The Greatness of Oscar Robertson (an open letter to ISH members)

[WillC]

I wrote this as a direct consequence of the revisionist history I've seen recently on these message boards.

http://basketballjournalist.blogspot.co.uk/2013/07/dispelling-myths-greatness-of-oscar.html

Oscar Robertson is, unfortunately, the victim of some harsh revisionist history that has taken place recently.

Let

[Dionysus]

All of that writing and copy/paste to let us know how weak his era was and how overrated he is.

LeBron in that era 47ppg 15reb 18ast.

[OldSkoolball#52]

I agree with you OP and because I value impact and contribution over team-achievement credentials, I have Oscar ranked much higher than Kobe on the alltime list. Any intelligent fan would feel the same.

[Miller for 3]

OP is a 13 year old who just discovered the Big O's Wikipedia page.

Lol @ only one 50 win season without Lew Alcindor carrying him. The 1960s version of Kevin Love, aka career loser and statpadder.

Durant in that era = 50/20/10 average his rookie year :bowdown:

[SilkkTheShocker]

All of that writing and copy/paste to let us know how weak his era was and how overrated he is.

LeBron in that era 47ppg 15reb 18ast.

Pretty much this. LeBron could fastbreak down the court twice before the other 9 players even got past halfcourt. I honestly believe a player would seriously get hurt trying to guard him. Some pasty white guy that smoke cigarettes at halftime and sells used cars in the offseason trying to guard the King? :oldlol: :oldlol:

[Legends66NBA7]

It's not Oscar Robertson's great that interests me, since I already am aware of all things said in the OP.

I just don't see how he's greater that players like Shaquille O'Neal, Tim Duncan, Hakeem Olajuwon, Kobe Bryant, LeBron James, etc... I've seen people put him over these guys and I don't really see how is greatness trumps theirs. I don't even think he's that much greater than the likes of Jerry West, Moses Malone, Kevin Garnett, Charles Barkley, Elgin Baylor, Dirk Nowitzki, Karl Malone, and Bob Pettit.

Keep in mind that I'm talking about greatness, not who played better. I can see people making cases for the likes of Dwyane Wade, John Havelick, Rick Barry, etc.... just of post season accomplishments. It would be tough to make a case for Barry, but there was a probably not a weaker team that won an NBA title with Barry as the main guy.

Anyways, Oscar Robertson's greatness probably still commands high regard, Top 15-20 range. Don't see him Top 10, though, especially not Top 5. That's when I feel he's overrated.

[sundizz]

By these standards OP where would you rank Dominique Wilkins? Most people don't have him top 15, but he always was on a team that didn't have enough superstar help to truly compete for the title. His stats however were amazing.

[Marchesk]

All of that writing and copy/paste to let us know how weak his era was and how overrated he is.

LeBron in that era 47ppg 15reb 18ast.


Negative on the assists. That stat wasn't inflated back then. Rebounding sounds reasonable. Points is speculative. He might get 40+. I wonder what position he would play and how many touches he would get.

[PHILA]

He is also the best pick & roll playmaker of all time. He is like Chris Paul with Penny Hardaway's post up game and Jordan's strength (though not as explosive). Also Big O is a lot smoother than CP without all the herky jerky deceptive moves and he didn't flop around. And his size as a 6'6, 220 lb PG gives him even more options in the two man game with Jerry Lucas. Or Wayne Embry, who while a limited player, was very effective at setting bone crushing picks. Too bad they never played with a 3 point line to space the floor and without Bill Russell waiting in the paint to break it up. In this era would dominate now even more than he did then. All the floor spacing would be like heaven, and then on top of that the guard is not allowed to hand check him. He also had a unique shot release like Bird that was nearly unblockable. I would pair him with Kevin Love to have the deadliest two man game in the NBA, much like he had with Lucas. Just give them shooters and an interior defensive presence and you have a very strong contender.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U9Gbb9_XAtU&t=16m52s


In the video example below, look how he bumps off powerful forward Chet Walker with great ease and grace. In the following play, Wali Jones (the top defensive guard in the NBA) is completely helpless on the baseline against Oscar, who makes him look almost like a high school kid. Seeing as Wilt had to watch Dierking (who could shoot from the outside), once Oscar had him all by himself, it was over.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0aECiYcdvIE&t=3m16s





In keeping track of Bill Russell and Boston's defense (http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showthread.php?t=302158) in the available game footage, the Royals with Oscar shot 7/8 (87.5%) in pick & roll plays where Russell was involved in the play. The other opponents shot 2/11 (18%) in the same situation.



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HE6kIu34Qsc&t=22m45s

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HE6kIu34Qsc&t=12m55s

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HE6kIu34Qsc&t=11m10s

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HE6kIu34Qsc&t=14m07s

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HE6kIu34Qsc&t=24m47s *How many players today can make this shot from this close a distance and angle?





He had a very quick release on his shot as well.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OTs918TZ-qo&t=9m58s

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=buIzpvJDMis&t=18m15s

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HE6kIu34Qsc&t=12m55s







Sports Illustrated - October 24, 1966

CINCINNATI

The pick-and-roll is a simple play, even used by the kids at the YMCA in half-court games. With somewhat better personnel, the Royals dare you to stop it. Oscar Robertson gets the pick, and Jerry Lucas takes the roll (right). Lucas, guarded by a big forward, picks Oscar's man, or slows him down, to make the forward commit himself. If the big man switches to Robertson, Lucas has a smaller defender and rolls for the basket and a pass from Oscar. If there is no switch. Robertson zips past with at least a half-step advantage and a one-on-one situation with a guard down near the baseline. "If I can get him to that spot," says Coach Jack McMahon, "he's unstoppable."




The Big O: My Life, My Times, My Game - Oscar Robertson

http://i.imgur.com/HTDvDgD.png

[WillC]

I just don't see how he's greater that players like Shaquille O'Neal, Tim Duncan, Hakeem Olajuwon, Kobe Bryant, LeBron James, etc... I've seen people put him over these guys and I don't really see how is greatness trumps theirs. I don't even think he's that much greater than the likes of Jerry West, Moses Malone, Kevin Garnett, Charles Barkley, Elgin Baylor, Dirk Nowitzki, Karl Malone, and Bob Pettit.

He is greater than the majority of those players because he was a better basketball player. It's as simple as that. He had more skill in more areas than all of the players you listed, other than perhaps LeBron James.

No other player can claim that, during their career, they were:

- The best passer in the league
- The best shooter in the league
- The best rebounder at their position
- A top 3 scorer in the league

Only Wilt Chamberlain can make similarly impressive claims (e.g. top scorer, top rebounder), followed by perhaps Larry Bird (best rebounder, passer and shooter at his position), LeBron James (best rebounder and passer at his position, one of the top 2 scorers) and Michael Jordan (best scorer and defender in the league), in no particular order.

Sure, other players had greater team success, but that is largely circumstantial.

Would Bill Russell have 11 rings if he had worse teammates? Would Kobe Bryant have 5 rings if he'd been without Shaquille O'Neal? Would Tim Duncan have 4 rings if he'd played for the Timberwolves instead of the Spurs?

Team success is just that; a team or group effort.

Individually, Oscar Robertson was clearly one of the top 10 players ever. Probably top 7.

Relative to the competition in their era, the best players ever, in chronological order, were Oscar Robertson, Wilt Chamberlain, Kareem Abdul-Jabbar, Larry Bird, Magic Johnson, Michael Jordan and LeBron James.

[Marchesk]

Relative to the competition in their era, the best players ever, in chronological order, were Oscar Robertson, Wilt Chamberlain, Kareem Abdul-Jabbar, Larry Bird, Magic Johnson, Michael Jordan and LeBron James.

Missing West and Kobe at the SG position.

[WillC]

By these standards OP where would you rank Dominique Wilkins? Most people don't have him top 15, but he always was on a team that didn't have enough superstar help to truly compete for the title. His stats however were amazing.

Based on his ability (and ignoring factors beyond his control, i.e. his teammates, coach, etc), the only players better than him during his peak in the late 1980s were Michael Jordan, Larry Bird, Magic Johnson, Hakeem Olajuwon, Karl Malone, Charles Barkley and Patrick Ewing. Put Wilkins on the Celtics instead of Larry Bird and they'd probably still win at least one championship, massively changing Wilkins' legacy.

In terms of talent, he's definitely a top 50 player of all-time. Probably more like top 40.

[Marchesk]

Pretty much this. LeBron could fastbreak down the court twice before the other 9 players even got past halfcourt.

Unless Russell or young Wilt were on the court. I'm thinking Gus Johnson was pretty fast too. West wasn't slow either.

[Miller for 3]

He is greater than the majority of those players because he was a better basketball player. It's as simple as that. He had more skill in more areas than all of the players you listed, other than perhaps LeBron James.

No other player can claim that, during their career, they were:

- The best passer in the league
- The best shooter in the league
- The best rebounder at their position
- A top 3 scorer in the league

Only Wilt Chamberlain can make similarly impressive claims (e.g. top scorer, top rebounder), followed by perhaps Larry Bird (best rebounder, passer and shooter at his position), LeBron James (best rebounder and passer at his position, one of the top 2 scorers) and Michael Jordan (best scorer and defender in the league), in no particular order.

Sure, other players had greater team success, but that is largely circumstantial.

Would Bill Russell have 11 rings if he had worse teammates? Would Kobe Bryant have 5 rings if he'd been without Shaquille O'Neal? Would Tim Duncan have 4 rings if he'd played for the Timberwolves instead of the Spurs?

Team success is just that; a team or group effort.

Individually, Oscar Robertson was clearly one of the top 10 players ever. Probably top 7.

Relative to the competition in their era, the best players ever, in chronological order, were Oscar Robertson, Wilt Chamberlain, Kareem Abdul-Jabbar, Larry Bird, Magic Johnson, Michael Jordan and LeBron James.

LOL. He played against 6 foot white guys who chain smoked during halftime and worked as movie theater ushers in the offseason. Being the best rebounding guard while playing against 5-10 white guys, WOW!

Also Duncan, both Malones, KG, Dirk, Pettit, Dr. J, Barry, Hakeem and Shaq > Lebrick. Learn some history kiddo

[Kblaze8855]

While I mostly agree that Oscar is rated as an elite player by everyone but people online...I do have issue with this:


Had Oscar Robertson been fortuitous enough to play with another superstar throughout his career – a luxury afforded the majority of the NBA’s greatest players, as shown above – then perhaps Oscar’s post-season success would be remembered differently.

You glossed over Jerry Lucas like a nobody stat padder but really...he was one of the best players in the world.

He, Kareem, and Lebron are the only two time national Mr.Basketballs(Hs award).....he was second behind Oscar himself for college player of the year and won it back to back after Oscar got drafted...and while he was doing it Hondo who you mention as a superstar with Bill...was HIS sidekick.

He came to the league and off the top of my head was one of the only 20/20 players ever(Im thinking him Wilt, Thurmond, and Pettit), led the nba in shooting percentage, and was all NBA first team at least 3 times sometimes ahead of the likes of Hondo and Bob Pettit.

He wasnt Wilt/Russell. But he wasnt far short of the next best thing. He was a first ballot hall of famer going in same season as Oscar and was named top 50 all time.

Repping Oscar doesnt mean Lucas wasnt a superstar. Red Auerbach didnt offer to buy his contract for 200,000 dollars(At the time double what Wilt and russell made) and get turned down because Jerry wasnt big time.

Jerry Lucas was so major after his college career ive read claims hes a big reason the NBA was able to get national TV deals. Part of it was his college and HS career(He broke Wilts HS scoring record). But he was a great player.

Hes called a stat padder. But so is Oscar. Its been said by some that people wanted to play with West not Oscar because if you blew one of his assists by missing an open shot he would stare you down and not pass to you for a while.

Both of them were still great players.

[kshutts1]

I like the "relative greatness" aspect of the OP.

IMO, how a player performs, relative to his peers, is a great indicator of greatness. Obviously, there are other factors, but "relative greatness" is often overlooked.

[kuniva_dAMiGhTy]

He's widely regarded as a top 10-13 player. Ergo, he's ranked where he should be (based on accomplishments and player resume).

[Legends66NBA7]

He's widely regarded as a top 10-13 player. Ergo, he's ranked where he should be (based on accomplishments and player resume).

True, but I don't see Top 10. I just can't see him over the likes of some of the players I mentioned in my OP. Top 15 seems legit, though.

[Legends66NBA7]

Also, I think what effects Oscar Robertson's legacy is the fact on he and the NBA are on bad terms. You don't see much of his old games on the NBA Vault, ESPN Classic, etc... I know on Christmas games I've seen his numbers mentioned a lot, but he's very rarely marketed by the current media and NBA head office, which leaves the perception of him heavily skeptical.

[kuniva_dAMiGhTy]

True, but I don't see Top 10. I just can't see him over the likes of some of the players I mentioned in my OP. Top 15 seems legit, though.

You and me both. I have him at 12, behind either Hakeem or Kobe (still not sure who I can bump out of my top 10 now that Lebron is playing unworldly :oldlol:).

[OldSkoolball#52]

By these standards OP where would you rank Dominique Wilkins? Most people don't have him top 15, but he always was on a team that didn't have enough superstar help to truly compete for the title. His stats however were amazing.


I agree with this sentiment. Based on performance as an individual and positively impacting your team, I think u are 100% correct in saying 'Nique >> Kobe

[WillC]

I like the "relative greatness" aspect of the OP.

IMO, how a player performs, relative to his peers, is a great indicator of greatness. Obviously, there are other factors, but "relative greatness" is often overlooked.

Exactly.

For example, Hakeem Olajuwon was perhaps better than David Robinson, Patrick Ewing and even the young Shaquille O'Neal. However, the difference wasn't huge.

Whereas Oscar's relative greatness was astonishing, as seen by his statistical superiority over other guards, not just in terms of his scoring, but his rebounding and, particularly, his passing.

To put it into perspective, Rajon Rondo averaged 11.1apg this year. Therefore, LeBron James would have needed to average 14.5apg to have the same level of dominance over the second best passer as Oscar had over Guy Rogers in the 1960s.

And that's without mentioning Oscar's relative superiority at rebounding.

[Kblaze8855]

If you ever spot it...pick up the book Playmasters if you want to lean about theb usiness side of the old days. Dude doesnt know shit about basketball but has a lot of stories.

Which is why im fairly sure the NBA did hate Oscar. He wasnt personally responsible for the lawsuit that blocked the merger for years and resulted in free agency being allowed...but he was its face. And the president of the players union.

He and Spencer Haywood pissed people off for a long time.

[WillC]

If you ever spot it...pick up the book Playmasters if you want to lean about theb usiness side of the old days. Dude doesnt know shit about basketball but has a lot of stories.

Which is why im fairly sure the NBA did hate Oscar. He wasnt personally responsible for the lawsuit that blocked the merger for years and resulted in free agency being allowed...but he was its face. And the president of the players union.

He and Spencer Haywood pissed people off for a long time.

Spot on.

It didn't help that Oscar Robertson was arrogant, stubborn, hyper-competitive and, therefore, largely unlikeable. Just like Jordan and Kobe.

[colts19]

He is greater than the majority of those players because he was a better basketball player. It's as simple as that. He had more skill in more areas than all of the players you listed, other than perhaps LeBron James.

No other player can claim that, during their career, they were:

- The best passer in the league
- The best shooter in the league
- The best rebounder at their position
- A top 3 scorer in the league

Only Wilt Chamberlain can make similarly impressive claims (e.g. top scorer, top rebounder), followed by perhaps Larry Bird (best rebounder, passer and shooter at his position), LeBron James (best rebounder and passer at his position, one of the top 2 scorers) and Michael Jordan (best scorer and defender in the league), in no particular order.

Sure, other players had greater team success, but that is largely circumstantial.

Would Bill Russell have 11 rings if he had worse teammates? Would Kobe Bryant have 5 rings if he'd been without Shaquille O'Neal? Would Tim Duncan have 4 rings if he'd played for the Timberwolves instead of the Spurs?

Team success is just that; a team or group effort.

Individually, Oscar Robertson was clearly one of the top 10 players ever. Probably top 7.

Relative to the competition in their era, the best players ever, in chronological order, were Oscar Robertson, Wilt Chamberlain, Kareem Abdul-Jabbar, Larry Bird, Magic Johnson, Michael Jordan and LeBron James.

I grew up in Indiana and am the same age as Big O. My best friend played basketball in high school and played against Big O twice and it was like a man playing against boys. I saw him in person those two games and in a couple other state championship games and said for 20 years he was the best I have ever seen. Once Larry Bird came to Indiana State U. and I saw him as a red shirt, practicing the year he had to sit out, I said Larry was the only player close to Big O.

[WillC]

I grew up in Indiana and am the same age as Big O. My best friend played basketball in high school and played against Big O twice and it was like a man playing against boys. I saw him in person those two games and in a couple other state championship games and said for 20 years he was the best I have ever seen. Once Larry Bird came to Indiana State U. and I saw him as a red shirt, practicing the year he had to sit out, I said Larry was the only player close to Big O.

I think you got that spot on. Here are some others that agree with you...

Nat

[Owl]

He wasnt Wilt/Russell. But he wasnt far short of the next best thing. He was a first ballot hall of famer going in same season as Oscar and was named top 50 all time.
In terms of rebounds yes. But those 2 two were great defenders too. Lucas, not so much.


Hes called a stat padder. But so is Oscar. Its been said by some that people wanted to play with West not Oscar because if you blew one of his assists by missing an open shot he would stare you down and not pass to you for a while.
Confused here. Are the first two sentences meant to be relate to the last one? Does not passing to guys who blew layups generate more assists? If so surely only by wiser allocation of possessions. In any case I haven't heard anyone significant (maybe people on this board) call Oscar a stat padder.

OP a tad harsh on Lucas. But the general point of the Royals doing a rotten job surrounding Oscar with talent (Lucas and Larry Siegfried lost to ABL; Mel Daniels to ABA; Bob Boozer traded for nothing of value; Bob Love exposed to expansion; draft picks either wasted or never given minutes, not developed and given away for nothing) is accurate.

[WillC]

I will edit my article to be less critical of Jerry Lucas. He was a very talented shooter (for a big man) and rebounder, but he was a poor defender and, ultimately, not as talented as a sidekick compared to some others. For example, Jerry West had Elgin Baylor, Russell had Sam Jones, etc.

My point was as follows: Robertson's circumstances were less fortunate than other superstars of the time.

[Owl]

It's not Oscar Robertson's great that interests me, since I already am aware of all things said in the OP.

I just don't see how he's greater that players like Shaquille O'Neal, Tim Duncan, Hakeem Olajuwon, Kobe Bryant, LeBron James, etc... I've seen people put him over these guys and I don't really see how is greatness trumps theirs. I don't even think he's that much greater than the likes of Jerry West, Moses Malone, Kevin Garnett, Charles Barkley, Elgin Baylor, Dirk Nowitzki, Karl Malone, and Bob Pettit.

Keep in mind that I'm talking about greatness, not who played better. I can see people making cases for the likes of Dwyane Wade, John Havelick, Rick Barry, etc.... just of post season accomplishments. It would be tough to make a case for Barry, but there was a probably not a weaker team that won an NBA title with Barry as the main guy.

Anyways, Oscar Robertson's greatness probably still commands high regard, Top 15-20 range. Don't see him Top 10, though, especially not Top 5. That's when I feel he's overrated.
What's your distinction between the two?

[Legends66NBA7]

What's your distinction between the two?

I guess this is the best and simple way to say it:

"Asking which player is better (comparing their primes) and which player is greater (comparing their careers) are 2 different questions. Most people fail to make that distinction. One may have accomplished more, while the other may have actually been a better basketball player." - Gifted Mind

[BoutPractice]

It's an interesting thought, but there are also those who argue that accomplishments are the only tangible evidence of ability, the rest being a matter of subjectivity and aesthetics. The problem with separating ability from accomplishments is that it allows you to make just about any claim, such as the claim that few players have ever been better than TMac.

[LikeABosh]

Oscar Robertson top ten greatest players? Maybe. But top ten best players, hell no. There ia a difference. He was great for his era, but basketball was still developing back then and the pace was ridiculously fast

[Owl]

I guess this is the best and simple way to say it:

"Asking which player is better (comparing their primes) and which player is greater (comparing their careers) are 2 different questions. Most people fail to make that distinction. One may have accomplished more, while the other may have actually been a better basketball player." - Gifted Mind
Still seems ambiguous.

First half of answer suggests it is about prime versus full career. Second suggests "achievements" (team success? big stage?) is one thing (greatness presumably) and performance level is another.

Is "comparing their careers" shorthand for career "achievements"?

And if so isn't achievements (and thus "greatness") less relevent because dependent largely on context? Or am I still getting the wrong end of the stick?

[Miller for 3]

I will edit my article to be less critical of Jerry Lucas. He was a very talented shooter (for a big man) and rebounder, but he was a poor defender and, ultimately, not as talented as a sidekick compared to some others. For example, Jerry West had Elgin Baylor, Russell had Sam Jones, etc.

My point was as follows: Robertson's circumstances were less fortunate than other superstars of the time.


Elgin Baylor was a pretty awful player, basically a glorified Iverson in terms of impact. Having Lucas was better. Oscar's Royals were consistently better than West's Lakers up until Wilt arrived, especially factoring in the injuries they dealt with.

Other than Wilt, Oscar had the best supporting cast of anyone during the early to late 60s. Russell was carrying scrubs to NCAA/Olympic/NBA titles. Cincinnati immediately won back to back NCAA championships after Oscar graduated. He put up gaudy box score stats that impress casual fans, but if you watch the games, he was a low impact player who made talented players turn into scrubs because of his ball dominance.

[Owl]

Elgin Baylor was a pretty awful player, basically a glorified Iverson in terms of impact. Having Lucas was better. Oscar's Royals were consistently better than West's Lakers up until Wilt arrived, especially factoring in the injuries they dealt with.

Other than Wilt, Oscar had the best supporting cast of anyone during the early to late 60s. Russell was carrying scrubs to NCAA/Olympic/NBA titles. Cincinnati immediately won back to back NCAA championships after Oscar graduated. He put up gaudy box score stats that impress casual fans, but if you watch the games, he was a low impact player who made talented players turn into scrubs because of his ball dominance.
Baylor improved team win% by 19.5% in rookie year and took the Lakers to the finals that year (admittedly in a small league, weaker conference). 2nd in PER to Petitt, 3rd in MVP voting to Pettit and Russell.

Clearly he was "pretty awful".

Edited to remove typo.

[WillC]

It's an interesting thought, but there are also those who argue that accomplishments are the only tangible evidence of ability, the rest being a matter of subjectivity and aesthetics. The problem with separating ability from accomplishments is that it allows you to make just about any claim, such as the claim that few players have ever been better than TMac.

Thanks for posting.

Team success is a tangible measure of the greatness of a team. Not a tangible measure of individual ability.

Statistics are the best measure of a player's individual talent, although not perfect since they appear within the context of a team sport.

And, as I wrote in my article, Oscar Robertson was statistically out of this world. Not just the 'triple-double' (an arbitrary statistic if ever there was one), but the level of dominance he demonstrated compared to his peers.

As for Tracy McGrady, I firmly believe that he was every bit as good as Kobe Bryant at his peak. Replace Kobe with TMac on those Lakers teams and he'd probably have himself three championship rings. However, Kobe had greater longevity than TMac, perhaps a criticism of McGrady's work ethic and injury-proneness as much as anything.

TMac was certainly one of the most talented players ever. Nowhere near as dominant as Oscar Robertson though.

[WillC]

Oscar Robertson top ten greatest players? Maybe. But top ten best players, hell no. There ia a difference. He was great for his era, but basketball was still developing back then and the pace was ridiculously fast

Did you read the article? If the pace was such a huge advantage, how come nobody averaged anywhere near as many assists as Oscar Robertson? How come nobody else at his position grabbed anywhere near as many rebounds? Let alone doing so while belonging in the top 3 scorers in the league.

[Legends66NBA7]

Still seems ambiguous.

First half of answer suggests it is about prime versus full career. Second suggests "achievements" (team success? big stage?) is one thing (greatness presumably) and performance level is another.

Is "comparing their careers" shorthand for career "achievements"?

And if so isn't achievements (and thus "greatness") less relevent because dependent largely on context? Or am I still getting the wrong end of the stick?

The thread title states "The Greatness of Oscar Robertson". Being a better player than most means a lot, but I feel the terms of something great, it means more about a career (which I include achievements, individual and team), legacy (defining moments perhaps ?), etc...

Going with the title, I would think it's suggesting about how great his career/legacy is, not how he played the game. If this was about players, it should be talked about who is better and at what aspects. How players changed and impacted the rules of the league, how influential they were to the future generation of star players. Sometimes, these thing require preference too.

I'll try to further explain if you don't follow... For an example sake, Charles Barkley vs Karl Malone. Both are ranked pretty closely to each other in most arbitrary lists. I've seen many here who watched both play in context that Barkley was regarded as better during their prime/peak, but because Malone played longer and accumulated more all-time total, achievements, etc... he's regarded greater. In sake of preference, some would pick Barkley because he's more talented, can produce better... while some would pick Malone because he's more loyal, harder worker, and therefore will play longer. Is that a good example for better vs greater ?

In terms of Oscar's greatness, like I mentioned, there's not much difference to what he achieved aside if we take success into account. In terms of someone like Jerry West (who played in the same years as Oscar) would probably looked at as greater, since he played in so many finals, production wise isn't so different, and he's the NBA logo... one could always take that into his favor that he was much more influential or "greatness".

[WillC]

Still seems ambiguous.

First half of answer suggests it is about prime versus full career. Second suggests "achievements" (team success? big stage?) is one thing (greatness presumably) and performance level is another.

Is "comparing their careers" shorthand for career "achievements"?

And if so isn't achievements (and thus "greatness") less relevent because dependent largely on context? Or am I still getting the wrong end of the stick?

You're not alone. Legends66NBA7's quote about 'best' and 'greatness' was rather confused.

[WillC]

Elgin Baylor was a pretty awful player, basically a glorified Iverson in terms of impact. Having Lucas was better. Oscar's Royals were consistently better than West's Lakers up until Wilt arrived, especially factoring in the injuries they dealt with.

So Baylor was 'pretty awful' despite being an elite scorer, rebounder and passer? Interesting. Would love to see a 'great player' if that's the case.

[WillC]

Going with the title, I would think it's suggesting about how great his career/legacy is, not how he played the game. If this was about players, it should be talked about who is better and at what aspects. How players changed and impacted the rules of the league, how influential they were to the future generation of star players. Sometimes, these thing require preference too.

No, I very much meant in terms of how good he was as a player. Whatever you want to call it. I call that 'greatness'.

If we're discussing 'impact on the game', then that's a different thing entirely. We could have a long discussion about Hank Luisetti, Dutch Dehnert, Joe Fulks and others, if you like.

But I'm talking about how good Oscar was; how dominant he was as a player.

[BoutPractice]

Yeah, maybe we should be clearer in what we mean by "achievement" first. I count statistics as part of the tangible achievements, which in this particular discussion tremendously help Oscar's cause.

They also help TMac's, but not as much due to the the fact that he only has really 2 special years (you can argue as much as 3 or 4, but that's it), the rest being standard "star swingman" caliber. In addition, there is reason to believe that TMac's "underachieving" was more than partially his own fault. Still, TMac may not be the best example, you're right.

My larger point - and this is something I really believe in, one of the few things I can say with close to absolute certainty about this sport - is that taste is ultimately the main driver of player rankings. When you're saying "I think this player is one of the greatest players to ever play" what you're really saying is always, to some degree, "I like the way he plays". I identify with his achievements, how he carries himself on the court, his competitiveness, his killer instinct/unselfishness, whatever it is - it starts at an emotional level. We all do it, whether or not we realize it.

[Legends66NBA7]

No, I very much meant in terms of how good he was as a player. Whatever you want to call it. I call that 'greatness'.

If we're discussing 'impact on the game', then that's a different thing entirely. We could have a long discussion about Hank Luisetti, Dutch Dehnert, Joe Fulks and others, if you like.

But I'm talking about how good Oscar was; how dominant he was as a player.

Alright, no problem. I understand what your saying.

[senelcoolidge]

I wish the NBA would use the rules of the 60's. Less room to stat pad. Less room to violate obvious basketball rules like traveling for example. It would be fun.

[Miller for 3]

So Baylor was 'pretty awful' despite being an elite scorer, rebounder and passer? Interesting. Would love to see a 'great player' if that's the case.

Lol. He had a career TS% of 49.4. Monta Ellis would be proud. As soon as he retired the Lakers won 33 games because they lost a massive liability. He was a solid player in the 60s because most of his compeition were guys like Bill Sharman, janitors by day, chain smoking white 5-10 guards in the NBA at night. Shawn Marion and Stacy Augmon would have been better in the 60s. Sorry.

[Legends66NBA7]

Yeah, maybe we should be clearer in what we mean by "achievement" first. I count statistics as part of the tangible achievements, which in this particular discussion tremendously help Oscar's cause.

My personally, I break down statistics as "production". While achievements I put into different names: Individual and team. Obviously, things like All-NBA teams, All-Defensive teams, Scoring title, Defensive Player of the Year, MVP, Finals MVP, etc... are individual. Rings (in context) are team.


My larger point - and this is something I really believe in, one of the few things I can say with close to absolute certainty about this sport - is that taste is ultimately the main driver of player rankings. When you're saying "I think this player is one of the greatest players to ever play" what you're really saying is always, to some degree, "I like the way he plays". I identify with his achievements, how he carries himself on the court, his competitiveness, his killer instinct/unselfishness, whatever it is - it starts at an emotional level. We all do it, whether or not we realize it.

Good post. I think there's a lot of this line of thinking in this board too.

[WillC]

Lol. He had a career TS% of 49.4. Monta Ellis would be proud. As soon as he retired the Lakers won 33 games because they lost a massive liability. He was a solid player in the 60s because most of his compeition were guys like Bill Sharman, janitors by day, chain smoking white 5-10 guards in the NBA at night. Shawn Marion and Stacy Augmon would have been better in the 60s. Sorry.

Although I realised long ago that you are a troll with a worthless opinion, I thought I'd take the opportunity to point out that Bill Sharman was one of the most hard working players. He was relentless not only in games but in practice and the off-season, both as a player and a coach.

Ed Macauley: “Sharman was just an incredible shooter with great concentration, great practice habits. He was a very good defensive player, and people didn’t give him credit for that. He was a tough player, who didn’t lose many fights.”

[HurricaneKid]

How come nobody else at his position grabbed anywhere near as many rebounds?

He just wasn't an elite rebounder. Rebounding totals in that age were off the charts. The Royals gang rebounded instead and it was pretty evenly split.

In fact, the season he avg the triple double if you look at reb/36 he was actually 7th ON HIS TEAM in rebounding. Even if you take a few guys out because they played limited minutes he was closer to the bottom of the team in boards than the top.

In his first 10 years in the league he won 2 playoff series and missed the playoffs four times.

[jlip]

[QUOTE=WillC]I wrote this as a direct consequence of the revisionist history I've seen recently on these message boards.

http://basketballjournalist.blogspot.co.uk/2013/07/dispelling-myths-greatness-of-oscar.html

Oscar Robertson is, unfortunately, the victim of some harsh revisionist history that has taken place recently.

Let

[Owl]

[QUOTE=WillC]Although I realised long ago that you are a troll with a worthless opinion, I thought I'd take the opportunity to point out that Bill Sharman was one of the most hard working players. He was relentless not only in games but in practice and the off-season, both as a player and a coach.

Ed Macauley:

[Legends66NBA7]

Several sources declare that in 2000 Oscar Robertson was voted "Player of the Century" by the National Association of Basketball Coaches.

Seems strange, since he wasn't even the 2nd best player during his era.

[Marchesk]

Seems strange, since he wasn't even the 2nd best player during his era.

I know, right?

Wilt or Russell 1 & 2
West 3
Then Baylor or Oscar at 4

[Owl]

I know, right?

Wilt or Russell 1 & 2
West 3
Then Baylor or Oscar at 4
No list until Bill Simmons thought West better than Robertson.


Seems strange, since he wasn't even the 2nd best player during his era.
Maybe maybe not. There are those at the time (Leonard Koppett for one) and those since (Bjarkman, Taragano, NABC and the AP (AP voters Bill Russell, Fuzzy Levane, Chick Hearn, Marv Albert, Lenny Wilkens and Harvey Pollack) that say he was the best of his era.

[Marchesk]

No list until Bill Simmons thought West better than Robertson.


Maybe maybe not. There are those at the time (Leonard Koppett for one) and those since (Bjarkman, Taragano, NABC and the AP (AP voters Bill Russell, Fuzzy Levane, Chick Hearn, Marv Albert, Lenny Wilkens and Harvey Pollack) that say he was the best of his era.

I seriously don't know how you can put Oscar above Wilt. Wilt was far more statistically dominant than Oscar. Wilt played on two of the best teams of all time. It's not like Oscar had 11 rings or something. What does Oscar have over Wilt other than passing? It's not like Wilt was incapable of leading the league in assists, as he did one season. It's just that he was a center, not a point guard.

[WillC]

Seems strange, since he wasn't even the 2nd best player during his era.

That might be the perception now, but in the 1960s he was regarded as perhaps the best basketball player alive.

Leonard Koppett: "Many [people] began to refer to Oscar as the best basketball player the human race had yet produced. The argument: who would you rather have to start building a team, Wilt or Oscar, began to while away many an hour."

[WillC]

No list until Bill Simmons thought West better than Robertson.

You are correct:

Oscar 1st, West 7th - Pro Basketball Statistics (Martin Taragano, 1993)
Oscar 1st, West 8th - The Encyclopedia of Basketball Team Histories (Peter C Bjarkman, 1994)
Oscar 2nd, West 9th - Associated Press Player of the Century (1999)
Oscar 2nd, West 9th - Biographical History of Basketball (Peter C. Bjarkman, 1998)
Oscar 3rd, West 8th - Slam (2003)
Oscar 4th, West 9th - Athlon 50 Greatest Special Magazine (1998)
Oscar 4th, West 11th - Basketball Digest's 100 (Brad Herzog, December 1999)
Oscar 5th, West 8th - Basketball's 100 Greatest Players (Wayne Patterson, 1988)
Oscar 5th, West 11th - Slam 500 (2011)
Oscar 5th, West 6th - Association for Professional Basketball Research (Need to Argue, 2013)
Oscar 7th, West 8th - SPORT Magazine's 50th Anniversary (Pete Vecsey, 1996)
Oscar 7th, West 9th - The Expert's Picks: Basketball's Best 50 Players in the Last 50 Years (Kenneth A. Shouler, 1997)
Oscar 7th, West 9th - Slam (1997)
Oscar 7th, West 17th - 50 Sense (Lacy Banks, 2004)
Oscar 7th, West 10th - NBA List Jam (Pat Williams and Michael Connelly, 2012)
Oscar 8th, West 12th - Who's Better, Who's Best in Basketball? (Elliot Kalb, 2003)
Oscar 8th, West 10th - Charley Rosen (2005)
Oscar 9th, West 10th - Beckett Presents Basketball Greats (2010)
Oscar 10th, West 9th - Book of Basketball (Bill Simmons, 2010 - paperback update)

Sadly, Bill Simmons' views are one of the root causes of the revisionist history that has taken place recently. He hurt the legacies of Oscar Robertson, Wilt Chamberlain and Rick Barry more than anyone could have imagined.

[joeyjoejoe]

He's a little overrated because of inflated stats

[WillC]

He's a little overrated because of inflated stats

Yet another person who didn't bother to read the opening post.

If his statistics appear other worldly, that's because of his own brilliance rather than the era he played in. How are they inflated?

For example, how many other players in that era came anywhere close to Oscar's assist numbers? None.

What about his rebounding ability from the guard spot? Nobody came close.

Meanwhile, he put up those surreal rebounding and assist numbers while ranking amongst the top 3 scorers in the league for a decade.

Oscar Robertson isn't overrated. He's criminally underrated.

[Marchesk]

Oscar Robertson isn't overrated. He's criminally underrated.

Fair enough. Where do you have him rated among the 60s players and all-time?

[WillC]

Fair enough. Where do you have him rated among the 60s players and all-time?

Oscar Robertson belongs in the top 10 for sure. I personally have him in my top 8.

The only players with more basketball ability are/were LeBron James, Michael Jordan, Larry Bird and possibly Magic Johnson.

Then you have big men like Wilt Chamberlain, Kareem Abdul-Jabbar and Bill Russell. Oscar Robertson was a more talented player than each of them but their level of dominance was incredible.

So that's my top 8 right there (in no particular order).

Shaquille O'Neal is a lock for the 9th spot. I'd probably give the final top 10 place to Hakeem Olajuwon, but Tim Duncan gives him a good run for his money - they're nearly inseparable.

Which means no room for Tim Duncan, Kobe Bryant, Jerry West or Elgin Baylor, who are my next 4, followed by Bob Pettit, Moses Malone and Julius Erving.

[Owl]

I seriously don't know how you can put Oscar above Wilt. Wilt was far more statistically dominant than Oscar. Wilt played on two of the best teams of all time. It's not like Oscar had 11 rings or something. What does Oscar have over Wilt other than passing? It's not like Wilt was incapable of leading the league in assists, as he did one season. It's just that he was a center, not a point guard.
I personally don't have him above Wilt (I'd rate Jordan first, Jabbar/Chamberlain tied 2nd/3rd, Oscar 4th).

But other than passing Oscar:
was a more efficient scorer (http://www.basketball-reference.com/leaders/ts_pct_top_10.html
was more of a leader (by example, by vocalness, by consistency)
was easier to meld with other good players (e.g. it's only All-Star games so take this for what its worth, though they were more competitive back then, but Oscar won 3 ASG MVPs, plus apparently handed a fourth on silver platter to otherwise annoymous Royals teammate Adrian Smith. And iirc his team won almost every year, including two wins in his first two years against an East team with Russell and Wilt).

[jlip]

Bill Russell, in 2010, calls Oscar Robertson the best basketball player he has ever seen. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g-f_gVh9h9Q#t=6m0s)

[LAZERUSS]

In terms of basketball skill, Oscar may very well been the greatest ever. I have read those that claimed he was every bit MJ before MJ (except for the "flying" thing.)

Still, there are statistical measurements and accomplishments, MVP voting, FMVPs, all-NBA voting, team success, and rings.

And IMHO, when you add them all up, he is probably around 13-15 all-time.

I know that sounds harsh, but using the above criteria, there are 12 players who have a better overall resume.

MJ, Russell, Magic, Wilt, Kareem, Shaq, Duncan, Kobe, Bird, Moses, Hakeem, and Dr. J. And really Lebron already has a better resume that Oscar, as well.

At best, he was the third best player of his era. Here again, using the above criteria, and he has no case over Chamberlain. None at all. And despite all the quotes (and I don't put a ton into them, since many of the people being quoted either change their opinion, or forget their previous opinions), the vast majority of those that had votes in the 60's, had Russell above Oscar.

I have often been criticized for "defending" the players of the 60's and 70's, but the reality is, I am a huge fan of greatness. My personal Top-12 has Russell and Chamberlain from the 60's; Kareem, and Dr. J from the 70's; Magic, Moses, and Bird from the 80's; MJ and Hakeem from the 90's; and Shaq, Kobe, and Duncan from the 00's. Throw in Lebon from the 00's to current at around 13th.

I will say this, Oscar's "Triple-Double" season(s) are very under-rated here. He was scoring 30 ppg on 22-23 FGAs per game. Clearly, he could easily take 22-23 FGAs in ANY era. He averaged 10 apg in those triple-double seasons, in an era that had no more assists than any other, and in fact, were actually harder to come by. He usually shot well above the league average in FG% (here again, transfer his FG% from '63 to MJ's '87, and Oscar would have shot .570.) He either led the league in FT%, or was among the leaders, almost every season he played. The only area that could be considered "inflated" would have been in rebounding. And even there, his best season translated to about 8-9 in today's NBA.

IMHO, a peak Oscar would have been a 30-8-10 guy in any era.

[WillC]

IMHO, a peak Oscar would have been a 30-8-10 guy in any era.

And yet you rank him 13th to 15th all-time?

[Owl]

And yet you rank him 13th to 15th all-time?
And behind Moses and Erving. We/you 've discussed the Erving historical slide but I don't think he was often (if at all) considered Robertson's superior. The same could be said for Malone. The same could/probably should (and in most published rankings has been) said for Olajuwon, Bryant, and Duncan (albeit the last two are still active).

[LAZERUSS]

And yet you rank him 13th to 15th all-time?

Here again...it's the overall criteria. If you want to clam that Oscar was the greatest basketball player in the world, that is an opinion that has been shared by other's. But where are the MVP's, and FMVP's? And yes, while I share your opinion on rings as being TEAM-driven, they still have to count for something. Same with overall team success, even if it comes without a title.

If we were to go strictly by statistical achievements, Oscar is near the top...with apg as his strongest stat. But players like Moses, MJ, and Shaq (FG% titles) are right there, as well,...and Chamberlain is on another level altogether.

Oscar was certainly a Top-10 (maybe even Top-5) player before MJ arrived. But since then, we have had players like Hakeem, Shaq, Duncan, Kobe, ..and now Lebron. I just don't see him having a case over any of them. And that doesn't include the "pre-MJ" era which had Moses, Bird, Magic, Kareem, Dr. J, Russell, and Chamberlain. All of whom had better overall resumes.

I do respect your opinion...as much as anyone here...but if you believe Oscar was a Top-5, or even Top-10 player all-time,...then we will just have to agree to disagree.

[LAZERUSS]

And behind Moses and Erving. We/you 've discussed the Erving historical slide but I don't think he was often (if at all) considered Robertson's superior. The same could be said for Malone. The same could/probably should (and in most published rankings has been) said for Olajuwon, Bryant, and Duncan (albeit the last two are still active).

Well, I'm including Dr. J's ABA years, which may be over-rated. As for Moses, he was simply the most dominant player in the league for several years. I don't think Oscar was ever better than third in his own era (and his one MVP was very debatable BTW.)

I could live with Oscar above Hakeem, but his overall resume is not better than Kobe's or Duncan's. Duncan, along with Russell and Magic, are the three greatest "winners" in NBA history. Multiple rings, and none of them ever sniffed a losing season.

[LAZERUSS]

Regarding Oscar's rebounding, I just did some quick research, and from what I could find (and rebounding data is missing from quite a few of his games), he had 14 games of 18+, including 8 of 20+, with a high game of 22 (twice.) Included was one game of 49 points, 22 rebounds, and 7 assists.

And I counted 19 40+ point games in which he recorded a triple-double (one of which was a game with 10 steals.) And he had a TON of near misses (including quite a few 38-39 point triple-doubles, as well as 40+ point games in which he narrowly missed a triple-double)...which included his high point game of his career... 56 points, 9 rebounds, and 12 assists.

Even accounting for pace, those numbers would still be impressive.

From a purely statistical standpoint, Oscar's career has to rank in the top-5 (and perhaps as high as #2) all-time.

[Owl]

Well, I'm including Dr. J's ABA years, which may be over-rated. As for Moses, he was simply the most dominant player in the league for several years. I don't think Oscar was ever better than third in his own era (and his one MVP was very debatable BTW.)

I could live with Oscar above Hakeem, but his overall resume is not better than Kobe's or Duncan's. Duncan, along with Russell and Magic, are the three greatest "winners" in NBA history. Multiple rings, and none of them ever sniffed a losing season.
But with Magic they were a winning team the year before he arrived and and the year after he left (and Magic left much closer to his apex than Oscar). The actual impact is in the same ballpark and (by this admittedly crude measure) Oscar seemed to have greater impact on team performance.

Similarly Russell's teams came from a high starting point again his team improved by less when he arrived (and actually having a higher win% before he arrived from the Olympics, though this is probably a fluke) and fell off less (and he arrived at the same time as Heinsohn and a returning Frank Ramsey and left at the same time as Sam Jones).

On paper Duncan's team improved greatly on his arrival, in reality they welcomed back David Robinson after a year of tanking, so his impact is difficult to measure.

If you measure by wins/titles the greatest players are all 60s Celtics, Salley, Kerr, Horry, Parish, Rodman, James Edwards etc

If you do it by contribution towards winning (i.e. how a player played) then you get the usual consensus best players.

All the MVPs from the 60's are debatable in that in players voted them. Russell 5 MVPs, in only two was he All NBA first team. In '63 the players placed Johnny "Red" Kerr ahead of Chamberlain. It seems to have been heavily driven by team performance. But we do have a consensus that Robertson was the best guard and quotations that indicate some considered Robertson was best.

As for Moses' "domination" he was a difficult matchup for Jabbar, but I don't think he was ever the clear cut, no doubt, best player in the league (cf: http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showpost.php?p=7700718&postcount=72 ) though it's a tough argue that he wasn't best in '82.

Even with dubious player votes, Oscars MVP shares are very close to Moses' http://www.basketball-reference.com/leaders/mvp_shares.html

I'm reluctant to touch the Kobe comment because I don't want this to be a Kobe thread, but I'd be curious as to how his resume is better other than a literal "resume" listing of awards/team performance.

[La Frescobaldi]

I will edit my article to be less critical of Jerry Lucas. He was a very talented shooter (for a big man) and rebounder, but he was a poor defender and, ultimately, not as talented as a sidekick compared to some others. For example, Jerry West had Elgin Baylor, Russell had Sam Jones, etc.

My point was as follows: Robertson's circumstances were less fortunate than other superstars of the time.

No sir. You say you're going to correct the article, but then immediately criticize Jerry Lucas. Let's correct your comment for accuracy:

He was a truly amazing shooter - Jerry Lucas is one of the greatest long range shooters of all-time. You can't tell this from stat-sheet because there was no 3 point line. But Lucas had astounding accuracy at range. His shooting style was closer to the shot-put than the standard basketball stance. It was the application of his literally genius IQ to the study of the trigonometry of shooting that led him to that style.
I have always believed coaches at all levels have done a dis-service to players by forcing them away from the more natural Lucas shooting form.

His outside shooting was so inevitable that even paint patrollers like Wilt Chamberlain were forced to go out past where the 3 point line now is, to try and defend him.
Rebounder???? Lucas is one of the greatest rebounders the league has ever seen. He had an uncanny ability to measure angles and get positioned where the ball was going to be. Jerry Lucas is at a Kevin Love level of rebounding if not higher - elite.
but he was a poor defender clearly you never watched him play. Lucas regularly drew some of the toughest assignments in basketball.

"and, ultimately, not as talented as a sidekick compared to some others. For example, Jerry West had Elgin Baylor, Russell had Sam Jones, etc."
I can't comment on Baylor since I only saw him in his decline. And yeah, not better than Sam Jones. But that's no knock on anyone. You're in the Dwyane Wade level of his day when you talk about Sam Jones. Bill Russell doesn't win 3 rings without Sam Jones. Okay, maybe 3. But not more.
Sam Jones, like Jerry Lucas, gets treated like dirt by people who never saw him.

[LAZERUSS]

But with Magic they were a winning team the year before he arrived and and the year after he left (and Magic left much closer to his apex than Oscar). The actual impact is in the same ballpark and (by this admittedly crude measure) Oscar seemed to have greater impact on team performance.

Similarly Russell's teams came from a high starting point again his team improved by less when he arrived (and actually having a higher win% before he arrived from the Olympics, though this is probably a fluke) and fell off less (and he arrived at the same time as Heinsohn and a returning Frank Ramsey and left at the same time as Sam Jones).

On paper Duncan's team improved greatly on his arrival, in reality they welcomed back David Robinson after a year of tanking, so his impact is difficult to measure.

If you measure by wins/titles the greatest players are all 60s Celtics, Salley, Kerr, Horry, Parish, Rodman, James Edwards etc

If you do it by contribution towards winning (i.e. how a player played) then you get the usual consensus best players.

All the MVPs from the 60's are debatable in that in players voted them. Russell 5 MVPs, in only two was he All NBA first team. In '63 the players placed Johnny "Red" Kerr ahead of Chamberlain. It seems to have been heavily driven by team performance. But we do have a consensus that Robertson was the best guard and quotations that indicate some considered Robertson was best.

As for Moses' "domination" he was a difficult matchup for Jabbar, but I don't think he was ever the clear cut, no doubt, best player in the league (cf: http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showpost.php?p=7700718&postcount=72 ) though it's a tough argue that he wasn't best in '82.

Even with dubious player votes, Oscars MVP shares are very close to Moses' http://www.basketball-reference.com/leaders/mvp_shares.html

I'm reluctant to touch the Kobe comment because I don't want this to be a Kobe thread, but I'd be curious as to how his resume is better other than a literal "resume" listing of awards/team performance.


Great points. And some of them were already mentioned by WillC, as well.

Let's face it...had MJ been stuck with the same roster he had in 85-86; or KAJ with his 75-76 team; or Wilt with his 62-63 squad; or Kobe with his 05-06 roster...and none of those guys would have ever won a title.

And while Oscar played with exceptional surrounding talent, he played in the era of the Celtic Dynasty, Wilt and the Sixers, and the Lakers with Baylor-West. The fact was, he wasn't going to win any titles in that span.

And when a declining Oscar was finally given an outstanding roster, like the 70-71 Bucks, he had four seasons of 59+ wins, two trips to the Finals, and a world championship.

Unfortunately, team success is all too often used against players. There is only so much one man can do. And, even good supporting casts won't guarantee a title if it comes in an era of loaded rosters like the 60's Celtics, and the 80's Lakers and Celtics.

Oscar's individual success has to rank among the top-5 players of all-time. And he even has an argument as the greatest all-around player to have ever played the game.

Given the above, I honestly don't know where to rank the Big-O. He obviously didn't have the team success, at least in his prime, but he was statistically one of the greatest, if not the greatest, to have ever played the game.

In any case, no one in their right mind can diminish what the man accomplished. Those that argue against his Triple-Double season, seem to forget that he was not only the only player to have ever accomplished that feat, he actually AVERAGED that over the course of his first five SEASONS.

[Owl]

No sir. You say you're going to correct the article, but then immediately criticize Jerry Lucas. Let's correct your comment for accuracy:

He was a truly amazing shooter - Jerry Lucas is one of the greatest long range shooters of all-time. You can't tell this from stat-sheet because there was no 3 point line. But Lucas had astounding accuracy at range. His shooting style was closer to the shot-put than the standard basketball stance. It was the application of his literally genius IQ to the study of the trigonometry of shooting that led him to that style.
I have always believed coaches at all levels have done a dis-service to players by forcing them away from the more natural Lucas shooting form.

His outside shooting was so inevitable that even paint patrollers like Wilt Chamberlain were forced to go out past where the 3 point line now is, to try and defend him.
Rebounder???? Lucas is one of the greatest rebounders the league has ever seen. He had an uncanny ability to measure angles and get positioned where the ball was going to be. Jerry Lucas is at a Kevin Love level of rebounding if not higher - elite.
but he was a poor defender clearly you never watched him play. Lucas regularly drew some of the toughest assignments in basketball.

"and, ultimately, not as talented as a sidekick compared to some others. For example, Jerry West had Elgin Baylor, Russell had Sam Jones, etc."
I can't comment on Baylor since I only saw him in his decline. And yeah, not better than Sam Jones. But that's no knock on anyone. You're in the Dwyane Wade level of his day when you talk about Sam Jones. Bill Russell doesn't win 3 rings without Sam Jones. Okay, maybe 3. But not more.
Sam Jones, like Jerry Lucas, gets treated like dirt by people who never saw him.
In terms of usefulness (rather than abstract skill, e.g. being able to fairly accurately score from 40 feet in a no 3 point rule era is of minimal value) Lucas' shooting is more good than great. His form netted him 78% from the ft line which is closer to "very [good] (for a big man)" than "truly amazing". This would also seem to indicate a style which was better for dropping shots from deep quite accurately rather than converting contested shots from midrange, which is arguably more valuable at the time.

The whole thing about the Baylor, Jones comps is that it isn't meant to be a knock on Lucas it's a comment on the relative talent level of the Royals and their rivals. I hadn't heard of Lucas being a notable defender (I assume this is the implication of his drawing the tougher assignment, rather than just that he was bigger/better than the Royals other frontcourt options).

[Owl]

Great points. And some of them were already mentioned by WillC, as well.

Let's face it...had MJ been stuck with the same roster he had in 85-86; or KAJ with his 75-76 team; or Wilt with his 62-63 squad; or Kobe with his 05-06 roster...and none of those guys would have ever won a title.

And while Oscar played with exceptional surrounding talent, he played in the era of the Celtic Dynasty, Wilt and the Sixers, and the Lakers with Baylor-West. The fact was, he wasn't going to win any titles in that span.

And when a declining Oscar was finally given an outstanding roster, like the 70-71 Bucks, he had four seasons of 59+ wins, two trips to the Finals, and a world championship.

Unfortunately, team success is all too often used against players. There is only so much one man can do. And, even good supporting casts won't guarantee a title if it comes in an era of loaded rosters like the 60's Celtics, and the 80's Lakers and Celtics.

Oscar's individual success has to rank among the top-5 players of all-time. And he even has an argument as the greatest all-around player to have ever played the game.

Given the above, I honestly don't know where to rank the Big-O. He obviously didn't have the team success, at least in his prime, but he was statistically one of the greatest, if not the greatest, to have ever played the game.

In any case, no one in their right mind can diminish what the man accomplished. Those that argue against his Triple-Double season, seem to forget that he was not only the only player to have ever accomplished that feat, he actually AVERAGED that over the course of his first five SEASONS.
Nice gist here. :cheers:

Minor points (not corrections per se)

1) I tend to use Jordan's 86-87 roster for making that point. Roster was worse in that year (in the short term though Krause made astute long term moves in getting picks for the likes of Woolridge) and the team still came out with a losing record with healthy Jordan.

2) Oscar averaged a triple double over his first 6 seasons. People don't tend to include the sixth year because he fell off on the boards that year. But he was close enough to double figures and had accumlated enough leeway in his first five years that his six year numbers come out 30.4ppg, 10.7apg, 10rpg, ts%.566 .

[LAZERUSS]

In terms of usefulness (rather than abstract skill, e.g. being able to fairly accurately score from 40 feet in a no 3 point rule era is of minimal value) Lucas' shooting is more good than great. His form netted him 78% from the ft line which is closer to "very [good] (for a big man)" than "truly amazing". This would also seem to indicate a style which was better for dropping shots from deep quite accurately rather than converting contested shots from midrange, which is arguably more valuable at the time.

The whole thing about the Baylor, Jones comps is that it isn't meant to be a knock on Lucas it's a comment on the relative talent level of the Royals and their rivals. I hadn't heard of Lucas being a notable defender (I assume this is the implication of his drawing the tougher assignment, rather than just that he was bigger/better than the Royals other frontcourt options).

I am not sure why Lucas' FT% was not higher. Having said that, though, FT% is not always an indication of long range shooting (e.g. Bruce Bowen leading the league 3pt% while shooting worse from the line.)

I can only tell you that LaFrecobaldi is correct. In fact, look up the term "Lucas Layup." He was hitting 25+ ft shots long before the advent of the 3pt shot.

And I have said it before, but I attended a Warriors-Knicks game in the early 70's, and in the pre-game shoot-around, Lucas hit some 20 straight shots from between the circles.

IMHO, he was THE best long range shooter of his era.

[LAZERUSS]

Nice gist here. :cheers:

Minor points (not corrections per se)

1) I tend to use Jordan's 86-87 roster for making that point. Roster was worse in that year (in the short term though Krause made astute long term moves in getting picks for the likes of Woolridge) and the team still came out with a losing record with healthy Jordan.

2) Oscar averaged a triple double over his first 6 seasons. People don't tend to include the sixth year because he fell off on the boards that year. But he was close enough to double figures and had accumlated enough leeway in his first five years that his six year numbers come out 30.4ppg, 10.7apg, 10rpg, ts%.566 .

Excellent points. To be honest, I wasn't aware of the six year average myself.

:cheers:

[fpliii]

Great thread OP. I prefer to use the term 'best' rather than 'greatest' nowadays, but perhaps that's just an issue of semantics.

As I said in the Dr. J - underrated thread, the Big O is one of the two players that drove me to quit on GOAT lists. I think Robertson is one of the great offensive players we've seen at league history, and wouldn't be at a big disadvantage in that regard against anyone else ever. He was misfortunate going against Russell/Chamberlain and the like, but it's no shame being the third best of his era.

[LAZERUSS]

Great thread OP. I prefer to use the term 'best' rather than 'greatest' nowadays, but perhaps that's just an issue of semantics.

As I said in the Dr. J - underrated thread, the Big O is one of the two players that drove me to quit on GOAT lists. I think Robertson is one of the great offensive players we've seen at league history, and wouldn't be at a big disadvantage in that regard against anyone else ever. He was misfortunate going against Russell/Chamberlain and the like, but it's no shame being the third best of his era.

My "Top-10's" are now 1-14, and then, if you want to make a case for George Mikan, a Top-15.

Wilt, Russell, Magic, MJ, KAJ, Shaq, Duncan, Kobe, Bird, Hakeem, Lebron, Dr.J, Moses, and Oscar.

And then you have Mikan, Pettit, Robinson, Hondo, West, Dirk, KG, Barkley, Barry, and other's.

Just about impossible to only go ten deep.

As for Oscar, he was certainly a close third best. He finished in the top-5 in the MVP voting nearly every season.