Exposing Oscar Robertson

[griffmoney1784]

it didnt finally hit me till i saw him ranked top 5 on a magazines list of greatest players ever

1. 3 years from retirement he was the 3rd leading scorer on his team for his one and only ring

1970-71 Bucks

Playoff averages

1. Kareem Abdul Jabbar - 26.6ppg
2. Bob Dandridge - 19.2ppg
3. Oscar Robertson - 18.3ppg


2. he averages a triple double. but for the time he played his rebounding wasnt a great rebounder... not only did he only average double didget rebounds just 3 out of 14 years. for most of his career he averages around 6 rebounds

but not only that. a guy by the name of Elgin Baylor at the same height of 6-5 in the same season was able to grab 19 rebounds a game. and for most of his career ( which was around the same time as oscars ) was averaging over 12rpg for the most part.... proving that rebounding numbers were vastly inflated in the early 60's.


in todays nba a guy like oscar would be lucky to average 4 rebounds a game as a 6-5 pg.

and his one and only ring had about as much value as glen rice's did for the 2000 lakers.

in no way is he a top 5, or a top 10 player all time. averaging a triple double 1 season does not make him that.

hes top 15 in my book. time to wake up

[ShaqAttack3234]

it didnt finally hit me till i saw him ranked top 5 on a magazines list of greatest players ever

1. 3 years from retirement he was the 3rd leading scorer on his team for his one and only ring

1970-71 Bucks

Playoff averages

1. Kareem Abdul Jabbar - 26.6ppg
2. Bob Dandridge - 19.2ppg
3. Oscar Robertson - 18.3ppg


2. he averages a triple double. but for the time he played his rebounding wasnt a great rebounder... not only did he only average double didget rebounds just 3 out of 14 years. for most of his career he averages around 6 rebounds

but not only that. a guy by the name of Elgin Baylor at the same height of 6-5 in the same season was able to grab 19 rebounds a game. and for most of his career ( which was around the same time as oscars ) was averaging over 12rpg for the most part.... proving that rebounding numbers were vastly inflated in the early 60's.


in todays nba a guy like oscar would be lucky to average 4 rebounds a game as a 6-5 pg.

and his one and only ring had about as much value as glen rice's did for the 2000 lakers.

in no way is he a top 5, or a top 10 player all time. averaging a triple double 1 season does not make him that.

hes top 15 in my book. time to wake up

First of all, :oldlol: at comparing Oscar's role on the '71 Bucks to Rice on the '00 Lakers. Not even close, Rice was expendable on that team while Oscar was still one of the better guards in the league and easily the second best player on the '71 Bucks.

With that being said, I agree that he's overrated. Here are some posts I made about Oscar recently.


Oscar's triple double season is unbreakable because his team averaged around 125 possessions per 48 minutes instead of the 90-95 possesions per 48 that Shaq, Kobe and Duncan's teams got in the 2000's, that's the biggest problem I have with Oscar being ranked in the top 10. He had great stats, but not as historic when you consider the incredible pace. Plenty of players have put up great stats.

I just don't see an argument for Oscar over Shaq, Hakeem, Duncan or Kobe, all of whom won a lot more and dominated individually as well.



I'm not even talking about the quality of the players, just the stats in context, and I feel Oscar benefits a lot from people not putting the stats into perspective.

As far as team success, here are Oscar's Royals records.

1961- 33-46
1962- 43-37
1963- 42-38
1964- 55-25
1965- 48-32
1966- 45-35
1967- 39-42
1968- 39-43
1969- 41-41
1970- 36-46

He missed the playoffs 4 times in those seasons and won a total of 2 playoff series with Cincinnati. And the excuse that he played during the Celtics era doesn't work because they only lost to the Celtics 3 times in the playoffs, less than the amount of times Ewing's Knicks lost to Jordan's Bulls and the same amount of times that Barkley lost to Jordan's Bulls.

So, 2 playoff series wins, no finals appearances, one 50 win season.

And the supporting cast argument doesn't work unless you use it for Garnett, Robinson, Ewing ect.

Oscar entered the league with future hall of famer Jack Tyman who would make 2 all-star teams while playing with Robertson('62 and '63) and the all-nba second team in '62, Wayne Embry who made 5 consecutive all-star teams while playing with Robertson('61-'65) and then he got Jerry Lucas who made 6 consecutive all-star teams while playing with Oscar('64-'69) as well as 3 all-nba first teams and 2 all-nba second teams in those years. Adrian Smith also made the '66 all-star team while playing with Oscar and Tom Van Arsdale made the 1970 all-star team while playing with Oscar.

Can't see a valid argument for Oscar being top 10.

[griffmoney1784]

all im gonna say is... if kobe had 1 ring, and it came with an 18ppg average as a teams 3rd option...

he wouldnt even be top 20 all time in most peoples books. even if the dude had a historicly great stat line one year


these old farts dont know jack sh** about basketball... everyone from the 60's should just sit down and STFU...


you wont see me 40 years from now ranking guys like Gilbert arenas as one of the top players all time if he wins a ring riding dwight howards back.

:facepalm

[1987_Lakers]

He wasn't a good defender. His teammates thought he was an a.sshole. & he led his team to only one 50+ win season as the #1 man. Yes, he averaged a triple double, but the competition wasn't the best & stats are inflated due to pace. Look at how much his rebound numbers dropped once the pace slowed down, no way he averages a triple double in today's league. No Team Success at his peak. Considered a prick by teammates. Inflated stats. No way this dude is in the top 10. I got him at #12 on my list with West at #11 & Hakeem at #10.

[Showtime]

it didnt finally hit me till i saw him ranked top 5 on a magazines list of greatest players ever

1. 3 years from retirement he was the 3rd leading scorer on his team for his one and only ring

1970-71 Bucks

Playoff averages

1. Kareem Abdul Jabbar - 26.6ppg
2. Bob Dandridge - 19.2ppg
3. Oscar Robertson - 18.3ppg


Great way to reduce his total game down to PPG. Nice that you totally omit everything else. Oh, and btw once he left the bucks they went to shit, forcing Kareem to demand a trade to LA, where he helped bring some championships to the lakers. So...stop being retarded.


2. he averages a triple double. but for the time he played his rebounding wasnt a great rebounder... not only did he only average double didget rebounds just 3 out of 14 years. for most of his career he averages around 6 rebounds

He actually averaged a triple double if you look at the totals over his first 5 seasons. And he was doing this while playing with one of the league's top rebounders in Jerry Lucas.


but not only that. a guy by the name of Elgin Baylor at the same height of 6-5 in the same season was able to grab 19 rebounds a game. and for most of his career ( which was around the same time as oscars ) was averaging over 12rpg for the most part.... proving that rebounding numbers were vastly inflated in the early 60's.

Rebounding numbers were inflated, as there were more field goal attempts and thus more misses. So, it's not always the best way to look at raw numbers across time, but how players did against their peers during the times they competed against each other. So the question remains: if all his numbers are inflated and so easy to do...why didn't anybody else manage to play at his level? Even his peers maintain he's the greatest individual player ever.

[Showtime]

all im gonna say is... if kobe had 1 ring, and it came with an 18ppg average as a teams 3rd option...

he wouldnt even be top 20 all time in most peoples books. even if the dude had a historicly great stat line one year

Look at how his fanbase and the league made him a god in 2006 with his great individual statistical and history-making season on a mediocre team that went nowhere. I guess his string of 50 point games and his 81 are meaningless to you since the team didn't win much. Oh wait...you are drowning in hypocrisy right now.

[ShaqAttack3234]

all im gonna say is... if kobe had 1 ring, and it came with an 18ppg average as a teams 3rd option...

he wouldnt even be top 50 all time in most peoples books. even if the dude had a historicly great stat line one year


these old farts dont know jack sh** about basketball... everyone from the 60's should just sit down and STFU...


you wont see me 40 years from now ranking guys like jason richardson as one of the top players all time if he wins a ring riding dwight howards back.

:facepalm

I get what you're saying(to some extent) and I don't see an argument for Oscar over Kobe, but come on, Oscar wasn't Milwaukee's 3rd options, there are a couple of games available from that season and you'll see that Oscar was definitely their 2nd best player.

Oscar was top 5 in MVP voting in 1971 and on the all-nba second team.

Regular Season
Kareem- 32/16/3, 57 FG%, 61 TS%, 40 mpg
Oscar- 19/6/8, 50 FG%, 56 TS%, 39 mpg
Dandridge- 18/8/4, 51 FG%, 55 TS%, 36 mpg

Playoffs
Kareem- 27/17/3, 52 FG%, 55 TS%, 41 mpg
Oscar- 18/5/9, 49 FG%, 53 TS% 38 mpg
Dandridge- 19/10/3, 46 FG%, 50 TS%

Finals
Kareem- 27/19/3, 61 FG%, 63 TS%, 42 mpg
Oscar- 24/5/10, 52 FG%, 59 TS%, 41 mpg
Dandridge- 20/10/4, 52 FG%, 55 TS%, 39 mpg

Pretty obvious that Kareem was clearly number 1, Oscar was clearly 2 and Dandridge was clearly 3.

[Chapallaz]

Nobody but the OP got exposed here.

[FindingTim]

:lol nice post above, made the thread worthwhile and hilarious :cheers:

[griffmoney1784]

Nobody but the OP got exposed here.

its called reverse trolling

he might not be as bad as i made him look. but sometimes trashing someone unmercifully is the only way to get people to look up stuff for themselves. and in trying to prove me wrong. they prove me right... like the ones who say "he wasnt trash, he was above average. well you just proved my point

it works better than creating an unbiased positive argument.

[Kblaze8855]

I get the feeling most people who actually remember Oscar rank him where they do not because of rings but because he was just great at basketball. Kinda like Jordan 87 to 90. He was already top 10 all time if not top 3-5. As far as ability to play...he was about as good as he would ever be. If hes the GOAT he was it well before he won a ring. They could see Oscar as Jordan...just never having it all put together before his decline.

Which I wouldnt find unreasonable. You are as good as you are not as good as your resume. But people odnt like to look at it that way because it requires more than a copy/paste list of accomplishments to decide how good a guy was.

So you have people calling George Mikan top 10-20 all time ahead of guys like Ewing who no doubt did every single thing better....just because its easy to justify when you ignore basketball.

I get the feeling Oscar got his ranking off the respect his peers had for his basketball ability. Which I always found more important than just rings. Besides Oscar was putting up 25/8/6 on 51% shooting before he joined the Bucks. I suspect he didnt just forget how to play.

To compare him to Glen Rice on the lakers because of low PPG that clearly isnt an indication of talent just seems unfair. It shows a lot of the problem that I have with the whole rings thing really. Judge guys on rings...then by how they fit into the team that won it. And assign values to rings 30 years apart probably not having seen more than a few minutes of how one was won.

In the finals he did...

22/7/7
22/10/6
20/12/4
30/9/3(75% shooting) in the closeout game.

24/10/5 on 52% shooting in the finals. I dont see that as something to laugh at out of an aging star who by all accounts was key to running the team and a great leader at that point who had stopped caring about numbers and only wanted to win.

I cant say I saw much of that series. But I have seen a bit here and there.

I wouldnt laugh at his performance based on what I saw. I dont remember Glen Rice doing shit in the finals. Thoug having just checked he had 1 good game(21 points) and an ok one. But some awful ones too(1-8, 3-9, and 2 3-8 games). Rice wasnt doing much in 2000.

Giving him equal credit because he was LAs 3rd leading scorer and oscar was the Bucks just seems.....eh.

Just feels like losing touch with what matters.

I very much doubt Rice was as key to the Lakers as Oscar to the Bucks. I dont know their record with or without him that year...but all ive read suggests he was major.

If he wanted to keep doing numbers he no doubt could have. But he didnt care.

If he didnt care what he produced while winning why should I?

Oscar may be overrated at times. But I dont see how anything he did on the Bucks is really causing it. People dont mention Oscar leading a team to a title anyway. They say Kareem did. As they should. Doesnt mean Oscar had no more to do with it than Glen Rice to the Lakers.

[griffmoney1784]

I get the feeling most people who actually remember Oscar rank him where they do not because of rings but because he was just great at basketball. Kinda like Jordan 87 to 90. He was already top 10 all time .


:roll:

a guy with no accomplishments and just raw tallent on losing teams in a 5 year career is NOT a top 10 player all time

what the hell are these jordan *******s smoking anyway. they make us kobe fans look tame

:facepalm

[Showtime]

:roll:

a guy with no accomplishments and just raw tallent on losing teams in a 5 year career is NOT a top 10 player all time

what the hell are these jordan *******s smoking anyway. they make us kobe fans look tame

:facepalm
Simple sentences such as: "As far as ability to play...he was about as good as he would ever be" are too complicated for you to grasp I guess.

[griffmoney1784]

Simple sentences such as: "As far as ability to play...he was about as good as he would ever be" are too complicated for you to grasp I guess.


going by that... blake griffin is a top 20 player all time right now

and kobe was top 5 all time by age 23

who the hell goes by "flashes of brilliance" in regular season basketball on 30 win teams to judge all time status?


jordan cracked top 10 all time after his 1st ring in 91

took arguable goat status in 1996 after ring #4

no way was he goat over kareem in 93 with 3 rings, 3mvps, 9 seasons

[Kblaze8855]

a guy with no accomplishments and just raw tallent on losing teams in a 5 year career is NOT a top 10 player all time

what the hell are these jordan *******s smoking anyway. they make us kobe fans look tame

You cant possibly believe 10 people ever played basketball better than Jordan could as of 1990....so im not sure why you even said that. There is no way you really just missed the point.

Just looking to argue?

[Showtime]

going by that... blake griffin is a top 20 player all time right now

Not true. Griffin is nowhere near as good as Jordan was during that time period. It was significant for Blake to even be selected as an allstar. Call me when they are talking about him as the best player in the game.

[griffmoney1784]

You cant possibly believe 10 people ever played basketball better than Jordan could as of 1990....so im not sure why you even said that. There is no way you really just missed the point.

Just looking to argue?


playing great doesnt make you top 10 all time

only greatness equals greatness

and mikes so called greatness didnt equal anything until 91

tallent alone is just potential...

[Kblaze8855]

going by that... blake griffin is a top 20 player all time right now

Mroe than 20 people have played better than he is now so...no. He is not.


and kobe was top 5 all time by age 23

Id give him 25 or so. Id have to think about it for a moment and really make a list. But Kobe isnt much better now than he was then. If hes top 10 now he was top 10 by 2007.


who the hell goes by "flashes of brilliance" in regular season basketball on 30 win teams to judge all time status?

Jordan wasnt a flash of brilliance before 1991....

[Jacks3]

Id give him 25 or so. Id have to think about it for a moment and really make a list. But Kobe isnt much better now than he was then. .
So Kobe is top 25? :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll:

[griffmoney1784]

Not true. Griffin is nowhere near as good as Jordan was during that time period. It was significant for Blake to even be selected as an allstar. Call me when they are talking about him as the best player in the game.

where did i say blake griffin is better than jordan or ever has been

you guys are ranking all time status based on flashes of brilliance or moments of skill level or potential

did you guys have tracy mcgrady as a top 10 player all time in 2003? because he had some huge nights in the regular season too?

[griffmoney1784]

Id give him 25 or so. Id have to think about it for a moment and really make a list. But Kobe isnt much better now than he was then. If hes top 10 now he was top 10 by 2007.
....


so your ranking guys based on pure tallent without accomplishments or achivements... and you have the closest thing to michael jordan ranked 24 spots lower


you are phucking retarded

[Kblaze8855]

So Kobe is top 25?


As I said...not much better. He did get better. But not much. And there isnt much of a difference between top 10 and 25 ability wise. Once you get past the big 6...get Hakeem and Shaq out of the way too...the players are on pretty much the same level for a long time.

Whatever Kobe is now...hes been for a while. I dont have an exact number. I do remember now in 2003 I made a list and I think I had him at like...23. Hes higher now...because he improved. But he didnt improve much. But like I said...isnt much between 20 and 10 ability wise. People often have guys like Barkley or Isiah around 20 and guys they outplayed plenty of times top 8-12. The exact number doesnt much matter.


playing great doesnt make you top 10 all time

If only 9 people play better than you it does.


only greatness equals greatness

You know thats from a commercial that clearly states "Winning doesnt equal greatness"?


and mikes so called greatness didnt equal anything until 91

tallent alone is just potential...

Jordan wasj ust...potentially great until the buzzer sounded at the end of the 91 finals?

Just..had it in him to be great?

We have reached the point where the case being made doesnt need to be argued against if the reader has a hint of common sense. The only person to convince of anything would be you...and if you think Jordan only had "so called greatness" until a buzzer blew that granted him no new ability...you cant see the obvious. So why bother?

Do your thing. Im gonna watch the Cleveland show and eat some banana pudding. I'll enjoy that. And I hope you enjoy your "reverse trolling". Night all....

[Showtime]

where did i say blake griffin is better than jordan or ever has been

You compared their situations as both players playing at a high level but prior to winning anything. And I'm telling you that your examples are crap because what Blake proved is to be an all-star, and what Jordan proved was to be one of the best individual players ever.


you guys are ranking all time status based on flashes of brilliance or moments of skill level or potential

No, we are talking about how a player in his prime plays the game of basketball, and how there were not 10 players to step onto the hardwood who played the game at a higher level than Jordan did prior to winning his rings.


did you guys have tracy mcgrady as a top 10 player all time in 2003? because he had some huge nights in the regular season too?

Since you weren't around to watch the league at that time, it might surprise you that many people around the league had McGrady as highly regarded as a perimeter wing as guys like Kobe, Carter, Pierce, etc, because he was playing the game of basketball at a level that was elite among his peers.

Why do you keep acting as if how a player plays the game is irrelevant? Greatness isn't a highlander moment as Kblaze points out that only instantly bestows itself upon the worthy at the very moment victory is decided.

[griffmoney1784]

kblaze and showtime are shitty trolls compared to me

atleast people believe what im saying is what i actually think

theyre basic level 1 trolls that cant make people like me believe what theyre saying is truly what they believe.

asside from that...

il play the game just because i have nothing else to do since my ps3 is doing an update..


ranking players is based on accomplishments/records/achivements/sustained dominance/longevity

not just tallent

because everyone in the nba is tallented. and theres been litterally hundreds of guys with all time great level skills that never did learn how to transfer them into wins, or productiveness. and they went from hyped players to bottomed out buyout contracts like darius miles...

because half the game is MENTAL. and what seperates guys like kobe from guys like lebron is MENTAL.... not a skill at all and it can only be realised through achivements in pressure situations.

[Jacks3]

As I said...not much better. He did get better. But not much. And there isnt much of a difference between top 10 and 25 ability wise. Once you get past the big 6...get Hakeem and Shaq out of the way too...the players are on pretty much the same level for a long time.

Whatever Kobe is now...hes been for a while. I dont have an exact number. I do remember now in 2003 I made a list and I think I had him at like...23. Hes higher now...because he improved. But he didnt improve much. But like I said...isnt much between 20 and 10 ability wise. People often have guys like Barkley or Isiah around 20 and guys they outplayed plenty of times top 8-12. The exact number doesnt much matter.








Please give me 22 guys better than Peak Kobe, which 03 Kobe was.

30 PPG/7 RPG/6 APG/2 SPG/1 BPG/55% TS with 1st Team All-Defense.

Had a stretch where he scored 40+ points in nine straight games and 35+ in 13 straight. Best rebounding guard in the league. Most clutch player in the league. Arguably the best non-PG play-maker. Arguably the best defender at his position.

#23?

LOL

And a guy like Isiah certainly isn't in Kobe's class. Wow.

[Showtime]

kblaze and showtime are shitty trolls compared to me

That's right. You take the cake when it comes to trolling, and we can't even compare to the mastery of trolling that you display.


atleast people believe what im saying is what i actually think

And yet everybody in this thread has posted against your points.

[Holy Random]

Honestly I don't know why Kblaze and Showtime waste's there time talking with these pre teen Kobe jockers. I hope you guys don't stop posting because you are sick of retards like those two.

[Jacks3]

Oh u mad.

[Gifted Mind]

How hard is it to figure out that one group of posters is ranking players based on their peak and prime play and another based on their accomplishments and career? Both are valid ways to rank players. Jordan was easily Top 10 by 1990 based on peak/prime play. LeBron James is Top 15 right now at least. However, careerwise, Jordan was not Top 10 by 1990 and LeBron James is not Top 15 right now.




As for Oscar, though he maybe a little overrated, this thread has gone too far. In fact, Oscar at #5 makes more sense then what the OP is selling. Bill Russell once called Oscar Robertson the "GOAT". That should say enough.

[mananmater]

Oscar robertson is probably number 4 on the list of alltime greatest retired players, dude had moves, a disclaimer to anyone reading these posts, 90 percent of the people engaging in this conversation including myself were either not born or very young when he was an active player so many of the people on here who say a lot about him and dont mention they were old enough to see or read about or hear him play dont know what there talking about, so take these posts with no more than a grain of salt.

[Blue&Orange]

You are as good as you are not as good as your resume. But people odnt like to look at it that way because it requires more than a copy/paste list of accomplishments to decide how good a guy was.
Sorry to say only in your country. For example lets look at the biggest and more important sport in the world, soccer. Last year there was this guy, Wesley Sneijder, that wonned every title possible with his club and went to the world finals with his national team, losing only to a strong Spain. Winning the best player award of the tournament, and he lost the award of best player of the word to Leonel Messi, a guy that won a title in Spain where basically only two teams can win, so not really a big deal. So why did he win? Well he is the best player period. Just like Maradona is considered the best player all time despite being like 100 guys with more titles than him.

I once made a thread calling out how dumb your raking system is, all i got was some random troll posting a pic calling me dumb.

People where arguing if kobe was top 10 or not after he won another title, basically people where arguing if Kobe was top 10 or not because of Gasol, cause without him there would be no title, and somehow that seems to be smart and intelligent.

We are talking about a team sport, and as the Heat are proving even role players are important, let alone having a good second and third option, and yet you guys religiously rank individual performance based on collective accomplishments.

[Blue&Orange]

Honestly I don't know why Kblaze and Showtime waste's there time talking with these pre teen Kobe jockers. I hope you guys don't stop posting because you are sick of retards like those two.
Kobe went ring chasing since he was 18 years old, and he demanded a trade as soon as he wasn't in a good position to win, so off-course kobe lovers are going to tell u all that matters is rings.

[STATUTORY]

Oscar robertson is probably number 4 on the list of alltime greatest retired players, dude had moves, a disclaimer to anyone reading these posts, 90 percent of the people engaging in this conversation including myself were either not born or very young when he was an active player so many of the people on here who say a lot about him and dont mention they were old enough to see or read about or hear him play dont know what there talking about, so take these posts with no more than a grain of salt.


that's how we rank players now? cause they got moves.

:facepalm

[griffmoney1784]

Sorry to say only in your country. For example lets look at the biggest and more important sport in the world, soccer. Last year there was this guy, Wesley Sneijder, that wonned every title possible with his club and went to the world finals with his national team, losing only to a strong Spain. Winning the best player award of the tournament, and he lost the award of best player of the word to Leonel Messi, a guy that won a title in Spain where basically only two teams can win, so not really a big deal. So why did he win? Well he is the best player period. Just like Maradona is considered the best player all time despite being like 100 guys with more titles than him.

I once made a thread calling out how dumb your raking system is, all i got was some random troll posting a pic calling me dumb.

People where arguing if kobe was top 10 or not after he won another title, basically people where arguing if Kobe was top 10 or not because of Gasol, cause without him there would be no title, and somehow that seems to be smart and intelligent.

We are talking about a team sport, and as the Heat are proving even role players are important, let alone having a good second and third option, and yet you guys religiously rank individual performance based on collective accomplishments.


lol@ comparing big team sports to small team sports

cant compare the impact of a hockey/basketball player to those of soccar/football/baseball

5 on 5 hockey+goalie/basketball vs 9 vs 9 baseball/10 vs 10 soccer+goalie/ 11 vs 11 football



1 man can have a much greater impact on basketball/hockey team success... while in the other sports its a total team game and you can have the absolute best player and lose nearly every game if your not good at every position


but as we have seen in hockey 1 goalie or 1 great play maker can make all the difference. and in basketball 1 great center or 1 great guard can make all the difference

which is why wining is so highly rated in basketball and hockey...

like when alex rodriguez won mvp on the last place rangers. no one cared because the greatest players could average 100 home runs/200 rbi's and it still wouldnt get them a win without a bullpen

football does have 1 position however that values rings... QB's... but even then its a stretch.

so please dont ever again try and make an argument against basketball by using a different sport as your base argument.

[griffmoney1784]

no ones ever heard of an elite mvp level player with rings but no skills


but we have heard of mvp level players with skills and no rings


because all mvp elite level players have skills. its what they do with those skills that sets them apart from others...


take rings, accomplishments, records, awards away and michael jordan is just another dominique wilkins


when we look at tim duncan.... his game has no style, no flash, no excitement... its boring and no one likes to watch it... if it wasnt for his accomplishments no one would know he was better than kevin garnett

but he is....

because he gets it done when it matters. garnett had to bail on his team and ride pierce to a championship.

thats the difference we needed to see to make the judgement

[madmax]

no ones ever heard of an elite mvp level player with rings but no skills


but we have heard of mvp level players with skills and no rings


because all mvp elite level players have skills. its what they do with those skills that sets them apart from others...


take rings, accomplishments, records, awards away and michael jordan is just another dominique wilkins


when we look at tim duncan.... his game has no style, no flash, no excitement... its boring and no one likes to watch it... if it wasnt for his accomplishments no one would know he was better than kevin garnett

but he is....

because he gets it done when it matters. garnett had to bail on his team and ride pierce to a championship.

thats the difference we needed to see to make the judgement

this is the reason why morons like you are ruining this website more and more. Garnett was the KEY reason why Celtics won that 2008 title - he was doing everything for his team to achieve that goal and I'm sure you called Gasol "soft" after he was shut down in the finals by this guy. That was the main reason why Celts won, not because of Pierce's scoring. If you had an ounce of brain cells in your head, you'd understanf this too.

[griffmoney1784]

this is the reason why morons like are are ruining this website more and more. Garnett was the KEY reason why Celtics won that 2008 title - he was doing everything for his team to achieve that goal and I'm sure you called Gasol "soft" after he was shut down in the finals by this guy. That was the main reason why Celts won, not because of Pierce's scoring. If you had an ounce of brain cells in your head, you'd understanf this too.


garnetts a pu**sy

shyd away from every confrontation in his life

shyd away from every big shot in his life

picks fights with people half his size

hes lucky he has guys like allen and pierce to knock down the big ones for him

dude lacks a sack ... always has always will...

lol@ turning down the trade to boston until ray was traded there

[griffmoney1784]

if i was just a hater...

why would i give it up so highly to ray allen and paul pierce...

they have what it takes. theyre real players.

i dont think i can remember a single time garnett has hit a game winner or made a huge play down the stretch of a playoff game... in 15 years

[PHILA]

The Big O: my life, my times, my game - Oscar Robertson (2003)


http://books.google.com/books?id=fs6IXDF80WEC&lpg=PP1&pg=PA152#v=onepage&q&f=false

http://img845.imageshack.us/f/89930795.jpg/

[griffmoney1784]

The Big O: my life, my times, my game - Oscar Robertson (2003)


http://books.google.com/books?id=fs6IXDF80WEC&lpg=PP1&pg=PA152#v=onepage&q&f=false

http://img845.imageshack.us/f/89930795.jpg/


just like i said... this dude lives off his triple double season... its the first thing we see when we click on that link... a line from one regular season

what a chump

:facepalm

get a finals mvp or be an equal part to a title... then get back to me... your just a 1 time pippen

[PHILA]

Read the whole chapter.

[jlauber]

I have mentioned this before, but I guess I have to go thru it again. This "PACE" argument is getting old.

I have read some idiots here who claim that players of the 60's stats would only be HALF of what they are today. Even the more intelligent posters claim that the numbers were inflated by one-third. BOTH are completely off base.

In Wilt's historic 61-62 season, the average team scored 119 ppg on .426 shooting. In MJ's '87 season, the average team scored 110 ppg on .480 shooting. In Kobe's '06 season, the average team scored 97 ppg on .454 shooting.

So, if we reduce Oscar's 61-62 season by one-third, the league would have then averaged less than 80 ppg...which is a far cry from TODAY's NBA average of 100 ppg.

Furthermore, Oscar generally averaged between 20-23 FGAs in the prime of his career. Are we to believe that Oscar playing in 2011 would only be capable of getting 13-16 FGAs per game?

And, then there is the one stat that is seldom brought up here...LEAGUE AVERAGE FG%. Oscar shot .478 in 61-62, in a league that shot .426. In his next season, he shot .518 in a league that shot .441. The FACT was, Robertson CONSISTENTLY shot way over the league average in his prime. Why is that important? Take Oscar's 61-62 season for example. Divide his .478 by .426, and mutliply it by MJ's '87 league average of .480. and he would have shot .539. Divide his .518 season by .441, and multiply it by .480 and he would have shot .564! Only Magic's .565 season has ever been greater by a PG, and Oscar was averaging over 30 ppg in the year in which he shot .518.

As for Oscar's assists, he was consistently averaging 11 apg in his prime years. And, this was in an era when assists were recorded much differently, and were harder to come by. My god, for those that use "pace" against the greats of the 60's, how come team's averaged nearly the same amount of assists in '62 as they did in 2010, even though there were more shots taken back in the 60's. In '62 the league averaged 1915 apg per team. In 2010 it was 1742 per team. That is nowhere near a ONE-THIRD differential.

The only area where an intelligent poster could argue against Oscar, or the other greats of the early 60's, would be in rebounding. Here again, the crackpots that have no clue, will come up with some ridiculous number stating that rebounds would be about HALF of what they are today. The FACT was, in Chamberlain's greatest rebounding season, and removing team rebounds, which were added to the totals until he retired, his team averaged 66 rpg. In Rodman's greatest season, his team averaged 44 rpg...or Rodman's league was at two-thirds of Wilt's. So, reducing Wilt's numbers, he would have been right with Rodman. Of course, while Rodman shrunk dramatically in the post-season, Wilt significantly elevated his rebounding in the playoffs. Chamberlain had eight post-seasons of over 24.7, with highs of 29 and eveb 30 rpg. Rodman dropped from 13.8 down to 9.9 in his post-seasons, and his high was 16 rpg in a series that only went three games. Chamberlain actually more than DOUBLED Rodman in the post-season, considerably more than doubled in fact.

So, I would argue that Oscar would average at least as many apg in today's NBA, and more than likely, MORE. And only a fool would believe that Oscar could only get 15 FGAs per game in today's NBA, when players like Kobe were getting over 27 in '06. How about this? Give Oscar 27 FGAs in '06, and on an adjusted .509 shooting percentage, and he would have scored MORE ppg in '06 than he did in '62.

Ultimately, IMO, Oscar, and at his peak, would probably be a 30-8-10 .500+ shooter in TODAY's NBA...even adjusting for this poorly argued point of "pace."

Having said all of that, I still see NO case for Oscar over Kareem. While I don't rate Kareem as highly as some here do, I have him at #5 (behind Russell, MJ, Magic, and Wilt), and I just can't see Oscar even in my top-10. Clearly, though, his individual play would have put him in the 11-15 area.

In any case, I am getting so sick-and-tired of the PACE arguments against the great players of the 60's.

[griffmoney1784]

I have mentioned this before, but I guess I have to go thru it again. This "PACE" argument is getting old.

I have read some idiots here who claim that players of the 60's stats would only be HALF of what they are today. Even the more intelligent posters claim that the numbers were inflated by one-third. BOTH are completely off base.

In Wilt's historic 61-62 season, the average team scored 119 ppg on .426 shooting. In MJ's '87 season, the average team scored 110 ppg on .480 shooting. In Kobe's '06 season, the average team scored 97 ppg on .454 shooting.

So, if we reduce Oscar's 61-62 season by one-third, the league would have then averaged less than 80 ppg...which is a far cry from TODAY's NBA average of 100 ppg.

Furthermore, Oscar generally averaged between 20-23 FGAs in the prime of his career. Are we to believe that Oscar playing in 2011 would only be capable of getting 13-16 FGAs per game?

And, then there is the one stat that is seldom brought up here...LEAGUE AVERAGE FG%. Oscar shot .478 in 61-62, in a league that shot .426. In his next season, he shot .518 in a league that shot .441. The FACT was, Robertson CONSISTENTLY shot way over the league average in his prime. Why is that important? Take Oscar's 61-62 season for example. Divide his .478 by .426, and mutliply it by MJ's '87 league average of .480. and he would have shot .539. Divide his .518 season by .441, and multiply it by .480 and he would have shot .564! Only Magic's .565 season has ever been greater by a PG, and Oscar was averaging over 30 ppg in the year in which he shot .518.

As for Oscar's assists, he was consistently averaging 11 apg in his prime years. And, this was in an era when assists were recorded much differently, and were harder to come by. My god, for those that use "pace" against the greats of the 60's, how come team's averaged nearly the same amount of assists in '62 as they did in 2010, even though there were more shots taken back in the 60's. In '62 the league averaged 1915 apg per team. In 2010 it was 1742 per team. That is nowhere near a ONE-THIRD differential.

The only area where an intelligent poster could argue against Oscar, or the other greats of the early 60's, would be in rebounding. Here again, the crackpots that have no clue, will come up with some ridiculous number stating that rebounds would be about HALF of what they are today. The FACT was, in Chamberlain's greatest rebounding season, and removing team rebounds, which were added to the totals until he retired, his team averaged 66 rpg. In Rodman's greatest season, his team averaged 44 rpg...or Rodman's league was at two-thirds of Wilt's. So, reducing Wilt's numbers, he would have been right with Rodman. Of course, while Rodman shrunk dramatically in the post-season, Wilt significantly elevated his rebounding in the playoffs. Chamberlain had eight post-seasons of over 24.7, with highs of 29 and eveb 30 rpg. Rodman dropped from 13.8 down to 9.9 in his post-seasons, and his high was 16 rpg in a series that only went three games. Chamberlain actually more than DOUBLED Rodman in the post-season, considerably more than doubled in fact.

So, I would argue that Oscar would average at least as many apg in today's NBA, and more than likely, MORE. And only a fool would believe that Oscar could only get 15 FGAs per game in today's NBA, when players like Kobe were getting over 27 in '06. How about this? Give Oscar 27 FGAs in '06, and on an adjusted .509 shooting percentage, and he would have scored MORE ppg in '06 than he did in '62.

Ultimately, IMO, Oscar, and at his peak, would probably be a 30-8-10 .500+ shooter in TODAY's NBA...even adjusting for this poorly argued point of "pace."

Having said all of that, I still see NO case for Oscar over Kareem. While I don't rate Kareem as highly as some here do, I have him at #5 (behind Russell, MJ, Magic, and Wilt), and I just can't see Oscar even in my top-10. Clearly, though, his individual play would have put him in the 11-15 area.

In any case, I am getting so sick-and-tired of the PACE arguments against the great players of the 60's.


6 foot 5 elgin baylor routinely averaged near 20 rebound per game seasons


NEXT

[jlauber]

6 foot 5 elgin baylor routinely averaged near 20 rebound per game seasons


NEXT

So what???

He was a GREAT rebounder at 6-5. Even reducing his rebounding to 2010 levels, and he would still have averaged over 13 rpg.

And if height was the main factor in rebounding, how come there has never been a 7-3+ player to have ever led the NBA in rebounding? How come 7-2 Motumbo, with two, and 7-2 Kareem with only one...both in LONG careers BTW, are the only two 7-2 centers to have ever won a rebounding title? And BTW, Kareem barely edged 6-9 Cowens in the year he won his lone rebounding title, and 6-7 Unseld and 6-7 Silas were right behind? And how come 6-3 175 lb. Fat Lever was leading his TEAM in rebounding in the late 80's, in leagues that had the tallest players ever in NBA history? How come 6-8 Rodman could win SEVEN rebounding titles in an era of 7-1 Robinson, 7-1 Shaq, and many other seven-footers? How come 6-6 (or shorter) Charles Barkley could win a rebounding title? How come 6-7 Truck Robinson could win a rebounding title? How come, even in the 00's, that a 6-7 Ben Wallace could win TWO rebounding titles?

And, the obvious, of course...how can a 6-9 WHITE guy not only be leading the league in rebounding in TODAY's NBA, but by a significant margin? Wilt must be rolling over in his grave.

[griffmoney1784]

So what???

He was a GREAT rebounder at 6-5. Even reducing his rebounding to 2010 levels, and he would still have averaged over 13 rpg. And if height was the main factor in rebounding, how come there has never been a 7-3+ player to have ever led the NBA in rebounding? How come 7-2 Motumbo, with two, and 7-2 Kareem with only one...both in LONG careers BTW, are the only two 7-2 centers to have ever won a rebounding title? And BTW, Kareem barely edged 6-9 Cowens in the year he won his lone rebounding title, and 6-7 Unseld and 6-7 Silas were right behind? And how come 6-3 175 lb. Fat Lever was leading his TEAM in rebounding in the late 80's, in leagues that had the tallest players ever in NBA history? How come 6-8 Rodman could win SEVEN rebounding titles in an era of 7-1 Robinson, 7-1 Shaq, and many other seven-footers? How come 6-6 (or shorter) Charles Barkley could win a rebounding title? How come 6-7 Truck Robinson could win a rebounding title? How come, even in the 00's, that a 6-7 Ben Wallace could win TWO rebounding titles?


:facepalm

[jlauber]

:facepalm

Once again...how in the hell does a 6-9 WHITE guy RUN AWAY with the rebounding title in 2011? Get that HEIGHT crap outta here.

[lakers_forever]

Just like Maradona is considered the best player all time despite being like 100 guys with more titles than him.
.

:wtf: Pele is considered the best by people who actually understand football and saw them both playing (I'm not talking about pre-teen internet "experts" of course).

[lakers_forever]

I have mentioned this before, but I guess I have to go thru it again. This "PACE" argument is getting old.

I have read some idiots here who claim that players of the 60's stats would only be HALF of what they are today. Even the more intelligent posters claim that the numbers were inflated by one-third. BOTH are completely off base.

In Wilt's historic 61-62 season, the average team scored 119 ppg on .426 shooting. In MJ's '87 season, the average team scored 110 ppg on .480 shooting. In Kobe's '06 season, the average team scored 97 ppg on .454 shooting.

So, if we reduce Oscar's 61-62 season by one-third, the league would have then averaged less than 80 ppg...which is a far cry from TODAY's NBA average of 100 ppg.

Furthermore, Oscar generally averaged between 20-23 FGAs in the prime of his career. Are we to believe that Oscar playing in 2011 would only be capable of getting 13-16 FGAs per game?

And, then there is the one stat that is seldom brought up here...LEAGUE AVERAGE FG%. Oscar shot .478 in 61-62, in a league that shot .426. In his next season, he shot .518 in a league that shot .441. The FACT was, Robertson CONSISTENTLY shot way over the league average in his prime. Why is that important? Take Oscar's 61-62 season for example. Divide his .478 by .426, and mutliply it by MJ's '87 league average of .480. and he would have shot .539. Divide his .518 season by .441, and multiply it by .480 and he would have shot .564! Only Magic's .565 season has ever been greater by a PG, and Oscar was averaging over 30 ppg in the year in which he shot .518.

As for Oscar's assists, he was consistently averaging 11 apg in his prime years. And, this was in an era when assists were recorded much differently, and were harder to come by. My god, for those that use "pace" against the greats of the 60's, how come team's averaged nearly the same amount of assists in '62 as they did in 2010, even though there were more shots taken back in the 60's. In '62 the league averaged 1915 apg per team. In 2010 it was 1742 per team. That is nowhere near a ONE-THIRD differential.

The only area where an intelligent poster could argue against Oscar, or the other greats of the early 60's, would be in rebounding. Here again, the crackpots that have no clue, will come up with some ridiculous number stating that rebounds would be about HALF of what they are today. The FACT was, in Chamberlain's greatest rebounding season, and removing team rebounds, which were added to the totals until he retired, his team averaged 66 rpg. In Rodman's greatest season, his team averaged 44 rpg...or Rodman's league was at two-thirds of Wilt's. So, reducing Wilt's numbers, he would have been right with Rodman. Of course, while Rodman shrunk dramatically in the post-season, Wilt significantly elevated his rebounding in the playoffs. Chamberlain had eight post-seasons of over 24.7, with highs of 29 and eveb 30 rpg. Rodman dropped from 13.8 down to 9.9 in his post-seasons, and his high was 16 rpg in a series that only went three games. Chamberlain actually more than DOUBLED Rodman in the post-season, considerably more than doubled in fact.

So, I would argue that Oscar would average at least as many apg in today's NBA, and more than likely, MORE. And only a fool would believe that Oscar could only get 15 FGAs per game in today's NBA, when players like Kobe were getting over 27 in '06. How about this? Give Oscar 27 FGAs in '06, and on an adjusted .509 shooting percentage, and he would have scored MORE ppg in '06 than he did in '62.

Ultimately, IMO, Oscar, and at his peak, would probably be a 30-8-10 .500+ shooter in TODAY's NBA...even adjusting for this poorly argued point of "pace."

Having said all of that, I still see NO case for Oscar over Kareem. While I don't rate Kareem as highly as some here do, I have him at #5 (behind Russell, MJ, Magic, and Wilt), and I just can't see Oscar even in my top-10. Clearly, though, his individual play would have put him in the 11-15 area.

In any case, I am getting so sick-and-tired of the PACE arguments against the great players of the 60's.


:bowdown: :applause:

[griffmoney1784]

Once again...how in the hell does a 6-9 WHITE guy RUN AWAY with the rebounding title in 2011? Get that HEIGHT crap outta here.

because for one.... hes 6-10

and second..... hes the only guy on his team that rebounds

and third..... hes stat padding in moses malone fashion to get a moses malone record

and forth..... hes 6-10

and fifth..... hes 6-10

and sixth..... elgin baylor is effin 6-5

[griffmoney1784]

:bowdown: :applause:


you do realise he said oscar would average 30/8/10 in todays nba


your praising this?


jesus h christ..... this is the early 60's and he did it once.

a time when wilt averaged 50

so saying a guy from the 60's could average a triple double with 30 points means that wilt would also average 50 in todays nba and drop 100 points


i now leave this thread face palming the f*ck out of my skull :facepalm

[jlauber]

you do realise he said oscar would average 30/8/10 in todays nba


your praising this?


jesus h christ..... this is the early 60's and he did it once.

a time when wilt averaged 50

so saying a guy from the 60's could average a triple double with 30 points means that wilt would also average 50 in todays nba and drop 100 points


i now leave this thread face palming the f*ck out of my skull :facepalm

First of all, Oscar averaged 30-10-10 for over five straight seasons, and, if fact, nearly averaged for SIX. And that was a 30-10-10 season, and not the 30-EIGHT-10 season that I suggested that a prime Oscar would average today. And, I gave you my reasons, which you apparently can't dispute, since you have NOTHING to contradict them. In TODAY's NBA, where PGs are even more ball-dominant, Oscar would surely get his 22 FGAs that he did in his prime (my god, how could Kobe get over 27 in '06?) His assists would even out since they are recorded much more liberally today. And, reducing his rebounding to 2010 levels, and he would average about 8 a game at his peak. Of course, Lebron has proven that a player can average 30-8-8, so, no, Oscar averaging a 30-8-10 season is not even a stretch.

As for Wilt, why was he the ONLY guy, even in HIS era, to score 50 ppg (and then 45 ppg the very next season)? I have consistently shown that even if you reduce Wilt's 50 ppg down to MJ's '87 season, he would still have averaged between 41 ppg, and if you adjust for league average in FG%, he would have scored 45 ppg! Even in Kobe's '06 season, Chamberlain would have scored nearly 40 ppg. And why am I supposed to believe that Wilt's 100 point game would be an IMPOSSIBILITY, when Kobe had an 81 point game just five short year's ago? The FACT was, Chamberlain's 100 was obviously a one-in-a-million, considering that even in his era, the next highest game was 78 (and oh BTW, it was WILT who did that)?

As for Love's height...

http://blogs.mercurynews.com/kawakami/2008/06/03/warriors-notes-kevin-love-is-6-9-12-in-shoes-thoughts-on-gasol-the-warriors-couldnt-have-gotten-him/

Once again, Barkley probably wasn't even 6-6 when he won his rebounding title. And how do explain 6-8 Rodman winning seven rebounding titles, and 6-7 Wallace winning two in the 00's?

[Gotterdammerung]

I realize that this is a troll thread by a know-nothing homer, but I post for the public.

Posted earlier:

Pace factor is a biased tool that assumes the flow of the game had no other factors besides how early players shot in the shotclock (defensive rules, 3 point range, coaches calling plays every possession, and so on), so whoever uses it automatically exposes their ignorance of basketball history and their bias towards today's version.

Personally I think Oscar Robertson was as versatile as Magic Johnson, and just as strong. He had no holes in his game - for his talents included all aspects of the game of basketball. He could do everything at the highest level: rebound, pass, set picks, dribble, box out, run and shut down opposing guards on defense.

Had Oscar known that the triple double was a big deal (it wasn't until ignorant commentators in the 80s made a big deal of Magic's feats) he claims he would have pulled it off his entire career. I don't know if that's even possible, but he did average a triple double for 5 years. He understood every nuance of the game, and as a perfectionist, he demanded the same from his inferior teammates. On top of that, he was also a ruthless and fierce competitor. Sheesh.

He didn't have 3 point range, but I bet you had there been a 3 point line back in the 60's he would have mastered it. Also, he didn't perform gravity defying feats like Michael Jordan, but Nate Thurmond said: "Oscar couldn't fly, but he did everything else better than Michael Jordan."

Yes, he didn't win titles after titles. But that's more about his team, than himself. Championships are about 12 guys and the coach, but Oscar didn't have anything close to the Celtics or the Sixers of the late 60s. There wasn't a single year you can pick out and expect the Royals to be the favorites.

Bottom line: He was the most perfect basketball player in the history of the game.

[STATUTORY]

I realize that this is a troll thread by a know-nothing homer, but I post for the public.

Posted earlier:

Pace factor is a biased tool that assumes the flow of the game had no other factors besides how early players shot in the shotclock (defensive rules, 3 point range, coaches calling plays every possession, and so on), so whoever uses it automatically exposes their ignorance of basketball history and their bias towards today's version.

Personally I think Oscar Robertson was as versatile as Magic Johnson, and just as strong. He had no holes in his game - for his talents included all aspects of the game of basketball. He could do everything at the highest level: rebound, pass, set picks, dribble, box out, run and shut down opposing guards on defense.

Had Oscar known that the triple double was a big deal (it wasn't until ignorant commentators in the 80s made a big deal of Magic's feats) he claims he would have pulled it off his entire career. I don't know if that's even possible, but he did average a triple double for 5 years. He understood every nuance of the game, and as a perfectionist, he demanded the same from his inferior teammates. On top of that, he was also a ruthless and fierce competitor. Sheesh.

He didn't have 3 point range, but I bet you had there been a 3 point line back in the 60's he would have mastered it. Also, he didn't perform gravity defying feats like Michael Jordan, but Nate Thurmond said: "Oscar couldn't fly, but he did everything else better than Michael Jordan."

Yes, he didn't win titles after titles. But that's more about his team, than himself. Championships are about 12 guys and the coach, but Oscar didn't have anything close to the Celtics or the Sixers of the late 60s. There wasn't a single year you can pick out and expect the Royals to be the favorites.

Bottom line: He was the most perfect basketball player in the history of the game.

:facepalm :facepalm what a bunch of speculative drivel. Excuses after excuses. Not sure why you thought that post was italic worthy homie

[jlauber]

I realize that this is a troll thread by a know-nothing homer, but I post for the public.

Posted earlier:

Pace factor is a biased tool that assumes the flow of the game had no other factors besides how early players shot in the shotclock (defensive rules, 3 point range, coaches calling plays every possession, and so on), so whoever uses it automatically exposes their ignorance of basketball history and their bias towards today's version.

Personally I think Oscar Robertson was as versatile as Magic Johnson, and just as strong. He had no holes in his game - for his talents included all aspects of the game of basketball. He could do everything at the highest level: rebound, pass, set picks, dribble, box out, run and shut down opposing guards on defense.

Had Oscar known that the triple double was a big deal (it wasn't until ignorant commentators in the 80s made a big deal of Magic's feats) he claims he would have pulled it off his entire career. I don't know if that's even possible, but he did average a triple double for 5 years. He understood every nuance of the game, and as a perfectionist, he demanded the same from his inferior teammates. On top of that, he was also a ruthless and fierce competitor. Sheesh.

He didn't have 3 point range, but I bet you had there been a 3 point line back in the 60's he would have mastered it. Also, he didn't perform gravity defying feats like Michael Jordan, but Nate Thurmond said: "Oscar couldn't fly, but he did everything else better than Michael Jordan."

Yes, he didn't win titles after titles. But that's more about his team, than himself. Championships are about 12 guys and the coach, but Oscar didn't have anything close to the Celtics or the Sixers of the late 60s. There wasn't a single year you can pick out and expect the Royals to be the favorites.

Bottom line: He was the most perfect basketball player in the history of the game.

Great post...as always.

PACE is so OVERBLOWN in these arguments. As I posted earlier, based on some idiot's idea of "pace" that the NBA in 2010 was at about two-thirds of the '62 season, how doe that theory explain that the NBA averaged 100 ppg in 2010, and that the '62 season, reduced by one-third, would only be at less than 80 ppg?

And, once again, are we to believe that Oscar, who averaged 20-23 FGAs in his PEAK seasons in the 60's, would only be taking 13-16 FGAs in 2010?

And, ONE MORE TIME...how come those that use "pace" against the players of the early 60's, NEVER mention the LEAGUE AVERAGE in FG%? That would be like claiming that pitcher's in the "dead ball" era were on a level playing field with those in the "steroid era."

Oscar would STILL get his 20-23 FGAs, and on a HIGHER efficency, and controlling the ball every bit as much in the current era, where PG's almost exclusively handle the ball. And given the fact that assists were harder to come by in the 60's, I just don't see his assist dropping at all. The only area that he would see a considerable decline, would be in rebounding, and even that would not be by nearly as much as the "paceologists" claim.

I stand by my 30-8-10 claim.

[Gotterdammerung]

:facepalm :facepalm what a bunch of speculative drivel. Excuses after excuses. Not sure why you thought that post was italic worthy homie:facepalm
Not sure why you failed to offer a counter argument, but then again, that is par for the course for ISH geniuses like you.

Off to the ignore list you go. :applause:

[STATUTORY]

:facepalm
Not sure why you failed to offer a counter argument, but then again, that is par for the course for ISH geniuses like you.

Off to the ignore list you go. :applause:

:oldlol: your long diatribe literally did not have one coherent argument in it.

your stated the following

1) I don't believe in pace because anyone who believes in pace has no knowledge of bball

2) if Oscar robinson wanted to shoot three and get triple doubles he could have done it more

:facepalm

those aren't points

[tommyhtc]

because for one.... hes 6-10

and second..... hes the only guy on his team that rebounds

and third..... hes stat padding in moses malone fashion to get a moses malone record

and forth..... hes 6-10

and fifth..... hes 6-10

and sixth..... elgin baylor is effin 6-5
I'm never seen such a disrespectful poster like you before,
Kevin Love NEVER in his life was 6'10,
he was measured as 6'7.75 in his predraft measurements,
in shoes he was 6'9.5, never 6'10 unless he wears lifts.

Player's heights in the 60s were their barefoot heights,
so Oscar willl be closer to 6'6-7 than 6'5 nowadays.

And most importantly, rebounding is really about your mentality.
it's not height-orientated, and even very short guys that know a few rebounding tricks can grab a couple of rebounds in a game, it's really not that hard.

[Hihater]

Did anyone watch oscar rebertson play?

[Hihater]

I'm never seen such a disrespectful poster like you before,
Kevin Love NEVER in his life was 6'10,
he was measured as 6'7.75 in his predraft measurements,
in shoes he was 6'9.5, never 6'10 unless he wears lifts.

Player's heights in the 60s were their barefoot heights,
so Oscar willl be closer to 6'6-7 than 6'5 nowadays.

And most importantly, rebounding is really about your mentality.
it's not height-orientated, and even very short guys that know a few rebounding tricks can grab a couple of rebounds in a game, it's really not that hard.
Don't worry about him. He just trying to make Kobe fan look bad and he have another account some where.

[OldSchoolBBall]

Oscar would be a 25-27 point/6 reb/7.5-9 ast player today, which would be good for top 3 in the league most years.

lol @ "4 rebounds per game." No. His rebound numbers were definitely inflated due to pace, but not to that extent. 5.5-6.5 rebounds is most likely based on some calculations others on other forums have done.

[AirJordan&Magic]

Did anyone watch oscar rebertson play?

Answer is, HELL NO.

The only person I truly believe that watched Oscar play on this site is Jlauber.

Anyways, though I have never really thought highly of Oscar in terms of all time rankings (Mainly due to his lack of team success and a few mediocre playoff performances), you simply cannot take away the kind of player he was.
I have seen some clowns say crap like "Oscar wouldn't make it to the Wnba", or even recently, and this is word for word "Lmao, Oj Mayo would run circles around this fairy"... Nothing but utter bs.

It's the same when I hear people diminish big men like Wilt Chamberlain and Kareem Abdul Jabbar (I remember someone on Espn saying Wilt would be a Samuel Dalembert if he played today)..... I'm not old timer or anything, but this disrespect for 60's and 70's players is beyond asinine.

To alot of these boneheads, because Oscar wasn't doing fancy ankle-breaking crossovers or trick reverse layups, he would be a scrub. They don't focus on the fundamentals of basketball.

[sh0wtime]

Versatility

When it comes to versatlity, the first name that often comes to mind is Magic Johnson. In today's game everyone marvels at the versatility of LeBron James.

You want versatility? Oscar Robertson not only averaged a triple-double for an entire season, he averaged a career triple-double for his 5 first years.

In fact, in his 10 years in Cincinnati, he averaged 29.3 points, 10.2 assists, and 8.5 rebounds per game while shooting 48.9 percent from the field.

How can a player with numbers like that be so overlooked? Well, for starters, he played for the Cincinnati Royals. To say the very least, that's a small-market team.

That's not only poor for getting exposure, but it's poor for attracting players to sign to the team, which is more than important for building a legit championship contender.

It's no coincidence that the players considered the greatest of all time almost all played for big-market teams, and almost all of those guys with multiple championships played in those major markets.

Championship Stumbling Block

Speaking of championships, that gets into one of the biggest reasons why "The Big O" is so underrated. He never won a ring in Cincinnati.

But the implications for punishing him for that is suggesting that it was his fault. Let's take a closer look at the seasons that Robertson had individually and what happened to his team via the postseason.

Career on Cincinnati Royals (10 Seasons)

1960—No postseason (30.5/10.1/9.7 on 47% shooting in regular season)
1961—Lost vs. Pistons (averaged 28.8/11/11 on 52% in postseason)
1962—Lost vs. Celtics (averaged 31.8/13/9 on 47% in postseason)
1963—Lost vs. Celtics (averaged 29.3/8.9/8.4 on 45% in postseason)
1964—Lost vs. 76ers (averaged 28/4.8/12 on 43% in postseason)
1965—Lost vs. Celtics (averaged 31.8/7.6/7.8 on 41% in postseason)
1966—Lost vs. 76ers (averaged 24.8/4.0/11.3 on 52% in postseason)
1967—No postseason (averaged 29.2/6/9.7 on 50% in regular season)
1968—No postseason (averaged 24.7/6.4/9.8 on 49% shooting in regular season)
1969—No postseason (averaged 25.3/6.1/8.1 on 51% shooting in regular season)

For starters, in the 1960 season, Robertson virtually averaged a triple-double but his team was not even good enough to qualify for the playoffs. Same for the stellar numbers he had in the 1968 and 1969 seasons.

Now how about the six times he took his team to the postseason?

His playoff averages in Cincinnati were 29.7 points, 9.3 rebounds, 9.4 assists per game while shooting 46 percent from the floor.

So it doesn't look like his level of play exactly dipped in the postseason. What's more telling than those eye-popping numbers is the eye-popping list of teams his squad ran into during those postseason trips.

If you noticed, for five of the six trips to the postseason, his team ran into one of two teams.

Either the Boston Celtics or the Philadelphia 76ers.

The same Boston team that is the epitome of the word "dynasty" in regard to sports, winning a whopping 11 championships in 13 years and making the NBA Finals in 12 of those seasons.

Then there is the Philadelphia 76ers, the one team to put an end to the eight-year streak of championships by Boston.

The same Philadelphia 76ers team that held the best record in NBA history before the 1996 Chicago Bulls broke that mark.

It was a loaded Philadelphia 76ers team, by far the best team Wilt Chamberlain ever played for, and, if it stayed intact, perhaps could have been a dynasty its own right.

Now this isn't to say that Robertson didn't have a supporting cast. But he ran into a couple of the most dominant teams of all time while, again, putting up numbers across the board in an effort to carry his team. Certainly a valiant effort.

But as we can see, there's certainly no rationale to punish Robertson along those lines.

Winning a championship is all about having a cast—something The Big O didn't really have until he went to Milwaukee, which was in the twilight of his career

But He Played So Long Ago...

Outside of the misconceptions about Robertson's lack of success in the postseason is the misconception that we often see with regard to evaluating players who played at any time before the advent of color television.

The notion that their game wouldn't translate into today's game. That's called chronological snobbery. It's fallacious logic.

Michael Jordan came into the NBA in 1984. That was over 25 years ago and similar to the pace of Oscar Robertsons team.

When we suggest Robertson, who played in the 1960s, wouldn't be good in the 1990s/2000s, we essentially imply that a 1980s version of Michael Jordan couldn't play in the NBA four or five years from now.

That includes the 1987-88 version of Jordan who:

•Won League MVP
•Won Defensive Player of the Year
•Won the Slam Dunk Contest
•Won All-Star Game MVP

•Scored 35 points per game with 5.5 rebounds, 5.9 assists, 3.2 steals, and 1.6 blocks per game, all while shooting a whopping 53 percent from the field
So using the rationale used against Robertson, we can establish that Jordan
would not be that elite player he was back then in this decade and especially beyond.

It's obviously a preposterous suggestion, but that's essentially what we suggest with chronological snobbery. Perhaps it only sticks out as absurd when it includes the player regarded by most as the greatest of all time. However, given the media hype machine that revolves around being prisoner of the moment, perhaps there will be people making those assertions.

Conclusion

It's just as foolish to suggest that the game and talent of Oscar Robertson wouldn't translate to the modern-day NBA as it is to say that a player who played in the 80s or 90s wouldn't make the same translation.

People can point out the league having better athletes today, but it can also just as easily be pointed out that advantages that actually benefit guards since Robertson's day. For example, the three-pointer, which opens up even more room to dish to teammates as well as score, or the hand check rule, which makes it even easier for players on the perimeter to get to the lane.

Am I saying Robertson is the greatest of all time? Not at all. But he deserves to be in the conversation of the all-time greats.

At the very least, The Big O should be more than just an answer to a trivia question.

http://m.bleacherreport.com/articles/343202-oscar-robertson-the-most-underrated-player-of-all-time

[Javat_90]

its called reverse trolling

he might not be as bad as i made him look. but sometimes trashing someone unmercifully is the only way to get people to look up stuff for themselves. and in trying to prove me wrong. they prove me right... like the ones who say "he wasnt trash, he was above average. well you just proved my point

it works better than creating an unbiased positive argument.
:lol :lol :lol :lol ???

Do you have to study in the Michigan State Troll University to get these terms or what?

[ThaRegul8r]

Great way to reduce his total game down to PPG.

The majority of people

[sh0wtime]

What you younglings also overlook and try to ignore is that being one of the greatest players of all time has also to do much with "Impact and Importance in NBA basketball".

The impact and importance Oscar Robertson had is arguably the biggest in NBA history. Basketball wise he created the term "Point-Forward" and made it possible to be an "untraditional PG", as in a big PG. Without him there would be no Magic Johnson or Penny or Jason Kidd or Pippen or Dwyane Wade or Michael Jordan or Lebron James and so on.

Sure those names would still existed, but the magnitude of those household names would not have been the same without Oscar Robertson and most of those players especially Magic Johnson and Lebron James would have been only strict Power-Forwards without Oscar Robertson......

What you younglings are doing is no different than discrediting the humans who were the ones inventing and creating the start of todays technology, because in comparasant to today they were minor right? Thats just stupid.

Also Oscar Robertson and his Free-Agency rule he created is a poignant reminder of our game's history and its tremendous evolution as a result of resolute pioneers like Oscar Robertson.

His contributions to professional basketball are second to none, as is his tremendous dedication to the well-being of former players. As a role model, both on and off the court, Oscar, one of the esteemed NBRPA Founders, continues to make a difference in our game - past, present and future.

Add a ridicilous basketball resume to boot and you got yourself a Top 5-10 player of all time. Speaking of his resume, yes he had not huge amount of rings, but rings are only team accomplishments, its not something one individual can manipulate with his skills & talent if he doesnt have the correct team.

Rings are hence like the icing on top of the cake, its the cake that will shape your career the most and Oscar Robertsons cake is unmatched.

[mcrd101]

1. 3 years from retirement he was the 3rd leading scorer on his team for his one and only ring



so because he wore down towards the end of his career he's not elite?

Shaq hasn't been his dominant self in years, id still say he's one of the best centers in league history. It's not like you'd judge MJ because of his time with the Wizards, or Willie Mays with his time with the Mets.

Robertson is better than Jordan in Assists Per Game Career(Robertson-9.5, Jordan-5.3) and Free throw percentage career (Robertson-.838, Jordan-.835), along with a comparable Shooting percentage (Robertson-.485, Jordan-.497)

I'm not saying Robertson is better than Jordan, but its not like Jordan, who many consider the best, at the very least 2 or 3, is WAY better than Robertson. That being the case, why shouldnt Robertson be considered top 5?

Also, the whole "he wasn't on a winning team," argument shouldn't be held against him as if it's like a top criteria. One guy alone can't bring a team to a championship. That's why LeBron couldn't win one in Cleveland, Kobe couldn't win one without Shaq or the supporting cast he has now(Artest, Pau Gasol, Lamar Odom, Andrew Bynum). There's other examples that show that to but my point still stands.

[get these NETS]

silly thread..


if you disagree, answer this question.


people say that the Big O only won with Alcindor (KAJ)....

how many rings did Kareem win between playing with O and playing with Magic?

[magnax1]

Just to put the stats into perspective, Oscar's 31-12-11 season ends up to be about 23-8-8 in late 80's early 90's pace.

[ShaqAttack3234]

I have mentioned this before, but I guess I have to go thru it again. This "PACE" argument is getting old.

No it's not, it helps put context with the stats so people aren't just comparing Oscar's triple double season with Lebron's 30/8/7 season or 30/7/9 season without taking into consideration that Oscar's teams got 35 more possessions a game. Not to mention Oscar playing 4-5 more mpg.


Furthermore, Oscar generally averaged between 20-23 FGAs in the prime of his career. Are we to believe that Oscar playing in 2011 would only be capable of getting 13-16 FGAs per game?

Lets put it this way. Put Oscar on Lebron's Cavs for example, if you give him 22.9 FGA, 11 FTA and 11.4 apg(not to mention several turnovers a game). He'd be using at least 43 or so possessions per game. Almost half of his team's possessions!

People say Lebron dominates the ball a lot, yet the most possessions he's used were around 38 in '06 when he was playing 42.5 mpg, 37-38 in 2008 when he was playing 40.4 mpg and around 37 in 2010 when he was playing 39 mpg.

So Oscar would be a lot more ball-dominant than Lebron(who people already claim is too ball dominant)?

And, then there is the one stat that is seldom brought up here...LEAGUE AVERAGE FG%. Oscar shot .478 in 61-62, in a league that shot .426. In his next season, he shot .518 in a league that shot .441. The FACT was, Robertson CONSISTENTLY shot way over the league average in his prime. Why is that important? Take Oscar's 61-62 season for example. Divide his .478 by .426, and mutliply it by MJ's '87 league average of .480. and he would have shot .539. Divide his .518 season by .441, and multiply it by .480 and he would have shot .564! Only Magic's .565 season has ever been greater by a PG, and Oscar was averaging over 30 ppg in the year in which he shot .518.

:oldlol: at this. Adjusting FG% up is funny and implies that defense was better in the 60's.


Ultimately, IMO, Oscar, and at his peak, would probably be a 30-8-10 .500+ shooter in TODAY's NBA...even adjusting for this poorly argued point of "pace."
:roll: :oldlol: :roll:


In any case, I am getting so sick-and-tired of the PACE arguments against the great players of the 60's.

Of course context is something you don't want with these numbers. A difference of 35 or so possessions a game is extremely significant.

[Fatal9]

:roll: :oldlol: :roll:
Especially funny because despite watching all their careers (allegedly), he had this to say about Oscar before he got all insecure about Wilt's era:

[QUOTE=jlauber]How many other basketball players could you say that about? Perhaps Russell would be another Ben Wallace, albeit a better passer...but that is not saying much. Sure, West, Robertson, and maybe a handful of others would be good players today, but all-stars?

[TootsieRoll]

hey dickwad, its double digit not double *didget*

haahaha... google it next time please.. im a total ass because im tootsie!

[Simple Jack]

So Griff, Kobe was a better player after that game 7 of the finals than before? I think we would all agree that wasn't one of Kobe's best games; in fact, it was probably one of his worst in the finals. But somehow, he became a better player after the game ended?

For the sake of argument, let's say you convinced yourself Kobe had a good game 7, so we can use another player. Lets call him Player A.

Player A, in the first situation, shoots 10/15, but loses the game due to a buzzer beater by the opposing team.

Now Player A, in the second situation, shoots 4/26, in an abysmal performance, but manages to win the game.

Somehow, Player A became better after the 2nd situation, because the game ended, than in the first because he failed tow in despite having a great game? 48 minutes of play, doesn't magically make you a better player. That's what you seem to be suggesting here.

[Eat Like A Bosh]

Oscar the Grouch lives in a trash can.:lol

[madmax11]

Especially funny because despite watching all their careers (allegedly), he had this to say about Oscar before he got all insecure about Wilt's era:


http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showpost.php?p=5029077&postcount=53

:oldlol:
i just read that regul8r post.damn man, does jlauber lie about everything??? i think he has several disorders and should get a check up or something. he might be related to wilt too. ya never know....

[AirJordan&Magic]

silly thread..


if you disagree, answer this question.


people say that the Big O only won with Alcindor (KAJ)....

how many rings did Kareem win between playing with O and playing with Magic?

Here this crap goes... I am defending Oscar in this thread, but why is it that people continue to use this "great pg" excuse as if Oscar was still a top player during his last days on the Bucks?... It's arguable he wasn't even the 3rd best player on the Bucks in his last season with them.

[pete's montreux]

i leave this thread disappointed

here i thought i was gonna see some big o dick

[chazzy]

How hard is it to figure out that one group of posters is ranking players based on their peak and prime play and another based on their accomplishments and career? Both are valid ways to rank players. Jordan was easily Top 10 by 1990 based on peak/prime play. LeBron James is Top 15 right now at least. However, careerwise, Jordan was not Top 10 by 1990 and LeBron James is not Top 15 right now.
This.

[jlauber]

Lets put it this way. Put Oscar on Lebron's Cavs for example, if you give him 22.9 FGA, 11 FTA and 11.4 apg(not to mention several turnovers a game). He'd be using at least 43 or so possessions per game. Almost half of his team's possessions!

People say Lebron dominates the ball a lot, yet the most possessions he's used were around 38 in '06 when he was playing 42.5 mpg, 37-38 in 2008 when he was playing 40.4 mpg and around 37 in 2010 when he was playing 39 mpg.

So Oscar would be a lot more ball-dominant than Lebron(who people already claim is too ball dominant)?


Oscar took 22% of his team's FGAs in his 61-62 season, and 29% of his team's FT's. Lebron took 25% of his team's FGAs in his 07-08 season, and 37% of his team's FTAs.

Lebron WAS more "ball dominant" in his '08 season, than Oscar was in his '62 season.


at this. Adjusting FG% up is funny and implies that defense was better in the 60's.


Once again the facts seem to confirm that defense WAS better in the 60's. Kareem, at his statistical peak,ata ges 23-25, and very likely his physical peak (most of the great players have their best seasons in their mid-20's...MJ, Lebron, and yes, Kareem), had a FG% against a well-past his peak Wilt ages 34-36 (and on a surgically repaired knee), of .464, over the course of their 28 H2H games. His career FG% was .559. And Wilt was playing volleyball with Kareem's skyhooks in those game's as well. Then there was Nate Thurmond who reduced Kareem to a shell of what he did against the other center's of his career, and in 61 games, too. Kareem struggled to shoot 40% against Thurmond in their playoff series, and he had MANY games of 40%, or less, against Nate.. Yet, a Kareem, at age 38, and in such horrible shape that he could barely get six rebounds a game, just TORCHED a 23 year old Hakeem...in THREE games. He scored at will against him, with games of 35, 42, and 46 points (on 21-30 shooting.) Not only that, but Kareem, aged 39-41, outshot Hakeem, from '87 thru '89, .567 to .475.

And, a near-prime Wilt, just shelled a 22 year-old Kareem in their one meeting before Wilt shredded his knee. One can only wonder how a PRIME Chamberlain would have fared against a prime Kareem. In any case, Wilt's defense severely hampered Kareem. And, Kareem never faced a prime Russell, either.

But even beyond the much better defense by the best defensive centers of the 60's, there were SEVERAL other factors which SIGNFICANTLY lowered FG percentages. One, the frigid arenas. Two, the breezy arenas. Three, the dead spots in the floors (and even nails popping out of the floors.) Four, and this is HUGE...the BALL was NOT uniform until around 1970. BUT, THE biggest reason was probably the scheduling. How many 3-in-row games did MJ play in '87, or Shaq in '00? ZERO. They seldom even played B2B's. How about Wilt in his '62 season. Aside from a TON of B2B games...he had SIX "three-in-a-rows." BUT, he wasn't done there, either, as he had two more other strings of FOUR-IN-A-ROW games...AND, then ONE more string of FIVE straight games (and none of the home games were consecutive, either.)

So, the players of the early 60's, players like West, was a career .474 shooter, which included an unfathomable .419 and .445 percentage in the early 60's. Nearly every great player that played in the entire decade of the 60's, shot considerably better in the late 60's. And players like Rick Barry and John Havlicek shot considerably better in the 70's. Of course, then came the defenseless 80's...where NO DEFENSE was played. ENTIRE leagues were shooting as high as .492. Hell, the 30-52 Kings of the 84-85 season shot .504!

So, YES, LEAGUE AVERAGE FG% was EVERY BIT as significant as those that argue PACE. Once again, if you are going to use PACE against the players of the 60's, you HAVE to adjust for FG%. If not, it would be like comparing the pitcher's of the "dead-ball era", which those of the "steroid era." Oscar shooting .518 in his 62-63 season, in a league that shot .441, is the equivalent of shooting .564 in MJ's 86-87 season, in which the NBA shot .480. And, Chamberlain's .683 in a league that shot .441, would have been an unworldly .743 in the '86-87 season. Furthermore, his .727 in a league that shot .456, would have equaled shooting .765 in '86-87.


And, for those that use PACE, just how much difference is there between '62 and '10? The NBA averaged 100.4 ppg last year. In '62 the NBA averaged 118.8 ppg. So, the 2010 season was at 85% of the '62 scoring. Here again, there have been some complete idiots who claimed that the difference in PACE was nearly double. In other words, Chamberlain's '62 NBA would have had to average 200 ppg. Even those that claim a 50% difference, are WAY off. That would mean that the '62 NBA would have averaged 150 ppg. Even reducing Wilt's '62 NBA by one-third, would mean that his league would have averaged 79 ppg in TODAY's era!

And I have already calculated the ACTUAL differences. Reduce Wilt's '62 FGAs and FTAs down to MJ's '87 levels, and he STILL scores 41 ppg. BUT, adjust his FG% to the much higher percentage he would have shot against the helpless defenders of the 80's, and Wilt would then have scored 45 ppg.


ONE MORE TIME, Oscar would have EASILY gotten his 23 FGAs per game in 2010. And considering that Oscar shot .478 in a league that shot .426, he would have shot about .518 in 2010, in a league that shot .461. And if Lebron could get to the stripe 10 times a game, and Oscar was getting there 11, I don't see any difference there, either. Maybe reduce Oscar's scoring by two FTs a game, but, then adding at least one more FG per game on more efficiency, would off-set that.

Then there is the matter of assists. The "paceologists" have no argument here. Team's in 2010 averaged nearly as many assists as team's in '62 (1742 in '10 to 1915 in '62.) Which means that Oscar's 11.4 would not drop much at all, even with less possessions.

The only aread where Oscar would see a solid reduction, would be in rebounding. But here again, the "paceologists" have come up with all kinds of crazy numbers when comparing '62 to '10. The fact is, the average team in '62 was getting around 60 rpg (after subtracting team rebounds), while the average team was getting 42 in '10. Even reducing Oscar's 12.5 rpg, by one-third (which is still too much of a reduction), and Oscar would have been at 8.5 rpg. You could easily argue 9.0 rpg by ACTUAL percentages.

The bottom line? Claiming Oscar's '62 season translates to a 30-8-10 season in 2010 is not a stretch at all.

[ShaqAttack3234]

Oscar took 22% of his team's FGAs in his 61-62 season, and 29% of his team's FT's. Lebron took 25% of his team's FGAs in his 07-08 season, and 37% of his team's FTAs.

Lebron WAS more "ball dominant" in his '08 season, than Oscar was in his '62 season.

Exactly, yet he ended up shooting less than Oscar because of the huge disparity in pace. Oscar taking the same percentage of his team's shots that he took in 1962 on the 2008 Cavs equals 17.8 FGA and 7.4 FTA, and that's assuming he plays 44+ mpg(which he probably wouldn't).


Once again the facts suggest otherwise. Kareem, at his statistical peak,ata ges 23-25, and very likely his physical peak (most of the great players have their best seasons in their mid-20's...MJ, Lebron, and yes, Kareem), had a FG% against a well-past his peak Wilt ages 34-36 (and on a surgically repaired knee), shot .464 over the course of their 28 H2H games. His career FG% was .559. And Wilt was playing volleyball with Kareem's skyhooks in those game's as well. Then there was Nate Thurmond who reduced Kareem to a shell of what he did against the other center's of his career, and in 61 games, too. Kareem struggled to shoot 40% against Thurmond. Yet, a Kareem, at age 38, and in such horrible shape that he could barely get six rebounds a game, just TORCHED a 23 year old Hakeem...in THREE games. He scored at will against him, with games of 35, 42, and 46 points (on 21-30 shooting.) Not only that, but Kareem, aged 39-41, outshot Hakeem, from '87 thru '89, .567 to .475.

And, a near-prime Wilt, just shelled a 22 year-old Kareem in their one meeting before Wilt shredded his knee. One can only wonder how a PRIME Chamberlain would have fared against a prime Kareem. In any case, Wilt's defense severely hampered Kareem. And, Kareem never faced a prime Russell, either.

But even beyond the much better defense by the best defensive centers of the 60's, there were SEVERAL other factors which SIGNFICANTLY lowered FG percentages. One, the frigid arenas. Two, the breezy arenas. Three, the dead spots in the floors (and even nails popping out of the floors.) Four, and this is HUGE...the BALL was NOT uniform until around 1970. BUT, THE biggest reason was probably the scheduling. How many 3-in-row games did MJ play in '87, or Shaq in '00? ZERO. They seldom even played B2B's. How about Wilt in his '62 season. Aside from a TON of B2B games...he had SIX "three-in-a-rows." BUT, he wasn't done there, either, as he had two more other strings of FOUR-IN-A-ROW games...AND, then ONE more string of FIVE straight games (and none of the home games were consecutive, either.)

So, the players of the early 60's, players like West, was a career .474 shooter, which included an unfathomable .419 and .445 percentage in the early 60's. Nearly every great player that played in the entire decade of the 60's, shot considerably better in the late 60's. And players like Rick Barry and John Havlicek shot considerably better in the 70's. Of course, then came the defenseless 80's...where NO DEFENSE was played. ENTIRE leagues were shooting as high as .492. Hell, the 30-52 Kings of the 84-85 season shot .504!

So, YES, LEAGUE AVERAGE FG% was EVERY BIT as significant as those that argue PACE. Once again, if you are going to use PACE against the players of the 60's, you HAVE to adjust for FG%. If not, it would be like comparing the pitcher's of the "dead-ball era", which those of the "steroid era." Oscar shooting .518 in his 62-63 season, in a league that shot .441, is the equivalent of shooting .564 in MJ's 86-87 season, in which the NBA shot .480. And, Chamberlain's .683 in a league that shot .441, would have been an unworldly .743 in the '86-87 season. Furthermore, his .727 in a league that shot .456, would have equaled shooting .765 in '86-87.


And, for those that use PACE, just how much difference is there between '62 and '10? The NBA averaged 100.4 ppg last year. In '62 the NBA averaged 118.8 ppg. So, the 2010 season was at 85% of the '62 scoring. Here again, there have been some complete idiots who claimed that the difference in PACE was nearly double. In other words, Chamberlain's '62 NBA would have had to average 200 ppg. Even those that claim a 50% difference, are WAY off. That would mean that the '62 NBA would have averaged 150 ppg. Even reducing Wilt's '62 NBA by one-third, would mean that his league would have averaged 79 ppg in TODAY's era!

And I have already calculated the ACTUAL differences. Reduce Wilt's '62 FGAs and FTAs down to MJ's '87 levels, and he STILL scores 41 ppg. BUT, adjust his FG% to the much higher percentage he would have shot against the helpless defenders of the 80's, and Wilt would then have scored 45 ppg.


ONE MORE TIME, Oscar would have EASILY gotten his 23 FGAs per game in 2010. And considering that Oscar shot .478 in a league that shot .426, he would have shot about .518 in 2010, in a league that shot .461. And if Lebron could get to the stripe 10 times a game, and Oscar was getting there 11, I don't see any difference there, either. Maybe reduce Oscar's scoring by two FTs a game, but, then adding at least one more FG per game on more efficiency, would off-set that.

Then there is the matter of assists. The "paceologists" have no argument here. Team's in 2010 averaged nearly as many assists as team's in '62 (1742 in '10 to 1915 in '62.) Which means that Oscar's 11.4 would not drop much at all, even with less possessions.

The only aread where Oscar would see a solid reduction, would be in rebounding. But here again, the "paceologists" have come up with all kinds of crazy numbers when comparing '62 to '10. The fact is, the average team in '62 was getting around 60 rpg (after subtracting team rebounds), while the average team was getting 42 in '10. Even reducing Oscar's 12.5 rpg, by one-third (which is still too much of a reduction), and Oscar would have been at 8.5 rpg. You could easily argue 9.0 rpg by ACTUAL percentages.

The bottom line? Claiming Oscar's '62 season translates to a 30-8-10 season in 2010 is not a stretch at all.

Not this idiotic "bridge" crap again. Remember my comparison between team defenses in 2000 and 1967? I've heard many players talk about how much more advanced defensive schemes got as time went on, one of them being Matt Goukas(Wilt's teammate on the Sixers).

I have no idea what Oscar would actually average. Probably more in the 80's than the late 90's/early 00's, but 30/8/10? :oldlol:

Also, Lebron>Oscar.

[jlauber]

Exactly, yet he ended up shooting less than Oscar because of the huge disparity in pace. Oscar taking the same percentage of his team's shots that he took in 1962 on the 2008 Cavs equals 17.8 FGA and 7.4 FTA, and that's assuming he plays 44+ mpg(which he probably wouldn't).



Not this idiotic "bridge" crap again. Remember my comparison between team defenses in 2000 and 1967? I've heard many players talk about how much more advanced defensive schemes got as time went on, one of them being Matt Goukas(Wilt's teammate on the Sixers).

I have no idea what Oscar would actually average. Probably more in the 80's than the late 90's/early 00's, but 30/8/10? :oldlol:

Also, Lebron>Oscar.

So, YOU are essentially claiming that Oscar could only get 17 FGAs in 2008? While Lebron coluld get 22? Yet, in the 00's we had players like Kobe and Iverson getting 27?

And in the DEFENSELESS 80's, let's get real. He would be scoring as nearly as efficiently as Dantley, with much more all-around impact.

As for Lebron>Oscar. Give Lebron another 7-8 seasons, and maybe I will agree with you. But, NOT at this point in their CAREERS.

BTW, Guokas shot .389 in 66-67. Take a look at his FG% in the 70's. He even shot .570 one season. Just ONE MORE EXAMPLE that CLEARLY demonstrates that it was MUCH MORE difficult to shoot well in the 60's.

[ShaqAttack3234]

So, YOU are essentially claiming that Oscar could only get 17 FGAs in 2008? While Lebron coluld get 22? Yet, in the 00's we had players like Kobe and Iverson getting 27?

17.8 is closer to 18 than 17 and no, as I said, I have no idea what his numbers would look like, I was just pointing out that Oscar averaging the same percentage of his team's shots would end up at that on the 2008 Cavs which points out how big of a role pace plays when the disparity is so huge(around 35 possessions per game).


And in the DEFENSELESS 80's, let's get real. He would be scoring as nearly as efficiently as Dantley, with much more all-around impact.

:rolleyes:


As for Lebron>Oscar. Give Lebron another 7-8 seasons, and maybe I will agree with you. But, NOT at this point in their CAREERS.

In Oscar's 10 seasons with the Royals he accomplished less than Lebron did in 7 in Cleveland and that was with Lebron coming straight out of high school. And I was referring to their peaks. I firmly believe that Oscar did not have the same impact on a basketball court that Lebron does.


BTW, Guokas shot .389 in 66-67. Take a look at his FG% in the 70's. He even shot .570 one season. Just ONE MORE EXAMPLE that CLEARLY demonstrates that it was MUCH MORE difficult to shoot well in the 60's.

You can pick and choose whatever you want to support your agenda. I can do the same.

Jerry West's 3 best shooting seasons.

1968- 51.4 FG%
1970- 49.7 FG%
1965- 49.7 FG%

2 of them were in the 60's.

And Goukas was a rookie barely getting any minutes in 1967, the very next season in 1968, his FG% improved to 48.3%.