're presenting.

[iamgine]

Clever wording. Bird 'shot 3s' but also came along in an era where the shot wasn't prioritized. So on account of KD being a better 3point shooter based on volume/efficiency, would you have him over Bird as well?

KD could fairly be ranked as the 3rd or 4th best SF ever, but 'because he shot 3's better than those who didn't' isn't at the top of the reasons why. You haven't given any reason for why the 3point shot trumps Dr. J having advantages in other categories. You've just unilaterally determined that the 3pointer is the main metric for comparison. Which subsequently extends beyond the positional comparisons and then you're going down the rabbit hole of anyone who shoots 3's being better than those who didn't, even if those who didn't were better in other facets of the game. Again, KD being a flat-out better player isn't really a crazy take, but there has to be smarter arguments for why than what you're presenting.

Dr J didn't have enough advantages in other categories to offset the complete lack of 3s. There's no smarter argument. Only people trying to sound smart.

[Phoenix]

Dr J didn't have enough advantages in other categories to offset the complete lack of 3s. There's no smarter argument. Only people trying to sound smart.

Or people being intellectually dishonest and creating arguments on unequal grounds, or overrating one specific component to disadvantage one side because they otherwise lack nuance and willfully ignore context. Because you lack the means to express them doesn't mean better arguments don't exist.

[1987_Lakers]

There is more context there including playing on a team with a lot of scorers in Philly. He definitely could have scored more as evidence by his Finals numbers. Dr J was probably the best player in the league in the late 70's after Kareem, similar to how KD was the best after Lebron for several years. They are similar level. Obviously ABA is much weaker that's why I said that the way I did.

This is false, Sixers had the #6 ranked offense in '77 which is good, but they were not some offensive juggernaut. Durant actually joined a team with a historic offense and was still putting up more points than Erving. In '79, the Sixers had one of the worst offenses in the league and Dr. J only averaged 23 PPG. Other than his rookie year when he was 19 years old, KD never had a season where he averaged that low in points.

Dr. J played 3 NBA seasons in the 70's, only one of those years did he make All-NBA First Team. Even to call him the 2nd best player in the late 70's behind Kareem is a stretch. Walton when healthy was clearly better, hell you could even make a case for George Gervin being better during the late 70's.

[SouBeachTalents]

The drop off in production from the ABA to the NBA is too jarring to ignore. He went from 29/12/5 to 24/7/4 before Moses got there, and he joined the NBA at 26 so you can't possibly blame it on age or decline. I'm confident KD could've won 3 MVP's too if his biggest competition in the league was Artis Gilmore & Bobby Jones.

I think you can make a reasonable argument for Dr. J, but based strictly off NBA performance, it'd be hard to not take KD.

[iamgine]

Or people being intellectually dishonest and creating arguments on unequal grounds, or overrating one specific component to disadvantage one side because they otherwise lack nuance and willfully ignore context. Because you lack the means to express them doesn't mean better arguments don't exist.

People being intellectually dishonest trying to sound smart...I agree with that.

[Phoenix]

My biggest issue with KD isn't really talent based, it's more things like intangibles and leadership which don't show up on the basketball reference stat pages. He's not lacking in ability compared to, like, 95% of anyone whose ever played but it is telling that the only chips he won( and looking like he will ever win) came in the context of a system where he could just 'ball' and not have the pressures of leadership and galvanizing the lockerroom. He was like the worlds best insurance policy and exponentially increased the margin of error that Warriors team had.

[Phoenix]

People being intellectually dishonest trying to sound smart...I agree with that.

No, it's not trying to sound smart. It's just coming up with arguments that would at least pass the critical thinking skills of a 5 year old. Try harder.

[1987_Lakers]

My biggest issue with KD isn't really talent based, it's more things like intangibles and leadership which don't show up on the basketball reference stat pages. He's not lacking in ability compared to, like, 95% of anyone whose ever played but it is telling that the only chips he won( and looking like he will ever win) came in the context of a system where he could just 'ball' and not have the pressures of leadership and galvanizing the lockerroom. He was like the worlds best insurance policy and exponentially increased the margin of error that Warriors team had.

That's a legit issue. One of my problems with him as well. I believe Dr. J was a better leader, Barkley credits Dr. J for making him grow up. Funny enough, both Dr. J & Durant never won NBA titles as the #1 guy. Dr. J needed Moses who was a better player at that point to join the Sixers to finally win a title, Durant even though he won FMVP joined a stacked Warriors team where Curry is seen as the better player.

[L.Kizzle]

The drop off in production from the ABA to the NBA is too jarring to ignore. He went from 29/12/5 to 24/7/4 before Moses got there, and he joined the NBA at 26 so you can't possibly blame it on age or decline. I'm confident KD could've won 3 MVP's too if his biggest competition in the league was Artis Gilmore & Bobby Jones.

I think you can make a reasonable argument for Dr. J, but based strictly off NBA performance, it'd be hard to not take KD.
Everyone's from the ABA to NBA dropped. ABA played a faster pace of ball than the NBA at that time.
The drop off in production is moot because he STILL takes the Sixers to 3 Finals. You know how many teams went to the Finals 3 times from 77-82? The Sixers.

[Phoenix]

That's a legit issue. One of my problems with him as well. I believe Dr. J was a better leader, Barkley credits Dr. J for making him grow up. Funny enough, both Dr. J & Durant never won NBA titles as the #1 guy. Dr. J needed Moses who was a better player at that point to join the Sixers to finally win a title, Durant even though he won FMVP joined a stacked Warriors team where Curry is seen as the better player.

It feels a bit weird to say but it kinda feels like KD has slightly under-achieved relative to his talent. Oh he'll play for 20 years and amass tons of points and all-nba awards and the like, but it just feels to me like a single MVP award and (likely final count) 2 titles won under the circumstances he won doesn't align with his talent and ability. It goes back to the intangibles argument, at some point how you apply your skills and how your team feeds off them and vice versa is as important as the skills themselves. Like, I think KD may be a more gifted talent than Duncan but Timmy ended up being so much greater as a leader and winner with GOAT intangibles, and it's not like KD hasn't always played with all-nba level talent through his career.

[iamgine]

No, it's not trying to sound smart. It's just coming up with arguments that would at least pass the critical thinking skills of a 5 year old. Try harder.
It really is.

[Phoenix]

It really is.

No, it really isn't.

[iamgine]

That's a legit issue. One of my problems with him as well. I believe Dr. J was a better leader, Barkley credits Dr. J for making him grow up. Funny enough, both Dr. J & Durant never won NBA titles as the #1 guy. Dr. J needed Moses who was a better player at that point to join the Sixers to finally win a title, Durant even though he won FMVP joined a stacked Warriors team where Curry is seen as the better player.

Of course Dr J was a better leader and not a huge b!tch coward like Durant.

But as for the better player, it's clearly Durant.

[Street Hunger]

this is actually a very interesting comparison

[dankok8]

This is false, Sixers had the #6 ranked offense in '77 which is good, but they were not some offensive juggernaut. Durant actually joined a team with a historic offense and was still putting up more points than Erving. In '79, the Sixers had one of the worst offenses in the league and Dr. J only averaged 23 PPG. Other than his rookie year when he was 19 years old, KD never had a season where he averaged that low in points.

Dr. J played 3 NBA seasons in the 70's, only one of those years did he make All-NBA First Team. Even to call him the 2nd best player in the late 70's behind Kareem is a stretch. Walton when healthy was clearly better, hell you could even make a case for George Gervin being better during the late 70's.

The Sixers lacked a PG and other than Dawkins and Erving, the others guys were negatives on defense. It was just a poorly constructed team with lots of scorers until about 1980 when Cheeks, Bobby Jones, Toney etc. came on and a cohesive and balanced team was formed. 1st Team All-NBA isn't a good criterion to measure greatness. Kareem himself wasn't 1st Team for a few years in the 70's. So what... he was still the best in the world.