Julius Erving vs Kevin Durant

[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.