Sign up to save your podcasts
Or
Share The Formula Ranks Julius Erving #21. The ABA Is Why It's Complicated.
Share to email
Share to Facebook
Share to X
Share to email
Share to Facebook
Share to X
Or
The Formula Ranks Julius Erving #21. The ABA Is Why It's Complicated.
netwins.substack.com
Every ranking system that tries to evaluate Julius Erving eventually hits the same wall.
The NBA numbers are excellent but incomplete. He played 11 NBA seasons with the Philadelphia 76ers and produced 48.8 regular season Net Wins — a career you’d expect to land someone in the top 15 all time. But before the NBA there were five ABA seasons with the Virginia Squires and New York Nets, and those five seasons are where the argument actually lives.
The Net Wins formula now includes ABA data for every player who competed in the league, discounted by a user-adjustable weight to account for the difference in competitive level. The default is 90 cents on the dollar every ABA Net Win counts as 0.9 NBA Net Wins.
At that 90% discount, Erving’s combined total is 69.6. He ranks #21 all time.
Change the discount slider to 100% full credit for every ABA win and his combined jumps to 72.1, passing Kevin Durant and pulling even with Kobe Bryant in the top 20.
Drop it to 50% the skeptic’s position and he’s still at 62.6, which ranks him 25th or 26th. Even the harshest possible discount on his ABA career leaves him firmly in the top 30.
The question this profile is really asking is: how much was the ABA worth?
The NBA Career, Alone
Before getting into the ABA debate, it’s worth establishing what Erving did in the NBA by itself, because the “he was just an ABA star” framing undersells his 11 seasons in Philadelphia significantly.
Here is every NBA season:
1976-77: +3.34 · Philadelphia, 50-32, first NBA season 1977-78: +4.31 · Philadelphia, 55-27 1978-79: +1.90 · Philadelphia, 47-35 weakest NBA season 1979-80: +6.43 · Philadelphia, 59-23 first peak, Finals appearance 1980-81: +7.55 · Career NBA peak 62 wins, Finals appearance 1981-82: +5.78 · Philadelphia, 58-24 1982-83: +6.38 · Philadelphia, 65-17 NBA championship 1983-84: +3.82 · Philadelphia, 52-30 1984-85: +4.71 · Philadelphia, 58-24 Finals appearance 1985-86: +3.11 · Philadelphia, 54-28 1986-87: +1.45 · Philadelphia, 45-37 final season
NBA regular season total: 48.8 net wins across 11 seasons. Average: 4.43 per season.
That average is higher than Kevin Garnett (2.65), higher than Dirk Nowitzki (3.35), higher than Charles Barkley (3.07). It’s higher than most players in the entire database. The formula sees an 11-year NBA career of genuine excellence not a declining star whose prime happened somewhere else.
The playoff record adds another 4.28 Net Wins across all 11 playoff appearances, including a 1982-83 championship season where the Sixers went 12-1.
So: 52.5 combined net wins on NBA data alone. That ranks him around 27th or 28th all time without a single ABA season counted. The ABA is a bonus, not a foundation.
The ABA Seasons
The five ABA seasons are where the formula produces its most interesting numbers and where the most important methodological question lives.
1971-72: +0.34 · Virginia Squires, 45-39 rookie year, 21 years old 1972-73: +0.85 · Virginia Squires, 42-42 development season 1973-74: +5.82 · New York Nets, 55-29 first ABA championship 1974-75: +6.56 · New York Nets, 58-26 ABA peak, second championship 1975-76: +5.49 · New York Nets, 55-29 final ABA season
ABA raw total: 19.1 net wins across 5 seasons.
Notice the shape of those numbers. The first two ABA seasons at 21 and 22 years old on a mediocre Virginia Squires team produced almost nothing by this formula. +0.34 and +0.85 are effectively zero. Then Erving joined the New York Nets, and the formula sees exactly what happened: three consecutive elite seasons, two championships, and some of the most dominant individual performance in the history of professional basketball.
His ABA peak of +6.56 in 1974-75 is nearly identical to his NBA peak of +7.55 in 1980-81. Whatever competitive gap existed between the leagues, Erving’s individual contributions to wins converted at essentially the same rate in both. That is a meaningful data point.
The Discount Debate
The 90% default isn’t arbitrary, but it isn’t provable either. Here is what each discount level implies and what it would take to justify it.
100% discount (full credit): The ABA was equivalent to the NBA. This is the maximalist position. It’s hard to defend completely the ABA drew from a smaller talent pool and had less depth but the top end of the ABA was unquestionably NBA quality. The Nets, Colonels, and Nuggets would have competed in the NBA playoffs. Erving at 100% ranks #20 all time.
90% discount (the default): The ABA was 90% as competitive as the NBA. This is a reasonable center position. It acknowledges the talent gap without dismissing five seasons of dominance on championship-caliber teams. Erving at 90% ranks #21 all time.
75% discount: The ABA was significantly inferior closer to a high-level minor league than a true competitor. This is aggressive but defensible given the small markets, financial instability, and uneven roster depth outside the top teams. Erving at 75% ranks #22 or 23 all time essentially unchanged.
50% discount: The ABA was worth half an NBA season. This is the skeptic’s floor. At this level, Erving’s ABA career contributes 9.5 net wins meaningful but not transformative. He still ranks 25th or 26th. The 50% position requires believing that ABA championships were essentially exhibition wins, which the historical record doesn’t support.
The striking thing about running these numbers is how stable Erving’s ranking is across the range. Whether you believe the ABA at 50% or 100%, you get essentially the same answer: he belongs in the top 25 all time, and probably the top 22.
The only scenario where the ABA discount changes his story dramatically is if you believe the NBA-only case puts him outside the top 30 and it doesn’t. His 11 NBA seasons alone produce a top-28 career. The ABA is additional evidence, not the foundation.
What the Formula Misses
The Net Wins formula counts points, rebounds, assists, steals, and blocks. It does not count dunks.
That sounds like a joke. It isn’t.
Julius Erving redefined what basketball could look like. The 1976 ABA Slam Dunk Contest. The baseline move against the Lakers in the 1983 Finals. The degree of difficulty he brought to routine plays. None of that appears in the formula’s inputs. The formula sees a player whose positive contributions converted into wins at a 4.43 per season rate across 11 NBA seasons. It does not see the most influential individual player of his generation, the man who made the NBA worth watching to an entire demographic, the person David Stern later credited as central to the league’s survival and growth.
That cultural contribution is real and significant. The formula has no opinion about it, which is not the same as saying it doesn’t matter. It means the formula is measuring one specific thing contextual contribution to wins and that specific thing lands Erving at #21.
If you believe cultural impact deserves weight in an all-time ranking, Erving moves up. How far is a matter of judgment the formula deliberately avoids.
How Other Lists Rank Him
Ranking list Erving’s rank Notes
Net Wins (this formula) #21 At 90% ABA discount
Net Wins at 100% ABA #20 Passes Durant, ties Kobe
Net Wins at 50% ABA #26 NBA career alone is #28
ESPN Top 100 (2020) #11 High ABA credit implied
BR All-Time VORP #18 Strong peak value captured
Bill Simmons Pyramid #13 ”Level 2” — untouchable
NBA 75th Anniversary Team NamedOne of the 75 greatest
BR HoF Probability100% Easy first-ballot
The conventional consensus puts Erving around 11th to 15th all time, significantly higher than this formula’s 21st. The gap reflects something specific: most traditional ranking systems give full or near-full credit for ABA accomplishments, while this formula’s 90% default applies a modest but consistent discount.
At 100% ABA credit, the gap nearly closes. At 90%, the formula is saying exactly this: Erving’s ABA career was great, but the competitive discount matters, and his NBA career, while excellent, doesn’t rank quite as highly as the cultural narrative around him suggests.
The Larger Argument
Julius Erving presents the cleanest possible test case for the ABA discount question. His career splits almost perfectly into two halves, five ABA seasons of dominance followed by 11 NBA seasons of excellence, with a clear championship in each league.
The formula’s answer is consistent across discount levels: he belongs in the top 25 all time, and the precise position depends almost entirely on how you value the ABA.
That is not a knockdown argument for or against any specific ranking. It is a precise description of exactly where the uncertainty lives. Most ranking systems don’t tell you that. They give you a number and imply it’s settled.
This one tells you: if you think the ABA was 90% as good as the NBA, Erving is 21st. If you think it was 75%, he’s 22nd. If you think it was 100%, he’s 20th. The difference between those positions is a single assumption about competitive context.
The interactive database lets you move the slider yourself. That is the honest way to rank Julius Erving.
By the Numbers
24,815 Career points (NBA + ABA) 10,525 Career rebounds 5,176 Career assists 2 ABA championships 1 NBA championship 4 MVP awards
What Others Saw
“There has never been a player who meant more to a league than Julius Erving meant to the ABA. And I don’t think there’s been a player who meant more to the survival of the NBA in its darkest moment than Julius Erving did in the early 1980s.” — David Stern, NBA Commissioner
“Julius Erving was the reason I wanted to play basketball. Not for what he did on the stat sheet. For what he made possible — for the idea that the game could be something more than just winning.” — Magic Johnson
“You couldn’t stop him. You could try to make it harder, but there was always a play he had that you hadn’t seen. He was ahead of everyone — the game caught up to him eventually, but for a long time he was playing a different sport.” — Larry Bird
The full Net Wins database, 295 NBA players and every season from 1946 to 2026, is free at willf123.github.io/nba-net-wins.
Next: Shaquille O’Neal at #6. Subscribe to get it when it drops.
© 2026 Will Fiore. Net Wins formula and all written content are original works. All rights reserved.
Get full access to NET WINS at netwins.substack.com/subscribe
The full Net Wins database, Every season from 1946 to 2026, is free at willf123.github.io/nba-net-wins.
© 2026 Will Fiore. Net Wins formula and all written content are original works. All rights reserved.
Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.
View all episodes
By Net Winsnetwins.substack.com
Every ranking system that tries to evaluate Julius Erving eventually hits the same wall.
The NBA numbers are excellent but incomplete. He played 11 NBA seasons with the Philadelphia 76ers and produced 48.8 regular season Net Wins — a career you’d expect to land someone in the top 15 all time. But before the NBA there were five ABA seasons with the Virginia Squires and New York Nets, and those five seasons are where the argument actually lives.
The Net Wins formula now includes ABA data for every player who competed in the league, discounted by a user-adjustable weight to account for the difference in competitive level. The default is 90 cents on the dollar every ABA Net Win counts as 0.9 NBA Net Wins.
At that 90% discount, Erving’s combined total is 69.6. He ranks #21 all time.
Change the discount slider to 100% full credit for every ABA win and his combined jumps to 72.1, passing Kevin Durant and pulling even with Kobe Bryant in the top 20.
Drop it to 50% the skeptic’s position and he’s still at 62.6, which ranks him 25th or 26th. Even the harshest possible discount on his ABA career leaves him firmly in the top 30.
The question this profile is really asking is: how much was the ABA worth?
The NBA Career, Alone
Before getting into the ABA debate, it’s worth establishing what Erving did in the NBA by itself, because the “he was just an ABA star” framing undersells his 11 seasons in Philadelphia significantly.
Here is every NBA season:
1976-77: +3.34 · Philadelphia, 50-32, first NBA season 1977-78: +4.31 · Philadelphia, 55-27 1978-79: +1.90 · Philadelphia, 47-35 weakest NBA season 1979-80: +6.43 · Philadelphia, 59-23 first peak, Finals appearance 1980-81: +7.55 · Career NBA peak 62 wins, Finals appearance 1981-82: +5.78 · Philadelphia, 58-24 1982-83: +6.38 · Philadelphia, 65-17 NBA championship 1983-84: +3.82 · Philadelphia, 52-30 1984-85: +4.71 · Philadelphia, 58-24 Finals appearance 1985-86: +3.11 · Philadelphia, 54-28 1986-87: +1.45 · Philadelphia, 45-37 final season
NBA regular season total: 48.8 net wins across 11 seasons. Average: 4.43 per season.
That average is higher than Kevin Garnett (2.65), higher than Dirk Nowitzki (3.35), higher than Charles Barkley (3.07). It’s higher than most players in the entire database. The formula sees an 11-year NBA career of genuine excellence not a declining star whose prime happened somewhere else.
The playoff record adds another 4.28 Net Wins across all 11 playoff appearances, including a 1982-83 championship season where the Sixers went 12-1.
So: 52.5 combined net wins on NBA data alone. That ranks him around 27th or 28th all time without a single ABA season counted. The ABA is a bonus, not a foundation.
The ABA Seasons
The five ABA seasons are where the formula produces its most interesting numbers and where the most important methodological question lives.
1971-72: +0.34 · Virginia Squires, 45-39 rookie year, 21 years old 1972-73: +0.85 · Virginia Squires, 42-42 development season 1973-74: +5.82 · New York Nets, 55-29 first ABA championship 1974-75: +6.56 · New York Nets, 58-26 ABA peak, second championship 1975-76: +5.49 · New York Nets, 55-29 final ABA season
ABA raw total: 19.1 net wins across 5 seasons.
Notice the shape of those numbers. The first two ABA seasons at 21 and 22 years old on a mediocre Virginia Squires team produced almost nothing by this formula. +0.34 and +0.85 are effectively zero. Then Erving joined the New York Nets, and the formula sees exactly what happened: three consecutive elite seasons, two championships, and some of the most dominant individual performance in the history of professional basketball.
His ABA peak of +6.56 in 1974-75 is nearly identical to his NBA peak of +7.55 in 1980-81. Whatever competitive gap existed between the leagues, Erving’s individual contributions to wins converted at essentially the same rate in both. That is a meaningful data point.
The Discount Debate
The 90% default isn’t arbitrary, but it isn’t provable either. Here is what each discount level implies and what it would take to justify it.
100% discount (full credit): The ABA was equivalent to the NBA. This is the maximalist position. It’s hard to defend completely the ABA drew from a smaller talent pool and had less depth but the top end of the ABA was unquestionably NBA quality. The Nets, Colonels, and Nuggets would have competed in the NBA playoffs. Erving at 100% ranks #20 all time.
90% discount (the default): The ABA was 90% as competitive as the NBA. This is a reasonable center position. It acknowledges the talent gap without dismissing five seasons of dominance on championship-caliber teams. Erving at 90% ranks #21 all time.
75% discount: The ABA was significantly inferior closer to a high-level minor league than a true competitor. This is aggressive but defensible given the small markets, financial instability, and uneven roster depth outside the top teams. Erving at 75% ranks #22 or 23 all time essentially unchanged.
50% discount: The ABA was worth half an NBA season. This is the skeptic’s floor. At this level, Erving’s ABA career contributes 9.5 net wins meaningful but not transformative. He still ranks 25th or 26th. The 50% position requires believing that ABA championships were essentially exhibition wins, which the historical record doesn’t support.
The striking thing about running these numbers is how stable Erving’s ranking is across the range. Whether you believe the ABA at 50% or 100%, you get essentially the same answer: he belongs in the top 25 all time, and probably the top 22.
The only scenario where the ABA discount changes his story dramatically is if you believe the NBA-only case puts him outside the top 30 and it doesn’t. His 11 NBA seasons alone produce a top-28 career. The ABA is additional evidence, not the foundation.
What the Formula Misses
The Net Wins formula counts points, rebounds, assists, steals, and blocks. It does not count dunks.
That sounds like a joke. It isn’t.
Julius Erving redefined what basketball could look like. The 1976 ABA Slam Dunk Contest. The baseline move against the Lakers in the 1983 Finals. The degree of difficulty he brought to routine plays. None of that appears in the formula’s inputs. The formula sees a player whose positive contributions converted into wins at a 4.43 per season rate across 11 NBA seasons. It does not see the most influential individual player of his generation, the man who made the NBA worth watching to an entire demographic, the person David Stern later credited as central to the league’s survival and growth.
That cultural contribution is real and significant. The formula has no opinion about it, which is not the same as saying it doesn’t matter. It means the formula is measuring one specific thing contextual contribution to wins and that specific thing lands Erving at #21.
If you believe cultural impact deserves weight in an all-time ranking, Erving moves up. How far is a matter of judgment the formula deliberately avoids.
How Other Lists Rank Him
Ranking list Erving’s rank Notes
Net Wins (this formula) #21 At 90% ABA discount
Net Wins at 100% ABA #20 Passes Durant, ties Kobe
Net Wins at 50% ABA #26 NBA career alone is #28
ESPN Top 100 (2020) #11 High ABA credit implied
BR All-Time VORP #18 Strong peak value captured
Bill Simmons Pyramid #13 ”Level 2” — untouchable
NBA 75th Anniversary Team NamedOne of the 75 greatest
BR HoF Probability100% Easy first-ballot
The conventional consensus puts Erving around 11th to 15th all time, significantly higher than this formula’s 21st. The gap reflects something specific: most traditional ranking systems give full or near-full credit for ABA accomplishments, while this formula’s 90% default applies a modest but consistent discount.
At 100% ABA credit, the gap nearly closes. At 90%, the formula is saying exactly this: Erving’s ABA career was great, but the competitive discount matters, and his NBA career, while excellent, doesn’t rank quite as highly as the cultural narrative around him suggests.
The Larger Argument
Julius Erving presents the cleanest possible test case for the ABA discount question. His career splits almost perfectly into two halves, five ABA seasons of dominance followed by 11 NBA seasons of excellence, with a clear championship in each league.
The formula’s answer is consistent across discount levels: he belongs in the top 25 all time, and the precise position depends almost entirely on how you value the ABA.
That is not a knockdown argument for or against any specific ranking. It is a precise description of exactly where the uncertainty lives. Most ranking systems don’t tell you that. They give you a number and imply it’s settled.
This one tells you: if you think the ABA was 90% as good as the NBA, Erving is 21st. If you think it was 75%, he’s 22nd. If you think it was 100%, he’s 20th. The difference between those positions is a single assumption about competitive context.
The interactive database lets you move the slider yourself. That is the honest way to rank Julius Erving.
By the Numbers
24,815 Career points (NBA + ABA) 10,525 Career rebounds 5,176 Career assists 2 ABA championships 1 NBA championship 4 MVP awards
What Others Saw
“There has never been a player who meant more to a league than Julius Erving meant to the ABA. And I don’t think there’s been a player who meant more to the survival of the NBA in its darkest moment than Julius Erving did in the early 1980s.” — David Stern, NBA Commissioner
“Julius Erving was the reason I wanted to play basketball. Not for what he did on the stat sheet. For what he made possible — for the idea that the game could be something more than just winning.” — Magic Johnson
“You couldn’t stop him. You could try to make it harder, but there was always a play he had that you hadn’t seen. He was ahead of everyone — the game caught up to him eventually, but for a long time he was playing a different sport.” — Larry Bird
The full Net Wins database, 295 NBA players and every season from 1946 to 2026, is free at willf123.github.io/nba-net-wins.
Next: Shaquille O’Neal at #6. Subscribe to get it when it drops.
© 2026 Will Fiore. Net Wins formula and all written content are original works. All rights reserved.
Get full access to NET WINS at netwins.substack.com/subscribe
The full Net Wins database, Every season from 1946 to 2026, is free at willf123.github.io/nba-net-wins.
© 2026 Will Fiore. Net Wins formula and all written content are original works. All rights reserved.
Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.