The Tape
Was Julius Erving better than Steve Nash?
Julius Erving, 1971-1987, against Steve Nash, 1996-2015. The numbers levelled to one league, then the call.
Method, stated plainly: scoring is adjusted to a league averaging 114 points per team per game. Rebounds and assists are printed as they were recorded, with the league scoring rate beside them, because a rebound in 1962 came out of a different number of missed shots and we will not pretend one multiplier fixes that. Career lines for active players run through 2024-25.
What the numbers say
Adjusted to a league averaging 114 points a game, Julius Erving is the bigger scorer: 28.1 a game in 1979-80 against 21.5 for Steve Nash in 2006-07. That is a real gap of 6.6 points, not an era illusion — Julius Erving's league averaged 109.3 and Steve Nash's averaged 98.7.
Julius Erving wins the glass by 3.9 rebounds a game (7.4 to 3.5), which in his era meant standing in traffic rather than waiting for a long one.
Steve Nash is the passer: 11.6 assists a game to 4.6, and that is the difference between running an offense and finishing one.
Julius Erving: The player who made the game vertical, with 5 of his best seasons spent in a league the record books treat separately. Steve Nash: Two MVPs for running the offense that the entire league copied within 10 years.
The numbers are free. The verdict is in the Vault.
13 Dossiers, every Dispatch ever sent, and the Tape. One payment, $39, yours for good. The archive keeps growing every morning after you have paid.
Every pairing in the file makes the call in writing, and pass holders read all of them.
5 Dispatches in the archive so far, and one more every morning. 14-day refund, no questions asked.
The next argument
Get the Dispatch
One email a day: what happened last night, and the game, player or era from history it rhymes with. Four minutes at breakfast, free forever.
Free forever. One tap to leave.