View Full Version : Oscar Robertson:Arguably The Best Of All Time?
PTB Fan
10-20-2011, 12:49 PM
Would you say he's got a respectable case for the first spot?
Where do you have him on your all time list?
in terms of talent-skills-production-versatility and so on.... being the best all-round overall complete player ever....
i say HELL YES...........
in terms of career....
i say NO..........
Kblaze8855
10-20-2011, 12:58 PM
I would not say he has a case...though I feel a bit odd about it because it seems every single one of his peers does.
PTB Fan
10-20-2011, 12:59 PM
His case is odd but he may have one
Legends66NBA7
10-20-2011, 01:01 PM
Strangely, I do see the case, a pretty low one though. Oscar is underrated on ISH.
i mean if you value an INDIVIDUAL PLAYER...... and dont give a damn about TEAM ACCOMPLISHMENTS.......... then yes.... he could pretty much be the GOAT........ but even then Wilt Chamberlain has something to say about that....
PTB Fan
10-20-2011, 01:06 PM
i mean if you value an INDIVIDUAL PLAYER...... and dont give a damn about TEAM ACCOMPLISHMENTS.......... then yes.... he could pretty much be the GOAT........ but even then Wilt Chamberlain has something to say about that....
Based on all-around game, stats, individual play, offense.. and probably something more like all of his peers.
chazzy
10-20-2011, 01:10 PM
No. His numbers are great but I question his actual impact on games.. and his numbers need to be put in context as well. And I just can't consider someone to be the greatest of their sport with only one championship as the 2nd best player and leading his team to 50 wins once.
Odinn
10-20-2011, 01:11 PM
There are 6 players can be called g.o.a.t. and Big O isn't one of them.
Jordan
Kareem
Wilt
Russell
Bird
Magic
artificial
10-20-2011, 01:18 PM
Personally, the only ones who I consider as arguable GOATs are Chamberlain, Russell, Kareem and Jordan, in no order.
I guess you could make a case for Big O, but I have him just a notch below those guys, in the same category as Magic & Bird.
Deuce Bigalow
10-20-2011, 01:21 PM
he just doesn't have the rings
he just doesn't have the rings
Yeah, what a bum. :facepalm :hammerhead:
Deuce Bigalow
10-20-2011, 01:24 PM
Yeah, what a bum. :facepalm :hammerhead:
were talking about GOAT, you need to have the rings to be the greatest
creepingdeath
10-20-2011, 01:24 PM
he just doesn't have the rings
http://suptg.thisisnotatrueending.com/archive/16084053/images/1314467004173.gif
Anyhow, I don't see him as underrated on ISH. A lot of people have him ranked in front of Kobe, others right behind him.
Deuce Bigalow
10-20-2011, 01:25 PM
Jordan, Magic, Kareem, Bird, Russell, Wilt, Shaq, Kobe, and Duncan are better
were talking about GOAT, you need to have the rings to be the greatest
He has a ring, first of all, and he's not the GOAT IMO anyways, but not for the "magical ringzzzz!" argument. You can't just dismiss someone or prop someone up solely for rings, you have to consider the circumstances that were in place when they won/didn't win ring(s).
Jordan, Magic, Kareem, Bird, Russell, Wilt, Shaq, Kobe, and Duncan are clearly better
:facepalm
Deuce Bigalow
10-20-2011, 01:28 PM
He has a ring, first of all, and he's not the GOAT IMO anyways, but not for the "magical ringzzzz!" argument. You can't just dismiss someone or prop someone up solely for rings, you have to consider the circumstances that were in place when they won/didn't win ring(s).
1 ring, and that was with Kareem
compared to jordan and kareem with 6, magic and kobe with 5, duncan and shaq with 4, ect
Deuce Bigalow
10-20-2011, 01:29 PM
:facepalm
:facepalm
Give me Kobe over Oscar any day
Deuce Bigalow
10-20-2011, 01:31 PM
5 championships, 2 without a top 50 player of alltime > oscar's fast paced stats
:facepalm
Give me Kobe over Oscar any day
Okay. You can have the lesser player if that's what you really want. :rolleyes: :lol
5 championships, 2 without a top 50 player of alltime > oscar's fast paced stats
Pau Gasol is still a future hall of famer. He's not top 50 or anything, but how many players in NBA history can you name who had better careers? It's not like he's some borderline starter or anything.
Deuce Bigalow
10-20-2011, 01:35 PM
Pau Gasol is still a future hall of famer. He's not top 50 or anything, but how many players in NBA history can you name who had better careers? It's not like he's some borderline starter or anything.
yeah i know, but he is not top 50, those championships are impressive
Deuce Bigalow
10-20-2011, 01:35 PM
Okay. You can have the lesser player if that's what you really want. :rolleyes: :lol
lesser player?
the guy with the 5 rings is a lesser player? okay :rolleyes:
yeah i know, but he is not top 50, those championships are impressive
So Kobe still had another hall of famer playing with him. Kthxbai
lesser player?
the guy with the 5 rings is a lesser player? okay :rolleyes:
Robert Horry 7 rings. Derek Fisher 5 rings.
Robert Horry>Derek Fisher=Kobe Bryant
Deuce Bigalow
10-20-2011, 01:38 PM
So Kobe still had another hall of famer playing with him. Kthxbai
Jordan had Pippen - top 50, hof
Shaq had Kobe, top 10, hof
Magic had kareem, top 5, hof
Kareem had Magic, top 5, hof
ect
:facepalm
Kobe has 9 all nba and all defensive teams
your a moron :facepalm
Kobe doesn't deserve most of those all defensive teams. And at least one of those all nba 1st teams should have been Wade (this past year). Fail. :sleeping
Deuce Bigalow
10-20-2011, 01:39 PM
Oscar has no case over Kobe Bryant
If he has, tell it
Jordan had Pippen - top 50, hof
Shaq had Kobe, top 10, hof
Magic had kareem, top 5, hof
Kareem had Magic, top 5, hof
ect
Kobe had Shaq-top 7, hof
Conveniently forgot that one, eh?
Legends66NBA7
10-20-2011, 01:39 PM
So Kobe still had another hall of famer playing with him. Kthxbai
Oscar won his only ring as the sidekick to Kareem (Lew Alcindor at the time).
Deuce Bigalow
10-20-2011, 01:40 PM
Kobe doesn't deserve most of those all defensive teams. And at least one of those all nba 1st teams should have been Wade (this past year). Fail. :sleeping
He still has 8 other ones :facepalm
Odinn
10-20-2011, 01:40 PM
yeah i know, but he is not top 50, those championships are impressive
Maybe Gasol is not top 50 ever but in terms of today's big men, Gasol was a top3 big men in that title runs. Kobe's title runs are impressive without a doubt but let's not discredit Gasol.
Oscar won his only ring as the sidekick to Kareem (Lew Alcindor at the time).
I know that. But that era was dominated by two teams for the most part, and Oscar's peak was on lesser teams.
Deuce Bigalow
10-20-2011, 01:41 PM
Kobe had Shaq-top 7, hof
Conveniently forgot that one, eh?
won 2 without him
forgot that?
Deuce Bigalow
10-20-2011, 01:42 PM
Maybe Gasol is not top 50 ever but in terms of today's big men, Gasol was a top3 big men in that title runs. Kobe's title runs are impressive without a doubt but let's not discredit Gasol.
Im not discrediting Gasol at all
Hes a great player, just not top 50 alltime
but a HOFer and top 100 maybe
Legends66NBA7
10-20-2011, 01:42 PM
I know that. But that era was dominated by two teams for the most part, and Oscar's peak was on lesser teams.
Yes, but you can't deny that Kobe won 2 as the man with much more teams and talent in the league.
He still has 8 other ones :facepalm
Oscar has 9.
Yes, but you can't deny that Kobe won 2 as the man with much more teams and talent in the league.
No I can't deny that, but I still think Oscar was better. That's hardly a stupid statement to make, and is most definitely debatable.
won 2 without him
forgot that?
No we were just talking about that. :facepalm
Im not discrediting Gasol at all
Hes a great player, just not top 50 alltime
but a HOFer and top 100 maybe
Can you name 100 better players? :rolleyes:
Deuce Bigalow
10-20-2011, 01:44 PM
Oscar has 9.
Same with Kobe
and 9 all defensive 1st teams, deserves most of them
the award didnt come out till like the laste 60s I think, so Oscar has 0
Same with Kobe
and 9 all defensive 1st teams, deserves most of them
the award didnt come out till like the laste 60s I think, so Oscar has 0
:roll: :roll: :roll:
Deuce Bigalow
10-20-2011, 01:45 PM
Can you name 100 better players? :rolleyes:
maybe, thats why I put it
Deuce Bigalow
10-20-2011, 01:46 PM
:roll: :roll: :roll:
Kobe's the better defender, dont get :mad:
Legends66NBA7
10-20-2011, 01:47 PM
No I can't deny that, but I still think Oscar was better. That's hardly a stupid statement to make, and is most definitely debatable.
It is debatable, same way I feel Jerry West debatable as well. I think it depends how you value things. Do you accept Indivdual ? Team ? Basketball ability ? All of it ? I think all of the above and putting into proper context should be valued.
It should be noted that Kobe did watch some Oscar tapes when he was growing up. So Originality goes to Oscar. He's was an influence to Kobe.
Kobe's the better defender, dont get :mad:
:blah :blah :blah Kobe's defense is terribly overrated. Even Phil Jackson said that.
Deuce Bigalow
10-20-2011, 01:50 PM
It is debatable, same way I feel Jerry West debatable as well. I think it depends how you value things. Do you accept Indivdual ? Team ? Basketball ability ? All of it ? I think all of the above and putting into proper context should be valued.
It should be noted that Kobe did watch some Oscar tapes when he was growing up. So Originality goes to Oscar. He's was an influence to Kobe.
Can you imagine Kobe in the 60s lol
It wouldve been named the National Kobe League / sarcasm :oldlol:
Deuce Bigalow
10-20-2011, 01:51 PM
:blah :blah :blah Kobe's defense is terribly overrated. Even Phil Jackson said that.
okay, it might be overrated, but its better than Oscar's
okay, it might be overrated, but its better than Oscar's
Oscar was better on offense.
Deuce Bigalow
10-20-2011, 01:59 PM
Oscar was better on offense.
that is arguable, because
NBA League Averages
2005-06 Season
97.0 PPG, 79.0 FGA, 26.3 FTA, 41.0 RPG, 20.6 APG
1961-62 Season
118.8 PPG, 107.7 FGA, 37.1 FTA, 71.4 RPG, 23.9 APG
that is arguable, because
NBA League Averages
2005-06 Season
97.0 PPG, 79.0 FGA, 26.3 FTA, 41.0 RPG, 20.6 APG
1961-62 Season
118.8 PPG, 107.7 FGA, 37.1 FTA, 71.4 RPG, 23.9 APG
Don't give me that era crap.
Deuce Bigalow
10-20-2011, 02:01 PM
Don't give me that era crap.
hows that crap?
the pace was insane
Legends66NBA7
10-20-2011, 02:02 PM
Can you imagine Kobe in the 60s lol
It wouldve been named the National Kobe League / sarcasm :oldlol:
Well time machines don't exist.
The only true way to guage something like that is by seeing how players faced off against their peers.
Also, the only way to hypothetically know how someone could do in the past or present is if they were actually born at that time.
The question should be:
"What if Kobe was born in 1938 (the year Oscar was born) ? How good would he have been ?"
"What if Oscar was born in 1978 (the year Kobe was born) ? How good would he have been ?"
They would both be great players because greatness would transcend in any era, but they would be completly different players.
Well time machines don't exist.
The only true way to guage something like that is by seeing how players faced off against their peers.
Also, the only way to hypothetically know how someone could do in the past or present is if they were actually born at that time.
The question should be:
"What if Kobe was born in 1938 (the year Oscar was born) ? How good would he have been ?"
"What if Oscar was born in 1978 (the year Kobe was born) ? How good would he have been ?"
They would both be great players because greatness would transcend in any era, but they would be completly different players.
:applause:
senelcoolidge
10-20-2011, 02:43 PM
I know championships make a difference, but you can't do it alone. You can't always base someone's greatness on how many championships they had in their career. One player is not in control of personnel matters or in control of the other 11 players on the team. Some guys were just unlucky, because they may not have had strong teammates or coaching or there were just better team out there. Had Oscar played with the Celtics team that was so stacked he of course would have won multiple championships. Not until he was finally on a team like the Bucks that had a stud in the middle and other really good players did he finally get his. Give championships some merit, but don't make it your say all.
bizil
10-20-2011, 02:59 PM
The case Oscar had was the best all around player of all time. But since his time, u got MJ, Kobe, and Lebron that have passed him by. Bird and Magic are awesome all around of course, but I think their individual D isn't on the level of the other four. But MJ, Kobe, Bron, and Big O can all play and defend 3 (or Bron's case four) different positions all great. So Big O was the blueprint for the medium size player that can do it all on the court with awesome versatility. That in itself will ALWAYS give Big O iconic status. MJ, Kobe, and Bron have traits of the Big O. They just added freakish athletic ability on top of it. Remember when MJ played PG that year for the Bulls a lot? He was putting up Big O type of numbers. And Bron is Mr. Triple Double while getting 30 points a night. That's damn similar to Big O as well. So every multi talented, versatile perimeter player that's a very good to great scorer and has playmaking ability in that 6'5 to 6'8 range have some Big O in them. But no doubt Magic and Bron are the most similar.
AlphaWolf24
10-20-2011, 03:13 PM
I know championships make a difference, but you can't do it alone. You can't always base someone's greatness on how many championships they had in their career. One player is not in control of personnel matters or in control of the other 11 players on the team. Some guys were just unlucky, because they may not have had strong teammates or coaching or there were just better team out there. Had Oscar played with the Celtics team that was so stacked he of course would have won multiple championships. Not until he was finally on a team like the Bucks that had a stud in the middle and other really good players did he finally get his. Give championships some merit, but don't make it your say all.
Uhh..not really true...
as the star it's your responsibilty to keep the pulse of the team and set the example...
the teams sucess is a direct reflection of the star of the team...
there have been many great teams with great players who lost...but most of the time they lost to a better player who worked harder.
50's Celtics had some great players...they never won jack before Russell arrived....when Cousy retired , Russell won 6 more Titles.....after Russell left they fell to the bottom of the league...Russell was one of the hardest workers and smartest players in NBA History....he also had the mindset to never quit or back down to anyone...he won 14 major Titles in 13 years and sparked a revelution cultrally off the court with the civil rights movement
Luck might have some little impact...but not like you suggest.....also , at the Pro level the difference in talent is not like you suggest....star players hold alot of weight and can impact there teams in many ways , more so then any other team sport....
Many players play on great temas with great teamates and never win anything....
some players work hard and try to become the best through hours upon hours of practice thear whole life...when they do win, I wouldn't call it Luck.
ThaRegul8r
10-21-2011, 04:50 PM
Oscar wasn't the best player of his own era. So how can he be the best player of all time?
*kobetard logic on*
no... not even top 20... a choker... no rings.. he had 1 but he got it as sidekick when out of his prime.... empty stats... statspadder only in a weak era...
*kobetard logic off*
Jacks3
10-21-2011, 05:01 PM
Kobe> Oscar. Not even arguable.
Kobe in the 60's would put up about 45-8-8-3 every year.
artificial
10-21-2011, 05:17 PM
Oh god, I can't believe this thread was turned into a Kobe thread :facepalm
Can't you guys discuss something without bringing up Kobe/Lebron?
Duncan21formvp
10-21-2011, 05:38 PM
Would you say he's got a respectable case for the first spot?
Where do you have him on your all time list?
Hell no. How can you arguably even be the best all time with 1 league mvp and never won a title as the best player on your team while only leading a team to 50 wins once in your career as the best on it?
Duncan21formvp
10-21-2011, 05:40 PM
:facepalm
Give me Kobe over Oscar any day
Me too.
ThaRegul8r
10-21-2011, 06:16 PM
Would you say he's got a respectable case for the first spot?
Where do you have him on your all time list?
Hell no. How can you arguably even be the best all time with 1 league mvp and never won a title as the best player on your team while only leading a team to 50 wins once in your career as the best on it?
It's not necessary to even get into that. As I said. He wasn't the best player of his own era. There were players in the league at the time that he played that were better than he was. That kinda precludes one from being the best of all time if you weren't even the best of your own time.
Hondo
10-21-2011, 06:21 PM
:facepalm
Kobe has 9 all nba and all defensive 1st teams
your a moron :facepalm
Are you sure about that?
PTB Fan
10-21-2011, 06:35 PM
Oscar wasn't the best player of his own era. So how can he be the best player of all time?
Very hard over Russell and Chamberlain, but this is all arguable.
millwad
10-21-2011, 06:45 PM
Are you sure about that?
Haha, pure ownage... What a dick.:facepalm
bizil
10-21-2011, 06:50 PM
Very hard over Russell and Chamberlain, but this is all arguable.
Me personally, West, Baylor, and let alone Big O were over Russell in terms of talent or dominance on an individual scale. Russ was just an awesome rebounder, defender, and leader who was a very good scorer. But he couldn't takeover a game like the other guys or even a Bob Pettit. It's the accolades and rings that get Russ in the top 4-7 GOAT players of all time. So Big O in my book was the second greatest player of that era behind Wilt. Every 6'5 to 6'8 player who can play PG, SG, and SF with great effectiveness has some Big O in them. Any player known to get triple doubles at a great rate will be compared to Big O. If it wasn't for rings, Russell wouldn't be rated over Big O, West, Baylor, or Pettit.
NugzHeat3
10-21-2011, 07:13 PM
Russell's impact is what led to those rings and whatever accolades he got. He's not great because he has 11 rings, the things he was doing is what's leading to those championships. Only constant on those 11 teams which is all you need to know concerning who the most important piece was.
People need to realize he was dominating at such a high level defensively, it didn't matter how good he or his teams were offensively. Its not like the lack of ability to takeover hurt him or his teams. Though they had guys like Sam Jones to hit clutch shots, Russell would also come up with a big game if they really needed to like the 30/40 game 7. Sounds like taking over.
Oscar was better better all around but he wasn't the better player unless you feel Russell's game doesn't transcend as well as Oscar's on an era to era basis. But during their era which mainly overlapped, Russell was definitely the better player. Best player of the 60s goes to Russell, imo though I'm far from an expert on the subject.
Deuce Bigalow
10-21-2011, 07:15 PM
Are you sure about that?
lol you got me
you're
ThaRegul8r
10-21-2011, 07:20 PM
Me personally, West, Baylor, and let alone Big O were over Russell in terms of talent or dominance on an individual scale. Russ was just an awesome rebounder, defender, and leader who was a very good scorer. But he couldn't takeover a game like the other guys or even a Bob Pettit.
:facepalm
Spoken by someone who quite evidently knows zero about Russell other than he's "the guy who won 11 rings." The statement that he couldn't takeover a game or wasn't dominant on an individual scale is laughable. Just because he dominated in a manner than you and "most people" are unaccustomed to. In 1964, when he and the Celtics faced the Royals and MVP Oscar in the playoffs, Russell made a statement in the very first game with 18 points, 31 rebounds and 11 blocked shots, and single-handedly shutting out the Royals for the game's first five minutes by putting a wall around the basket and snuffing Jack Twyman, Wayne Embry and Oscar. But Russell wasn't as dominant and couldn't take over a game.
:rolleyes:
Deuce Bigalow
10-21-2011, 07:25 PM
*kobetard logic on*
no... not even top 20... a choker... no rings.. he had 1 but he got it as sidekick when out of his prime.... empty stats... statspadder only in a weak era...
*kobetard logic off*
lebrontard logic: rings dont matter, losing does, and choking is okay
lebrontard logic:
talent-skill-production-domination, individual accomplishments both in season & playoffs, team impact and value/context/success based on what the player had to work with around him (team)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
kobetard logic:
team accomplishments or being a worse player but getting a ring due to having a much better team or getting team accomplishments (rings) handed to you on a silverplate... and then acting like that lesser player was better, just because he got a ring due to his team
FIXED
bizil
10-21-2011, 08:20 PM
:facepalm
Spoken by someone who quite evidently knows zero about Russell other than he's "the guy who won 11 rings." The statement that he couldn't takeover a game or wasn't dominant on an individual scale is laughable. Just because he dominated in a manner than you and "most people" are unaccustomed to. In 1964, when he and the Celtics faced the Royals and MVP Oscar in the playoffs, Russell made a statement in the very first game with 18 points, 31 rebounds and 11 blocked shots, and single-handedly shutting out the Royals for the game's first five minutes by putting a wall around the basket and snuffing Jack Twyman, Wayne Embry and Oscar. But Russell wasn't as dominant and couldn't take over a game.
:rolleyes:
“What are you going to do about Russell? He’s everywhere. He blocks everything. He’s got everybody bothered. You can’t play your game against him.” That's what Oscar had to say as he and the Royals were getting wiped out in five after they were supposed to be the team to end the Celtics' reign. Then Russell closed them out with 20 points, 35 rebounds, seven assists, six blocked shots and three steals, while MVP Oscar got shut down to the tune of two field goals and nine points in the first half, finishing with 24. But no, Russell didn't dominate or take over a game.
:facepalm
It's baffling how many people continue to talk about something they know nothing about. Their only saving grace is that most other people don't know any more than they do, so it goes unopposed. Rarely will you have someone who actually knows something to come along to set things straight, so all you get is ignorance and more ignorance.
I know plenty about basketball hater! Russ was an awesome player and truly an HOF caliber player. But Russell wasn't on the level of Wilt, West, Baylor, Big O, or Pettit in terms of scoring potency. I said Russ was a very good scorer in my post hater! But it's no secret that Russell's rings are what has him in the top 4-7 player of all time.
So u mean to tell me in a peak value draft or prime draft u would take Russ over these centers:
Wilt
Kareem
Shaq
Hakeem
Moses
Walton
Ewing
Robinson
McAdoo (his MVP and scoring titles were at center)
To each their own but give me ANY of these centers over Russell in terms of peak value. Now on a GOAT list, Russell will rank over all of them except Kareem and Wilt. And many people have Russell ranked as high as number two on a GOAT list. So in GOAT terms (which factors solo accolades, team accolades, talent, longevity being great, and numbers), Russell is immortal and a top 4-7 player of all time. But in terms of flat out who's the best player of peak value, Russell in my book is at best number 10 amongst big men. No disrespect to Russell, but y would u take him over Hakeem, Shaq, or a Moses Malone. Or a prime Bill Walton. Let alone over Wilt or Kareem. U even have bigs like a Tim Duncan that's really a center. Give me Timmy all day over Russell! Reason being is because u have centers that can come close to matching his D or even exceed it. And ALL of the centers I named are more dominant scorers. Most of them are damn close or just as good as far as boards. And many of them pass just as good or even better. So we can agree to disagree, but don't get on here talkin shit sayin I don't know about the game. The way I broke it down on ya punk ass showed how much Russ has done for the game in GOAT terms. But peak value wise when u are looking at the actual player without accolades and shit, Russell doesn't rank as high. And to quote The Rattlesnake, "That's the bottom line!"
Deuce Bigalow
10-21-2011, 08:23 PM
FIXED
having the best team in the NBA and losing in the finals while being the 5th leading scorer in the series and had the biggest PPG drop-off from reg season to finals in NBA history and score 0 points on 0-7 shooting in the clutch for the series
greatness
bizil
10-21-2011, 08:29 PM
[QUOTE=ThaRegul8r]:facepalm
Spoken by someone who quite evidently knows zero about Russell other than he's "the guy who won 11 rings." The statement that he couldn't takeover a game or wasn't dominant on an individual scale is laughable. Just because he dominated in a manner than you and "most people" are unaccustomed to. In 1964, when he and the Celtics faced the Royals and MVP Oscar in the playoffs, Russell made a statement in the very first game with 18 points, 31 rebounds and 11 blocked shots, and single-handedly shutting out the Royals for the game's first five minutes by putting a wall around the basket and snuffing Jack Twyman, Wayne Embry and Oscar. But Russell wasn't as dominant and couldn't take over a game.
:rolleyes:
bizil
10-21-2011, 08:35 PM
Russell's impact is what led to those rings and whatever accolades he got. He's not great because he has 11 rings, the things he was doing is what's leading to those championships. Only constant on those 11 teams which is all you need to know concerning who the most important piece was.
People need to realize he was dominating at such a high level defensively, it didn't matter how good he or his teams were offensively. Its not like the lack of ability to takeover hurt him or his teams. Though they had guys like Sam Jones to hit clutch shots, Russell would also come up with a big game if they really needed to like the 30/40 game 7. Sounds like taking over.
Oscar was better better all around but he wasn't the better player unless you feel Russell's game doesn't transcend as well as Oscar's on an era to era basis. But during their era which mainly overlapped, Russell was definitely the better player. Best player of the 60s goes to Russell, imo though I'm far from an expert on the subject.
Greatest player of the 60's is Russell due to GOAT terms like rings. But make no mistake Wilt was the king of the 60's in terms of who was the best player flat out. It's two different arguments. I never said Russell couldn't takeover a game. But for me, Wilt, West, Baylor, Pettit,and O were more dominant taking over a game and natural at it on offense. I never said Russell wasn't a great player. What I said was take away those rings and its VERY ARGUABLE that West, Baylor, Big O, and Pettit would be seen as better than Russell. Now take away the rings from MJ, he would still be the greatest SG of all time in terms of talent and ability. Russell can't say the same when compared to other centers. If I'm picking a franchise center, Russell is at best number ten on my list. In GOAT terms, he's a top 4-7 player of all time. The GOAT is the key list and he's at the top on the mount rushmore. But in peak value shit, he's lower on the totem pole.
I think u haters need to realize he also played with Cousy, Sam Jones, Havlicek, etc. He was the defensive anchor. But put Wilt on those Celtic teams. He clearly would have been a more dominant offensive force on those teams. Put Russell on those Sixer teams that couldn't initially get over the hump. He could not have provided the offensive dominance that those teams needed.
ThaRegul8r
10-21-2011, 09:15 PM
I know plenty about basketball hater!
You failed to demonstrate that you do. And an ad hominem attack right out of the gate in the very first sentence alerts me that what follows is going to contain nothing of substance. And the uninformed opinion, inability to even type out the word
bizil
10-21-2011, 09:27 PM
You failed to demonstrate that you do. And an ad hominem attack right out of the gate in the very first sentence alerts me that what follows is going to contain nothing of substance. And the uninformed opinion, inability to even type out the word “you,” the use of vulgarities, and ending it with a Stone Cold reference (as I don’t live under a rock, I’m aware of popular culture) confirms it.
You broke down nothing, and there’s not a single poster who currently posts on this board who knows more about Russell or what he did for the game than I do. The very notion that you could “show me anything” in that regard is laughable.
I love when people put their foot in their mouth and prove me right.
Knowledgeable people (emphasis on knowledgeable) who look at the actual player without accolades still rank him high. So whether you factor in the accolades or not, his ranking is unaffected by people who actually know something. But then, ignorance from you seems to be par for the course. And serves to prove my point about people speaking on what they have no knowledge of.
Then a bald-faced lie when what you said is clearly up there (before you edit it).
U can't come on here and just claim people don't know anything about bball just because u disagree. U r the one that's a hater not me. I stand by what I said. Russ is clearly a top 4 to 7 player of all time. Even without rings he's an easy HOF type player. However, Russell ranks higher than other guys like Hakeem, Shaq, Moses, Ewing, Robinson,and Walton on a GOAT list due to the rings. But in a draft, I dare u to take a poll on here and see who people would take. I PROMISE guys like Shaq, Hakeem, Prime Walton and Moses would go higher than Russell in a draft that's based strictly on the player. I still feel Russ is a top ten center WITHOUT rings. But keep it real, U KNOW MANY PEOPLE WOULD TAKE SHAQ, HAKEEM, OR MOSES OVER RUSS IN A DRAFT. Let alone Wilt and Kareem. Many would take Duncan over Russell in a draft. That's not hard to see. Now some may take Russ over them in a draft. But the point I'm making is that GOAT criteria and peak value criteria are two different things.
And u keep ducking that point. I said Russ was a great player without rings. But other guys in the 60's like Big O, West, Pettit, and Baylor were on his level as a player. It's the rings that has Russ so high in a GOAT list while the other four hover around 10-20. The other four were regarded as the best players OF ALL TIME for their positions for many years. Wilt was CLEARLY better than Russell. But on a GOAT type list, many rated Russ ahead of Wilt due to career resume. The key list that matters most is the GOAT list. And Russ is a god in bball and rightfully so. He's clearly 4-7 on a GOAT list. But peak value is different. And let's keep it real, their were way more better 6'10 and up big men that came down the pike later. And u had more teams enter the league. So u have to factor all of that in too. I feel Russ's game could translate today and he would be great. Especially with the lack of quality C's. But his greatness was defense, leadership, and rebounding. Scoring he was very good no doubt. But I feel u have other centers that are just flat out better players. And many on this site I'm sure feel the same way. And I'm sure many will agree with u. But I can disagree without saying somebody doesn't know anything about bball.
NBAller
10-21-2011, 09:34 PM
You know you lost a argument when:
:facepalm
Kobe has 9 all nba and all defensive 1st teams
your a moron :facepalm
Deuce Bigalow
10-21-2011, 09:38 PM
You know you lost a argument when:
:oldlol:
I know its you're
fail by my me :cry:
having the best team in the NBA
who? miami heat? best? team record? NOPE... that was the Bulls..
Playoffs? Nope... that was they Mavericks...
FAIL #1
and losing in the finals while being the 5th leading scorer in the series and had the biggest PPG drop-off from reg season to finals in NBA history and score 0 points on 0-7 shooting in the clutch for the series
greatness
FAIL #2
where do you dream this up seriously? there were many more players with much bigger drop offs in PPG from reg season to finals.... let me know if you want to know who they are...
he was 0-7 shooting in the clutch for the series? where do you dream this shit up again? yes he sucked in the clutch in Finals overall... but it wasnt ZERO... they won 2 games and he was clutch in 1 of them... Game 1 he was especially clutch... and Game 3 it was Boshs wideopen gamewinner which won the game (with Lebrons behind the back assist)...... both Wade & Lebron overall sucked in the Clutch...
ThaRegul8r
10-21-2011, 10:15 PM
U can't come on here and just claim people don't know anything about bball just because u disagree.
I don
bizil
10-21-2011, 10:32 PM
[QUOTE=ThaRegul8r]I don
ThaRegul8r
10-21-2011, 10:43 PM
I'm done with all this back and forth stuff. U came at me like I don't know anything about hoops. That's where we have a problem.
You didn
bizil
10-21-2011, 10:57 PM
[QUOTE=ThaRegul8r]You didn
bizil
10-21-2011, 11:02 PM
[QUOTE=ThaRegul8r]You didn
Deuce Bigalow
10-21-2011, 11:03 PM
who? miami heat? best? team record? NOPE... that was the Bulls..
Playoffs? Nope... that was they Mavericks...
FAIL #1
FAIL #2
where do you dream this up seriously? there were many more players with much bigger drop offs in PPG from reg season to finals.... let me know if you want to know who they are...
he was 0-7 shooting in the clutch for the series? where do you dream this shit up again? yes he sucked in the clutch in Finals overall... but it wasnt ZERO... they won 2 games and he was clutch in 1 of them... Game 1 he was especially clutch... and Game 3 it was Boshs wideopen gamewinner which won the game (with Lebrons behind the back assist)...... both Wade & Lebron overall sucked in the Clutch...
1. Miaimi Heat have the best roster
2. James's 17.8 points per game (down 8.9 points from 26.7) in the Finals was the largest drop off in points from a regular season to an NBA Finals in NBA history. http://www.al.com/sports/index.ssf/2011/06/hot_corner_with_nba_title_at_s.html
3. Lebron scored 0 points on 0-7 in the clutch (under 5 minutes, within 5 points) in the 2011 Finals
http://nbamoney.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/Screen-shot-2011-06-14-at-1.03.28-PM.png
Deuce Bigalow
10-21-2011, 11:06 PM
Lebron was pathetic in both Finals
Inception28
10-22-2011, 02:13 PM
I dont think he has a case, but I do find it odd how every single player he played with and against believes he does.
jlauber
10-22-2011, 02:19 PM
As great as Oscar was, he was never in the discussion as to the best of HIS era. That was exclusively among Wilt and Russell, who shared the exact same number of MVPs while they played together (4 each.) And in the 70's, it was pretty much Kareem alone.
BTW, though, Oscar not only played in an era with Russell and Wilt, but West, Baylor, Havlicek, McAdoo, Lanier, Cowens, Hayes, Unseld, Reed, Bellamy, Thurmond, Archibald, Pistol, Pettit, and Lucas...among the many greats of that era.
IMO if Oscar Robertson wasn't compared to LeBron James, this board would stop hating on him.
Phong
10-22-2011, 02:31 PM
If Oscar Robertson wasn't compared to LeBron, his name would almost never be mentioned in the media. There's a reason why he's a bitter old man nowadays; whining and spitting venom at all time greats and current players who get more publicity than him.
If Oscar Robertson wasn't compared to LeBron, his name would almost never be mentioned in the media. There's a reason why he's a bitter old man nowadays; whining and spitting venom at all time greats and current players.
Oscar Robertson is an all-time great you tool. :facepalm LeBron comparisons don't help him, they hurt him. If you can't see that, you're ignoring reality.
Phong
10-22-2011, 02:41 PM
Oscar Robertson is an all-time great you tool. :facepalm LeBron comparisons don't help him, they hurt him. If you can't see that, you're ignoring reality.You really lack reading comprehension skills. Where did I say he's not an all-time great? He is. But like many others his name is mostly forgotten except for huge basketball fans. His name wasn't brought up much in the media until LeBron arrived in the league just for comparison purposes.
EricForman
10-22-2011, 02:45 PM
Would you say he's got a respectable case for the first spot?
Where do you have him on your all time list?
no he doesn't have a case for GOAT.
one title as a second fiddle.
30-10-10 gets attention because we have a fixation with triple doubles or well rounded numbers. When you look around and see eveyrone else form his era were dropping 50-25, or 37-15-4 (Baylor) or 21-21-5 (6'7 White guy Jerry Lucas) then 30-10-10 becomes.... "okay, pretty cool" but hardly "OMGZ"
No case whatsoever for GOAT and tied with hakeem for being most overrated all time great on ISH because some people on ISH think these two belong anywhere higher than, say, 9 on the all time list. I see crap like Hakeem or Oscar better than Shaq *shaking my head*
You really lack reading comprehension skills. Where did I say he's not an all-time great? He is. But like many others his name is mostly forgotten except for huge basketball fans. His name wasn't brought up much in the media until LeBron arrived in the league just for comparison purposes.
Many of his peers said he was the best they ever saw.
no he doesn't have a case for GOAT.
one title as a second fiddle.
30-10-10 gets attention because we have a fixation with triple doubles or well rounded numbers. When you look around and see eveyrone else form his era were dropping 50-25, or 37-15-4 (Baylor) or 21-21-5 (6'7 White guy Jerry Lucas) then 30-10-10 becomes.... "okay, pretty cool" but hardly "OMGZ"
No case whatsoever for GOAT and tied with hakeem for being most overrated on ISH because some people on ISH think these two should be anywhere above, say, #8 on the all time list. Or better than Shaq *shaking my head*
Oscar or Hakeem being 8th isn't that bad actually.
Phong
10-22-2011, 02:58 PM
Many of his peers said he was the best they ever saw.Many of his peers said the same about Bill Russell and Wilt, two guys who dominated that era? So?
And what does that have to do with what I said anyway? :facepalm
He never had an argument for best player of his era, and now we want to catapult him to best of all time? Based on what? Triple-doubles and a championship won with Kareem?
As for the comparison with LeBron he should be happy that his name has been brought back in the spotlights.
Duncan21formvp
10-25-2011, 03:17 PM
Very hard over Russell and Chamberlain, but this is all arguable.
How is it arguable when Oscar won 1 MVP in that era while Wilt won 4 MVP's and Russell 5 MVP's? If he was that good how could he have far less league mvp's than them in the same era?
rodman91
10-25-2011, 03:36 PM
60's.:rolleyes:
He was 30 10 10 as rookie. Wilt even had 50.4 ppg & 25.7 rpg for a season.There were some guys getting 20 boards per game like nothing.60's stats cannot be compared with modern basketball.
You may hate Lebron but if he is not goat with those stats in this era,Robertson cannot be goat with similar stats in 60's basketball.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2025 vBulletin Solutions Inc. All rights reserved.