Why is Kobe considered > Oscar Robertson?

[Marchesk]

Why do most people have Kobe ranked over Oscar Robertson? Oscar's career averages are 25.7/7.5/9.5. Kobe is 25.5/4.2/5.3. Oscar has the most triple doubles of all-time by far, and he has the only season in NBA history where someone averaged a triple double.

Robertson has the same number of MVPs as Kobe. He was a 12 time NBA all-star, with nine of those being first team. His MVP voting:

63: Russell, Baylor, Oscar
64: Oscar, Wilt, Russell
65: Russell, Oscar, West
66: Wilt, West, Oscar

He was fourth in 67 and fifth in 68.

Oscar is the other point guard Kareem won a championship with. If Kobe is worthy of top ten, as many seem to think, why not Oscar Robertson? What does Kobe have on him? Longevity? Kobe got to enter the league at 18. Oscar was 22.

[0000000]

Lol. Silly. Oscar's got all around stats on Kobe. That is it. Kobe absolutely trumps him and trashes him in everything else.

[Marchesk]

Lol. Silly. Oscar's got all around stats on Kobe. That is it. Kobe absolutely trumps him and trashes him in everything else.

So explain? Kobe isn't a better rebounder or passer. That leaves scoring and defense. Oscar averaged over 30 six times in his career. It was a higher paced era. But Robertson's FG% was 48.5 over his career. For a scoring guard. In that era. That's exceptional.

[pauk]

Kobe has more accolades and wasnt such a bad player himself.

[Young X]

I totally disagree with penalizing a player because of team success mainly, but why is Oscar Robertson the only all time great that doesn't get penalized for his lack of team success (even though he doesn't deserve it)?

He took 10 years to get past the 2nd round, missed the playoffs twice in his prime, 1 ring, no FMVP, etc. He deserves to be ranked where he is, but with the way everybody (besides me) ranks players, why doesn't he get underrated like the rest of the greats without team success (like KG for example)?

[Deuce Bigalow]

http://www.bleachernation.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/Jim-Mora-playoffs.jpeg

[MaxFly]

We're comparing stats from the 1960s to those of today's players? Seriously?

[pauk]

I totally disagree with penalizing a player because of team success mainly, but why is Oscar Robertson the only all time great that doesn't get penalized for his lack of team success (even though he doesn't deserve it)?

He took 10 years to get past the 2nd round, missed the playoffs twice in his prime, 1 ring, no FMVP, etc. He deserves to be ranked where he is, but with the way everybody (besides me) ranks players, why doesn't he get underrated like the rest of the greats without team success (like KG for example)?

Because he was just waaaaaaay to prominent as a player.... one of a kind...

[Ancient Legend]

Rings.

[G-Funk]

Possessions per game

[G-Funk]

In the 60's Kobe would average about 35/7/7

[LAZERUSS]

I totally disagree with penalizing a player because of team success mainly, but why is Oscar Robertson the only all time great that doesn't get penalized for his lack of team success (even though he doesn't deserve it)?

He took 10 years to get past the 2nd round, missed the playoffs twice in his prime, 1 ring, no FMVP, etc. He deserves to be ranked where he is, but with the way everybody (besides me) ranks players, why doesn't he get underrated like the rest of the greats without team success (like KG for example)?

Oscar also played in the Russell-Chamberlain era. Russell with his rings, and Wilt with his overwhelming dominance. A prime West and Baylor couldn't beat Russell's teams, so why would Oscar's?

Also, Oscar played on four Milwaukee teams, and they went 66-16, 63-19, 60-22, and 59-23 in those four years, winning one dominating title, and losing in a game seven of the Finals in another. And, after he retired the Bucks fell to 38-44 and didn't make the playoffs.

[Marchesk]

Kobe has more accolades and wasnt such a bad player himself.

Yes, Kobe is comparable to West and Baylor. I can see why people would have them ranked close to one another. But I'm not sure that Kobe is better than either. So I'm asking.

By accolades do you mean more all-star appearances and first team all-defense? I don't know what kind of defender Oscar was, but they didn't have all-defense teams until ... I see that Russell had one first team all-defense in 1969.

[chazzy]

Not much team success as his team's #1 in comparison to the all time greats

[Marchesk]

We're comparing stats from the 1960s to those of today's players? Seriously?

Yeah, do you prefer the eyeball test? You tell me then who looked like the better player.

Obviously, the game was played a bit differently with the higher pace, no three point line, and less concern for effeciency. But we can still compare how the greats of that era did against their peers to how the greats today are performing against their modern peers.

Oscar was a very dominant player. He was like the Wilt of the guard position. Nobody else was averaging tripple doubles over multiple seasons. His first five seasons, Robertson averaged 30/10/10.6.

[Marchesk]

Rings.

Hondo 8 > Kobe 5

Rings indeed.

[STATUTORY]

Yeah, do you prefer the eyeball test? You tell me then who looked like the better player.

Obviously, the game was played a bit differently with the higher pace, no three point line, and less concern for effeciency. But we can still compare how the greats of that era did against their peers to how the greats today are performing against their modern peers.

Oscar was a very dominant player. He was like the Wilt of the guard position. Nobody else was averaging tripple doubles over multiple seasons. His first five seasons, Robertson averaged 30/10/10.6.

the guy that could dribble with both hands without needing to keep his eye on the ball

[LAZERUSS]

Possessions per game

Oscar had eight seasons of 28+ ppg, on FGAs that ranged from 19.9 to a high of 22.9 FGAs per game. In his highest scoring season, he averaged 31.4 ppg on 22.0 FGAs per game. In Kobe's second highest scoring season, he averaged 31.6 ppg on 22.8 FGAs per game, and in his highest, he was at 35.4 ppg on 27.2 FGAs (in a league that averaged 97 ppg.)

Furthermore, Oscar was routinely outshooting the league average by substantial margins. In one season, he averaged 28.3 ppg on a .518 FG%, in a league that shot .441 overall.

I would argue that Oscar would have scored every bit as much in the Kobe-era, and furthermore, his apg would have been about the same. The only drop-off would have been in his rebounding, which, at his peak, would have still translate to about 8-9 rpg in this era.

[Marchesk]

the guy that could dribble with both hands without needing to keep his eye on the ball

Because Oscar was allowed to do this?

http://lakers.topbuzz.com/gallery/d/277668-1/Kobe+Bryant+dribbles+the+ball+vs+the+Thunder+in+Ok lahoma.JPG

[LAZERUSS]

the guy that could dribble with both hands without needing to keep his eye on the ball

Maybe you can post that footage of Oscar for all us here to see...

[Marchesk]

In the 60's Kobe would average about 35/7/7

Fresh off a time machine, or growing up in that era?

I don't deny that Kobe could be great in any era, given his talent, work ethic and competitiveness. But his game isn't the same growing up in the 50s. No MJ, no Dr J, nobody modern to mold his game after.

So maybe that's the better question. If Kobe grew up at the same time Oscar did, would he have been as good or better?

[STATUTORY]

Maybe you can post that footage of Oscar for all us here to see...
why don't you post footage of Oscar using his off hand without looking like an awkward bigman

[G-Funk]

Oscar had eight seasons of 28+ ppg, on FGAs that ranged from 19.9 to a high of 22.9 FGAs per game. In his highest scoring season, he averaged 31.4 ppg on 22.0 FGAs per game. In Kobe's second highest scoring season, he averaged 31.6 ppg on 22.8 FGAs per game, and in his highest, he was at 35.4 ppg on 27.2 FGAs (in a league that averaged 97 ppg.)

Furthermore, Oscar was routinely outshooting the league average by substantial margins. In one season, he averaged 28.3 ppg on a .518 FG%, in a league that shot .441 overall.

I would argue that Oscar would have scored every bit as much in the Kobe-era, and furthermore, his apg would have been about the same. The only drop-off would have been in his rebounding, which, at his peak, would have still translate to about 8-9 rpg in this era.


In 65-66 Oscar averaged 31.3 ppg, his career high. In 65-66 the league averaged 102.4 FGA per game.

In 05-06, Bryant averaged 35.5 ppg, his career high. In 05-06 the league averaged 78.9 FGA per game.

Using their peak scoring years as a gauge, you can see how NBA teams averaged 20-25 more FGAs per game in the 60's compared with the 00's. When you take pace and FGA per game into account, it's harder to average 30 points, 6 assist or 6 rebounds per game today than it was back then, you have less possessions, less FGA's and less opportunities to score, assist or rebound.

[LAZERUSS]

why don't you post footage of Oscar using his off hand without looking like an awkward bigman

Thanks to CavsFan

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hwyXpVNopYE&feature=youtu.be

[LAZERUSS]

In 65-66 Oscar averaged 31.3 ppg, his career high. In 65-66 the league averaged 102.4 FGA per game.

In 05-06, Bryant averaged 35.5 ppg, his career high. In 05-06 the league averaged 78.9 FGA per game.

Using their peak scoring years as a gauge, you can see how NBA teams averaged 20-25 more FGAs per game in the 60's compared with the 00's. When you take pace and FGA per game into account, it's harder to average 30 points, 6 assist or 6 rebounds per game today than it was back then, you have less possessions, less FGA's and less opportunities to score and or fill up the stat sheet.

BUT, once again...Oscar could have taken far more shots had he so chosen. Had he taken 27 FGAs in his best season, and it would have translated to about 35 ppg.

[CavaliersFTW]

Kobe might be considered 'greater' due to accolades but Oscar was the better player - Oscar is most peoples 1a or 1b as 'most complete all around player' in the history of the game. Kobe isn't, Kobe is a 2/3rds version of Jordan. Which is great in and of itself, but not Big-O level great.

[STATUTORY]

Thanks to CavsFan

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hwyXpVNopYE&feature=youtu.be

:oldlol: how do you post that video with a straight face? did you stop watching NBA after betamax era or something? guy dribbles like Luol Deng and we are seriously sitting here debating whether he's a better player than Kobe?

certainly he excelled relative to his peers but everything he can do Kobe and just about every other elite modern player can do and do it better.

Games evolve and players improve, not always linearly but in term of guard play in the NBA, pretty much monotonically.

[CavaliersFTW]

why don't you post footage of Oscar using his off hand without looking like an awkward bigman
Go swallow a bunch of pills from your parents medicine cabinet and lock yourself in your room please.

[Legends66NBA7]

I get OP's viewpoint.

Although, a similar comparison would be Oscar Robertson vs Kevin Garnett. Career and stat wise, it's very similar.

[LAZERUSS]

:oldlol: how do you post that video with a straight face? did you stop watching NBA after betamax era or something? guy dribbles like Luol Deng and we are seriously sitting here debating whether he's a better player than Kobe?

certainly he excelled relative to his peers but everything he can do Kobe and just about every other elite modern player can do and do it better.

Games evolve and players improve, not always linearly but in term of guard play in the NBA, pretty much monotonically.

Yep...

You won't see players in the 60's, and in college, doing that stuff ...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n8qUZILi8IM


or afterwards...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9qv0YS1wHoQ

[CavaliersFTW]

:oldlol: how do you post that video with a straight face? did you stop watching NBA after betamax era or something? guy dribbles like Luol Deng and we are seriously sitting here debating whether he's a better player than Kobe?

certainly he excelled relative to his peers but everything he can do Kobe and just about every other elite modern player can do and do it better.

Games evolve and players improve, not always linearly but in term of guard play in the NBA, pretty much monotonically.
lmfao, your delusional man - desperately trying to save face, do us a favor and never try to talk basketball outside of this decade again :oldlol:

[L.Kizzle]

In the 60's Kobe would average about 35/7/7
I'd take 30/10/11 over that.

[STATUTORY]

lmfao, your delusional man - desperately trying to save face, do us a favor and never try to talk basketball outside of this decade again :oldlol:

:roll: honestly I get your whole retro ball troll schtick and your desperate need to be a "character" on this site. an homage to jlauber if you will.

but if you think 60s guards are really as good as modern ones then :roll: :roll:

[G-Funk]

BUT, once again...Oscar could have taken far more shots had he so chosen. Had he taken 27 FGAs in his best season, and it would have translated to about 35 ppg.
:biggums: But he didn't, wasn't in him. Kobe would've most likely averaged 35pts because it is in him, he's a scorer and averaged 2 more assist and rebounds.

So 33/7/7>>>22/9/7

[CavaliersFTW]

I'd take 30/10/11 over that.
Not to mention Kobe's assists wouldn't be 7 in that era, they'd be 5 tops - Kobe ain't a better passer than Elgin Baylor, due to rules and league-wide shot accuracy assists in that era were if anything tougher to come by than today, regardless of pace

[avonbarksdale]

:oldlol: how do you post that video with a straight face? did you stop watching NBA after betamax era or something? guy dribbles like Luol Deng and we are seriously sitting here debating whether he's a better player than Kobe?

certainly he excelled relative to his peers but everything he can do Kobe and just about every other elite modern player can do and do it better.

Games evolve and players improve, not always linearly but in term of guard play in the NBA, pretty much monotonically.


this just leaned me so bad

how can you honestly watch that and watch footage of kobe and say oscar is better that it absolutely ridiculous

[CavaliersFTW]

:roll: honestly I get your whole retro ball troll schtick and your desperate need to be a "character" on this site. an homage to jlauber if you will.

but if you think 60s guards are really as good as modern ones then :roll: :roll:
Peak West and Robertson are better than any current guards in the league. And it's really sad that statements like these offend you so much.

[G-Funk]

I'd take 30/10/11 over that.

You know Kobe's peak in the 60's would be 40/8/7

[LAZERUSS]

:oldlol: how do you post that video with a straight face? did you stop watching NBA after betamax era or something? guy dribbles like Luol Deng and we are seriously sitting here debating whether he's a better player than Kobe?

certainly he excelled relative to his peers but everything he can do Kobe and just about every other elite modern player can do and do it better.

Games evolve and players improve, not always linearly but in term of guard play in the NBA, pretty much monotonically.

First of all, you asked for footage of Oscar dribbling with his off-hand...



why don't you post footage of Oscar using his off hand without looking like an awkward bigman


I posted it...a ton of it.

Now, it's your turn. I asked you to post footage of...


the guy that could dribble with both hands without needing to keep his eye on the ball

Go ahead. Show us your knowledge of that era...

[G-Funk]

Not to mention Kobe's assists wouldn't be 7 in that era, they'd be 5 tops - Kobe ain't a better passer than Elgin Baylor, due to rules and league-wide shot accuracy assists in that era were if anything tougher to come by than today, regardless of pace


Kobe's career assist per game is 5 bro IN A MUCH SLOWER, MORE DEFENSIVE ERA

[tpols]

Peak West and Robertson are better than any current guards in the league. And it's really sad that statements like these offend you so much.
The game is so different its hard to compare. Defenses were more sunk, players used the back to the basket game to get midrange shots off and the league as a whole shot waaaay less efficiently than the league today... now we have the 3 ball which has the potential to skyrocket total efficiency in comparison to midrange game, and oscar wasnt a long range shooter. So how he would fit into today's game and how good hed be is extremely subjective.

Not like Wilt or Russell who still would be the best big men of anybody today based on things that havent changed much.. defense, rebounding, and finishing near the rim.

[Marchesk]

You know Kobe's peak in the 60's would be 40/8/7

So he's stepping out of a time machine then.

40 ppg on 40 field goal attempts with five walks and four carries per game.

[CavaliersFTW]

Kobe's career assist per game is 5 bro IN A MUCH SLOWER ERA
In an era where players shoot more accurately and dribbling or hesitating before the shot after catching the ball doesn't kill the assist. In Oscars era both of those things, the rule most all, killed player assists. Bro. That's why assist numbers haven't changed throughout NBA history. CP3, Kobe, everyone today get's tallied for total bs 'assists'.

[G-Funk]

So he's stepping out of a time machine then.

40 ppg on 40 field goal attempts with five walks and four carries per game.
get real troll

[STATUTORY]

Peak West and Robertson are better than any current guards in the league. And it's really sad that statements like these offend you so much.
doesn't offend me, just makes me laugh because it demonstrates an absolute ignorance of the sport, basic economics, common sense, and exposes the fact you play basketball very rarely if at all.


First of all, you asked for footage of Oscar dribbling with his off-hand...



I posted it...a ton of it.

Now, it's your turn. I asked you to post footage of...



Go ahead. Show us your knowledge of that era...


I asked for footage of him dribbling with offhand without looking like a 6ft9 stiff in the current league. Still hasn't been provided...

[LAZERUSS]

Kobe's career assist per game is 5 bro IN A MUCH SLOWER ERA

Here again...Kobe's 06 season, the average team had 20.6 apg. In Oscar's best season, 63-64, the average NBA team had 21.4 apg.

[CavaliersFTW]

So he's stepping out of a time machine then.

40 ppg on 40 field goal attempts with five walks and four carries per game.
:oldlol: :applause:

[Marchesk]

Kobe's career assist per game is 5 bro IN A MUCH SLOWER, MORE DEFENSIVE ERA

Assists are probably one stat which isn't inflated by the pace back then because the rules for crediting an assist were stricter, as Cavs pointed out. Look that the top assist guys in that era and you see that they're numbers don't look inflated compared to today.

[LAZERUSS]

Assists are probably one stat which isn't inflated by the pace back then because the rules for crediting an assist were stricter, as Cavs pointed out. Look that the top assist guys in that era and you see that they're numbers don't look inflated compared to today.

Not only that, but Oscar was usually miles ahead of the next guy too...

[STATUTORY]

So he's stepping out of a time machine then.

40 ppg on 40 field goal attempts with five walks and four carries per game.

Kobe is capable of toning down his handles to oblige the old rules but the older generation players simply didn't have the ability to dribble like modern players do.

[tpols]

BUT, once again...Oscar could have taken far more shots had he so chosen. Had he taken 27 FGAs in his best season, and it would have translated to about 35 ppg.
Oscar never took 27 shots though.. he never even took 25. You cant say hed do something that he never even did.

If oscar takes 21 shots in a league that shoots ~100 shots per game hes only carrying 20% of his teams scoring burden at his peak. Kobe took on 27/78 ~35% of his team's direct scoring burden. It's a massive difference. The more concentrated the shots and the more you take the more the defense is going to drape you and make your life tougher.. not to mention the energy drain from being relied on over and over that much more.

There's no telling what Oscar would average in that situation.. because he never did it. Do you have a list of 40, 50, 60 point games for Oscar? Guarantee Kobe blows him away in all these.. in a league that shot way less.

And Oscar is going to replicate the 40, 50, and 60 point games necessary to post a 35ppg average? The more I read and look into him.. he seems like Lebron. An efficient do it all type guy who will always give you a consistent 30/8/8 whatever type game. He isnt a streak scorer type that is going to launch shots.. reminds me of bron saying he could easily score 60 if he tried to.. but never does it.

[G-Funk]

Big 0 will NOT average 30/10/11 in todays game. that would translate to 22/8/7

[Marchesk]

Big 0 will NOT average 30/10/11 in todays game. that would translate to 20/7/6

I say 23/7/10. He's a cross between Lebron and Paul.

[Vienceslav]

This thread is so cute.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OV_JpwFp9jA
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iJNoFs3G91A
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6ye3D2nagUs
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uglEL2GLnAU
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QVnDLP8xKE4

[LAZERUSS]

Big 0 will NOT average 30/10/11 in todays game. that would translate to 22/8/7

So Oscar is only going to shoot about 17 FGAs per game in today's game, and only hand out 7 apg, in an era in which the apg are essentially the same as when he played?

[LAZERUSS]

BTW...as for the dribbling of the NBA players in the 60's...

Here is footage of some young kids dribbling the ball back in 1962. Of course, they were actually emulating the Harlem Globetrotters, who had been doing that for years...


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=soLH6bau9uo

[CavaliersFTW]

When I finish a new Oscar mix the the haters and pretenders (pretending to know how he played the game and presuming to know what he 'couldn't' do :oldlol: ) are going to scatter like rats and go into hiding when discussions of Oscar arise just like they did when I started putting in serious work on Wilt mixes. LMFAO at posters dropping a bunch of mixes of Kobe who's fanbase includes several million Youtube nerds and mixmakers and who's entire career exists on film from 10 different camera angles as if us rational hoops heads defending Oscar are supposed to come right back and supply a bunch of links of comparable quality Oscar mixes. I'm the only guy making mixes of comparable quality from that era. The only one. Fools. Mixes like that of Oscar don't exist yet, because I'm not finished putting them together. Be patient haters. Your ether will come.

Kareem isn't blowing smoke out his ass, and neither is Oscar:
http://youtu.be/KUI2ao7cj9k

[Vienceslav]

Be patient haters. Your ether will come.

Did the ISH trolling reduce you to this?
I thought you were one of the more intelligent people on here when I browsed last season.

[LAZERUSS]

Oscar never took 27 shots though.. he never even took 25. You cant say hed do something that he never even did.

If oscar takes 21 shots in a league that shoots ~100 shots per game hes only carrying 20% of his teams scoring burden at his peak. Kobe took on 27/78 ~35% of his team's direct scoring burden. It's a massive difference. The more concentrated the shots and the more you take the more the defense is going to drape you and make your life tougher.. not to mention the energy drain from being relied on over and over that much more.

There's no telling what Oscar would average in that situation.. because he never did it. Do you have a list of 40, 50, 60 point games for Oscar? Guarantee Kobe blows him away in all these.. in a league that shot way less.

And Oscar is going to replicate the 40, 50, and 60 point games necessary to post a 35ppg average? The more I read and look into him.. he seems like Lebron. An efficient do it all type guy who will always give you a consistent 30/8/8 whatever type game. He isnt a streak scorer type that is going to launch shots.. reminds me of bron saying he could easily score 60 if he tried to.. but never does it.

There were those that considered Oscar a "ballhog" when he was playing. I can't imagine what they would have been saying about Kobe, had he played back then.

[Marchesk]

Kareem isn't blowing smoke out his ass, and neither is Oscar:
http://youtu.be/KUI2ao7cj9k

Reporter: "How about this? You against Kobe."

Oscar turns while walking away: "Man, I'd beat Kobe."

Reporter: "Why?"

Oscar: "I know how to play basketball."

:roll: :roll: :roll:

[Marchesk]

get real troll

It was a chucking era. One can only imagine what kind of chucking Iverson and Melo would do back then.

As for Kobe, there's no 3pt line, so that reduces some of his lower percentage shots. Maybe he'd try to take more advantage of his height if he played guard. But they would most likely have him at forward. He'd be an Elgin Baylor, but not as good a rebounder. Baylor is the GOAT small forward rebounder.

[CavaliersFTW]

Did the ISH trolling reduce you to this?
I thought you were one of the more intelligent people on here when I browsed last season.
I don't care whether you approve of my above post or not. What I said is absolutely what's going to happen. Everybody loves talking trash about players who don't exist on Youtube because it's easy for them to say 'well prove me wrong! hyuk!", they pretend to know how these oldschool players played the game and pretend to know their limitations like they're some sort of authority on the topic. Once I post film all these pretender critics suddenly go silent because as always - the things they tried to say are retarded, irrelevant, and untrue.

[LAZERUSS]

As a sidenote...in Oscar's last season, the NBA collectively shot .771 from the FT line. Currently the NBA is collectively shooting .750. Last year the NBA shot .753.

[CavaliersFTW]

It was a chucking era. One can only imagine what kind of chucking Iverson and Melo would do back then.

As for Kobe, there's no 3pt line, so that reduces some of his lower percentage shots. Maybe he'd try to take more advantage of his height if he played guard. But they would most likely have him at forward. He'd be an Elgin Baylor, but not as good a rebounder. Baylor is the GOAT small forward rebounder.
Kobe entered the league at 178lbs, just 3lbs heavier than rookie Jerry West, so though he had length (Oscars height w/o shoes) with his slender frame and quickness he'd probably still be treated as a guard in the 1960's era - the forwards had to be able to push and shove a bit. Unless your talking about a time traveled bulked up in the gym Kobe, which isn't really a fair comparison. Kobe's natural frame is Oscars height, but Jerry West's slimmer build. And both Oscar and Jerry were guards.

[Marchesk]

Kobe entered the league at 178lbs, just 3lbs heavier than rookie Jerry West, so with his quickness he'd probably still be a guard in the 1960's era IMO - the forwards had to be able to push and shove a bit. Unless your talking about a time traveled bulked up in the gym Kobe, which isn't really a fair comparison.

You've stated that West and Baylor at their peak were better than Kobe. So what do you think Kobe's prime stat line would look like back then?

Also, what is your guess for Oscar's numbers today, given the slower pace and less minutes?

[PickernRoller]

Kobe>Oscar>Lebron. That's why.

[CavaliersFTW]

You've stated that West and Baylor at their peak were better than Kobe. So what do you think Kobe's prime stat line would look like back then?

Also, what is your guess for Oscar's numbers today, given the slower pace and less minutes?
It's all subjective, Kobe is an all-time great I'm not really going to sell him short I'm just slinging some shit back at these Kobetards for trying to act like Oscar wasn't a Kobe level player. I don't worry about fictional numbers, his rebounding would be lower, assists about the same, scoring about the same if he played through the early '00's, or slightly lower volume and higher efficiency if he played in the past few years.

As for who's better between West Baylor Oscar Kobe etc, - at their peaks I consider them all on a similar plane of ability. But Oscar was better right out of the gates than any of them, West was a better defender than any of them, Kobe was kind of a mix between Elgin and West in scoring ability, Elgin was as dominant a rebounder as anyone could be for his size - they all peaked with similar levels of dominance but they all had varied strengths and weaknesses.

[Vienceslav]

I don't care whether you approve of my above post or not. What I said is absolutely what's going to happen. Everybody loves talking trash about players who don't exist on Youtube because it's easy for them to say 'well prove me wrong! hyuk!", they pretend to know how these oldschool players played the game and pretend to know their limitations like they're some sort of authority on the topic. Once I post film all these pretender critics suddenly go silent because as always - the things they tried to say are retarded, irrelevant, and untrue.
I just don't think there is a piece of footage that could put Oscar on par with Kobe, but that's just me.
I'll be waiting, after all I'm subbed to your youtube channel.

[LAZERUSS]

It's all subjective, Kobe is an all-time great I'm not really going to sell him short I'm just slinging some shit back at these Kobetards for trying to act like Oscar wasn't a Kobe level player. I don't worry about fictional numbers, his rebounding would be lower, assists about the same, scoring about the same if he played through the early '00's, or slightly lower volume and higher efficiency if he played in the past few years.

As for who's better between West Baylor Oscar Kobe etc, - at their peaks I consider them all on a similar plane of ability. But Oscar was better right out of the gates than any of them, West was a better defender than any of them, Kobe was kind of a mix between Elgin and West in scoring ability, Elgin was as dominant a rebounder as anyone could be for his size - they all peaked with similar levels of dominance but they all had varied strengths and weaknesses.

I agree with much of this. I personally would rank Kobe over Oscar, but Oscar would still be among the best in today's game.

As for greatest rebounding SF, I tend to go with Barkley. And I believe Charles was the greatest "non-ring winning" player of all-time, too.

[Marchesk]

As for greatest rebounding SF, I tend to go with Barkley. And I believe Charles was the greatest "non-ring winning" player of all-time, too.

I thought people classified Barkley as a power forward.

[I<3NBA]

Kobe is great. he's raped a lot of ppl. therefore Kobe > Oscar

[LAZERUSS]

I thought people classified Barkley as a power forward.

Yep. Sorry. I was thinking more along the lines of 6-5 forwards.

[CavaliersFTW]

I just don't think there is a piece of footage that could put Oscar on par with Kobe, but that's just me.
I'll be waiting, after all I'm subbed to your youtube channel.
Shortly before my channel existed 95 percent of people who discussed basketball on the internet believed Wilt was a less-coordinated version of Dikembe Mutumbo. That sounds ****ing retarded right? It should, in lieu of how much Wilt footage I've put up by now people lately seem to know better. But before videos like I've put up existed that was the reality of basketball discussion about Wilt on the internet, save for the few people privileged enough to have seen Wilt in person who knew otherwise but couldn't really say anything to convince the masses of pretend know-it-alls.

So with that said, whatever people here are saying or pretending to know about Oscars abilities or 'lack' of abilities, (and this applies to any player really that isn't extensively covered on Youtube or currently playing in the league) it all comes pre-fabricated purely from their heavily bias imagination. Bias to assume that players from that era are 'worse' and that their favorite players today are 'better'. Oscar could play. Do you honestly think Kareem is just blowing smoke out his ass when he asserts Oscar could 'whoop everybody' 1 on 1? If Oscar was 'luol deng' or w/e other nonsense comparison people are trying to make in this thread why the heck would Kareem even bring him up in a 1 on 1 vs MJ/himself discussion on ESPN? Luol Deng and Oscar is no less ignorant a comparison than the people who once believed Wilt was a less coordinated Dikembe Mutumbo.

[Vienceslav]

Shortly before my channel existed 95 percent of people who discussed basketball on the internet believed Wilt was a less-coordinated version of Dikembe Mutumbo. That sounds ****ing retarded right? It should, in lieu of how much Wilt footage I've put up by now people lately seem to know better. But before videos like I've put up existed that was the reality of basketball discussion about Wilt on the internet, save for the few people privileged enough to have seen Wilt in person who knew otherwise but couldn't really say anything to convince the masses of pretend know-it-alls.

So with that said, whatever people here are saying or pretending to know about Oscars abilities or 'lack' of abilities, (and this applies to any player really that isn't extensively covered on Youtube or currently playing in the league) it all comes pre-fabricated purely from their heavily bias imagination. Bias to assume that players from that era are 'worse' and that their favorite players today are 'better'. Oscar could play. Do you honestly think Kareem is just blowing smoke out his ass when he asserts Oscar could 'whoop everybody' 1 on 1? If Oscar was 'luol deng' or w/e other nonsense comparison people are trying to make in this thread why the heck would Kareem even bring him up? It's no less ignorant a comparison than the people who once believed Wilt was a less coordinated Dikembe Mutumbo.
Even before you started posting here I believed Wilt was a top 10 ever player, now I think he's in the top 5.
Don't get me wrong I respect your work, especially on the Wilt topic, I'm not in this thread to disrespect Oscar, I'm just a massive Kobe stan, so it's very hard for me to believe what you are claiming, but I promise I'll keep an open mind for your upcoming mix.

[CavaliersFTW]

Even before you started posting here I believed Wilt was a top 10 ever player, now I think he's in the top 5.
Don't get me wrong I respect your work, especially on the Wilt topic, I'm not in this thread to disrespect Oscar, I'm just a massive Kobe stan, so it's very hard for me to believe what you are claiming, but I promise I'll keep an open mind for your upcoming mix.
I don't have a problem with Kobe stans or other player stans. I don't care if Oscar is or isn't on your radar or in your top 10 or 20 or w/e. Different strokes for different folks. I was only calling out the stans who can't be a stan without deliberately trying to throw Oscar or other players they've never seen under the bus and make up 'he couldn't do (this or that)' in order to prop up who their stanning (in this case Kobe). Oscar is a face-of-the-league level all-time great player. Just like Kobe. He played the game very elite, and I doubt many people here have seen enough footage of him to have a solid idea how he played. Some day in the near future I will have a significant amount of footage of him posted. But until then, anybody who tries to suggest he was significantly worse than Kobe and was at some sort of random roleplayer level in today's league is kidding themselves.

[bdreason]

Some people do rank Oscar ahead of Kobe. Obviously not on this board though.

[STATUTORY]

I don't have a problem with Kobe stans or other player stans. I don't care if Oscar is or isn't on your radar or in your top 10 or 20 or w/e. Different strokes for different folks. I was only calling out the stans who can't be a stan without deliberately trying to throw Oscar or other players they've never seen under the bus and make up 'he couldn't do (this or that)' in order to prop up who their stanning (in this case Kobe). Oscar is a face-of-the-league level all-time great player. Just like Kobe. He played the game very elite, and I doubt many people here have seen enough footage of him to have a solid idea how he played. Some day in the near future I will have a significant amount of footage of him posted. But until then, anybody who tries to suggest he was significantly worse than Kobe and was at some sort of random roleplayer level in today's league is kidding themselves.

It's not slinging dirt, it's just fact. I have seen a lot of footage of Oscar that exists and there's not any that suggest he was capable of playing the game at a level that's expected of an elite guard today. If he was born later in time and had the luxury of same training and player development that player undergoes now, perhaps he would be as good as any of modern guards but that's just hypothetical.

The fact you compile these footage of old players yet seems incapable of dissecting or analyzing them critically is sad. just because you put them to a nice track and slice in some transitions doesn't elevate the play of the game as captured on film.

I'm not even critcizing Oscar, just recognizing that NBA was a fledgling league in the 60s competing with ABA for parts of the decade, drawing from a smaller talent pool that's further limited by discrimination and lack of opportunity for many blacks in america, no dedicated youth training programs, lack of modern medicine and training equipment. NCAA basketball was also not as popular and offered many fewer scholarships than they do now so there was less of pipeline to the nba. In fact playing basketball was just not as lucrative a proposition overall so there was less of a draw towards it, players like Oscar had to take offseason jobs.

So basically the 60s era was more or less composed of players drawn from a smaller population who had access to worse equipment/training/facilities who actually trained less over the course of the year because of offseason responsibilities.

Yet you believe they are just as good as professional athletes now.

:oldlol: honestly it's just common sense. And don't quote Kareem as if he's infallible, it's common to have rosy retrospection. The golden age syndrome if you will. There are many baseball old timers that claim Babe Ruth would have dominated if he played today, this is as silly as that.

would you at least admit the average guard play in the 60s was significantly worse than it is now?

[BlackVVaves]

Why do most people have Kobe ranked over Oscar Robertson? Oscar's career averages are 25.7/7.5/9.5. Kobe is 25.5/4.2/5.3. Oscar has the most triple doubles of all-time by far, and he has the only season in NBA history where someone averaged a triple double.

Robertson has the same number of MVPs as Kobe. He was a 12 time NBA all-star, with nine of those being first team. His MVP voting:

63: Russell, Baylor, Oscar
64: Oscar, Wilt, Russell
65: Russell, Oscar, West
66: Wilt, West, Oscar

He was fourth in 67 and fifth in 68.

Oscar is the other point guard Kareem won a championship with. If Kobe is worthy of top ten, as many seem to think, why not Oscar Robertson? What does Kobe have on him? Longevity? Kobe got to enter the league at 18. Oscar was 22.

He averages 4.8 assists per game, not 4.2 bub.

Kobe is considered higher on the all time list because of his personal accolades and overall resume. And, he was pretty good.

[La Frescobaldi]

Kobe is capable of toning down his handles to oblige the old rules but the older generation players simply didn't have the ability to dribble like modern players do.
simply wrong.

The difference is rules. In off-season you would see guys all over the playgrounds, in gyms and even driveways... and they had simlar handles. It was funny watching NBA each season at the beginning you'd see them struggle at 'converting' back to 'real' basketball, getting called for palming, double dribble, carrying because they had been playing 'modern' basketball all summer, without skills rules.
Even announcers would comment on it, like "well, there's another turnover for the Bullets. Earl & Don have been playing in schoolyards this summer!" or "And there's the whistle from Mendy Rudolph. He carried the ball. Can you imagine if that was legal in the NBA?"

It's simply false to think because they had strict skills rules that they had no skills.
That said, the game is much better without those rules.

[La Frescobaldi]

Big O had some advantages over Bryant. He was vastly stronger, for one thing. He could post up any big man and back him down. He had a big butt too, and could make space real easy just by backing into a guy. Kobe doesn't have those things.

The real edge that Robertson had was he always made the correct play. He had far more patience than Kobe, who has always had a tendency to chuck a lot, and to force plays.
Kobe has the definite edge in 1on1 moves - a bigger arsenal - and probably in defense. Kobe especially Kobe8 was much quicker than Oscar.

Oscar's early days are mystery to me; he had been in the league a long long time when he went to the Bucks which is where you see most of his footage. But that is like watching Kevin Garnett purely as a Celtic or even a Net. If that's all you knew of his game you'd think "well dude is great but why all that?" If you hadn't ever seen him on the Wolves you wouldn't know what he was really like. Kobe is in that same boat these past couple of seasons - still great, but not the glorious player he was when he was younger.

To me, Kobe might be the better 1on1 or isolation player, while Oscar was more team oriented, and Bryant gets the nod because of his defense. Kobe busted up a lot of fast breaks back in his day.
Robertson had a kind of a ferocity when he stepped on the court he had a kind of brutality that you do not see in today's league. Not saying he got in fights or anything.... he just had a kind of mentality that is absent today.

[fpliii]

I don't know if he should be. I go back and forth on both (and no, the raw stats aren't the reason), so I'm not quite sure who I'd take at the moment. Highlights won't do him justice, because he was focused on making the right play, and he truly mastered the fundamentals. If you saw Duncan's highlights, you'd say the same shit.

Conversation about dribbling is pointless now that Cavs has discussed that at length. Palming/carrying was called extremely strictly back then.

Oscar was considered a GOAT candidate (at least among guards) for most of the last 50-ish years, though (even after MJ retired). When you're going against perhaps the true GOAT in Russell and no slouch in Wilt most years in the East, winning titles is gonna be hell. Maybe if Maurice Stokes didn't meet a tragic end we're not discussing this though.

If you look at the team-level offense/defense stats, they really paint a picture of his Cinci teams as on the level of the 80s Lakers/00s Suns offensively, and losing games on the defensive end.

I don't do these top 10s anymore, but I think he has as good of a case after the first few centers as anybody.

[chazzy]

Bottom line is, Oscar only has two titles as the 2nd option. If you're going to rank him above Kobe because of stats, where do you stop?? His stats alone are greater than almost everyone. Why stop there and not put him in the top 5 or so?

[moe94]

Peak West and Robertson are better than any current guards in the league. And it's really sad that statements like these offend you so much.
:roll:

[Scholar]

So explain? Kobe isn't a better rebounder or passer. That leaves scoring and defense. Oscar averaged over 30 six times in his career. It was a higher paced era. But Robertson's FG% was 48.5 over his career. For a scoring guard. In that era. That's exceptional.

It's impossible to even assume Oscar was a great rebounder. Look at the competition. No offense to the legends, but c'mon. I bet you put Kobe in that era and he'd do the same, if not better.

[moe94]

It's impossible to even assume Oscar was a great rebounder. Look at the competition. No offense to the legends, but c'mon. I bet you put Kobe in that era and he'd do the same, if not better.
You're ready to completely dismiss that portion of NBA history just to suit your agenda? Will will you think of Kobe in 20 years when his exploits are seen as pedestrian?

[STATUTORY]

I don't know if he should be. I go back and forth on both (and no, the raw stats aren't the reason), so I'm not quite sure who I'd take at the moment. Highlights won't do him justice, because he was focused on making the right play, and he truly mastered the fundamentals. If you saw Duncan's highlights, you'd say the same shit.

Conversation about dribbling is pointless now that Cavs has discussed that at length. Palming/carrying was called extremely strictly back then.

Oscar was considered a GOAT candidate (at least among guards) for most of the last 50-ish years, though (even after MJ retired). When you're going against perhaps the true GOAT in Russell and no slouch in Wilt most years in the East, winning titles is gonna be hell. Maybe if Maurice Stokes didn't meet a tragic end we're not discussing this though.

If you look at the team-level offense/defense stats, they really paint a picture of his Cinci teams as on the level of the 80s Lakers/00s Suns offensively, and losing games on the defensive end.

I don't do these top 10s anymore, but I think he has as good of a case after the first few centers as anybody.

the question of who the better player is is completely separate from who the greater player is.

I think Wade would have wiped the floor with Oscar and Jerry west if both were transported to the modern era.

But I think both Oscar and Jerry West should be rightfully ranked over Wade. Ranking and greatness is contextual in term of relative performance over peers. I think Oscar has an argument over Kobe in term of rankings depending on your prejudices with regards statistical dominance vs. championship success.

But that has no bearing on who I think the "better" player is in absolute terms.

The idea that a league with: a smaller talent pool, worse supporting infrastructure, less monetary incentive to participate in, with athletes that were in essence semi-professional (working on other things in off-season), in a time period where discrimination precluded many blacks and certainly non-americans from even considering possiblity of playing in the NBA, could somehow produce better players is laughable.


Basketball is one of those sport that's very hard to judge through film unless you have a trained eye. People often conflate footage of competitive games of lower skill level with competitive games of higher skill level because its so contextual. Just look at track, records are constantly being shattered because runners are faster and faster, whether they are achieving that naturally notwithstanding.

[greymatter]

I totally disagree with penalizing a player because of team success mainly, but why is Oscar Robertson the only all time great that doesn't get penalized for his lack of team success (even though he doesn't deserve it)?

He took 10 years to get past the 2nd round, missed the playoffs twice in his prime, 1 ring, no FMVP, etc. He deserves to be ranked where he is, but with the way everybody (besides me) ranks players, why doesn't he get underrated like the rest of the greats without team success (like KG for example)?

Because people who aren't stupid don't fault him for not being able to beat Bill Russell's Celtics or Chamberlain's 76ers.

[greymatter]

Some people do rank Oscar ahead of Kobe. Obviously not on this board though.

You're wrong there.

[Miller for 3]

Ah ISH, where "Player X from the 60s vs. player X from the 2000s" invokes so much butthurt, pain, and trolling.

Never change ISH

[Marchesk]

Just look at track, records are constantly being shattered because runners are faster and faster, whether they are achieving that naturally notwithstanding.

They are, but does that mean Usain Bolt is necessarily more talented than Jesse Owens was? Bolts is a freak of nature, so maybe he's one of those once in fifty years kind of athletes like Shaq or Wilt in basketball. Then again, he has a lot faster surfaces to run on, better shoes, and most likely, PEDs.

Not all records fall that quickly. Bob Beamon's long jump stood for a long time. Jim Ryun's high school mile record wasn't broken until the 21st century. He did that in the 60s.

Track records are pretty straight forward, though. A team sports is more complex. How much does athleticism help you in basketball? Is it more important than skill or teamwork or IQ? No, it's not. Do relatively nonathletic (compared to their competition) or older guys still excel? Yes, they sometimes do. Do guys who played in a different era sill play well in a new one before they retire? Yes, this has been pointed out, particularly with bigs.

[fpliii]

the question of who the better player is is completely separate from who the greater player is.

I think Wade would have wiped the floor with Oscar and Jerry west if both were transported to the modern era.

But I think both Oscar and Jerry West should be rightfully ranked over Wade. Ranking and greatness is contextual in term of relative performance over peers. I think Oscar has an argument over Kobe in term of rankings depending on your prejudices with regards statistical dominance vs. championship success.

But that has no bearing on who I think the "better" player is in absolute terms.

The idea that a league with: a smaller talent pool, worse supporting infrastructure, less monetary incentive to participate in, with athletes that were in essence semi-professional (working on other things in off-season), in a time period where discrimination precluded many blacks and certainly non-americans from even considering possiblity of playing in the NBA, could somehow produce better players is laughable.


Basketball is one of those sport that's very hard to judge through film unless you have a trained eye. People often conflate footage of competitive games of lower skill level with competitive games of higher skill level because its so contextual. Just look at track, records are constantly being shattered because runners are faster and faster, whether they are achieving that naturally notwithstanding.

Eh, I don't know about that, because once you put these players in the same era they have the same advantages/disadvantages as each other (post-shotclock introduction, since before that it was a completely different sport). The best players in one era will be the best in any other era.

We'll have to agree to disagree I suppose.

[moe94]

How much does athleticism help you in basketball?

More so than most other sports, yes. Athleticism in basketball is a big deal.


Eh, I don't know about that, because once you put these players in the same era they have the same advantages/disadvantages as each other (post-shotclock introduction, since before that it was a completely different sport). The best players in one era will be the best in any other era..


This is why these comparisons are always flat out retarded. There are way too many variables that trying to be objective about is will only make you insane. You're not judging them as they are/were, you're judging them as you believe they could be, making it entirely and utterly pointless.

[Scholar]

You're ready to completely dismiss that portion of NBA history just to suit your agenda? Will will you think of Kobe in 20 years when his exploits are seen as pedestrian?

No, dude.
I don't think what Big O, Russell, Wilt, etc., did in the past was pedestrian. It's what those men did on a basketball court that brought this amazing game where it is today.
My point wasn't to dismiss Oscar's career. The guy I quoted said Oscar was a better rebounder. I'm just saying that's an assumption based purely on statistics. Big O seems like a better rebounder because he averaged more in his career, but that isn't a fair assessment based on era.
That's all I'm getting at.
Maybe I shouldn't debate basketball while being stoned, though.

[Marchesk]

More so than most other sports, yes. Athleticism in basketball is a big deal.

There's tons of athletic dudes who don't make the NBA or ride the end of the bench. Yes, there is a lot of athletic play in the league. But no, it's not more important than the other qualities such as skill and team play.

Was Bird considered athletic in the sense of Wilkins or Jordan? Heck no. He's top 7 in almost everyone's list. How about Stocton? No, but he's one of the greatest PGs ever. Kidd? Again, not known for his outstanding athleticism. Neither was Magic. Dirk, again nope. Was Karl Malone some great athlete? Maybe compared to the average Joe on the street. But not as an elite basketball player. There are tons of examples.

Is Duncan some superior athletic specimen in his late 30s? Heck no. But dude is fundamentally sound as they come and he has great team play.

Athleticism is overrated.

[STATUTORY]

They are, but does that mean Usain Bolt is necessarily more talented than Jesse Owens was? Bolts is a freak of nature, so maybe he's one of those once in fifty years kind of athletes like Shaq or Wilt in basketball. Then again, he has a lot faster surfaces to run on, better shoes, and most likely, PEDs.

Not all records fall that quickly. Bob Beamon's long jump stood for a long time. Jim Ryun's high school mile record wasn't broken until the 21st century. He did that in the 60s.

Track records are pretty straight forward, though. A team sports is more complex. How much does athleticism help you in basketball? Is it more important than skill or teamwork or IQ? No, it's not. Do relatively nonathletic (compared to their competition) or older guys still excel? Yes, they sometimes do. Do guys who played in a different era sill play well in a new one before they retire? Yes, this has been pointed out, particularly with bigs.

I don't claim that Bolt was more innately talented than Owens, but due to their varying circumstances, many of which was favorable to Bolt, he became a faster runner than Owens was able to be. And that's the same statement I'm making about Oscar and Kobe

my argument isn't based on just athleticism, it's more general. The best athletes in any sport are outliers to the far right of any distribution and the when you are drawing from a greater participant pool then the best of the larger sample will most likely be better than the best of a smaller less competitive group.

it's interesting you brought up those records that were not broken for a long time because if you notice they are sports that are not as well monetized. When a sport becomes extremely lucrative as basketball did post 1980s, then the incentive structure heightens and we get a more competitive league that's harder to get into.

[Marchesk]

I'm just saying that's an assumption based purely on statistics. Big O seems like a better rebounder because he averaged more in his career, but that isn't a fair assessment based on era.

Oscar was a better rebounding guard relative to his competition than Kobe is. I can't put Kobe or Oscar in a time machine, or have them grow up in the same era. But we can compare how they performed career wise. If people want to say that Kobe has the better resume over his longer career, then okay. But in comparing peak play, I'm not convinced that Kobe is better. Oscar has a top 10 peak. Dude was averaging a triple double over his first five years. Nobody else in history can say that.

[The Macho Man]

Oscar is a bitter old tw*t.

"players today couldn't handle the physical defense of my time" cut to footage of him playing with no one playing any D

[KingBeasley08]

I rip Kobe as much as the next guy but he's definitely better than Oscar. Far better defender and could take games over better than Oscar. Not to mention, Oscar had problems winning. Even if you discount the 3-peat, Kobe won two titles as the man

[LAZERUSS]

I don't claim that Bolt was more innately talented than Owens, but due to their varying circumstances, many of which was favorable to Bolt, he became a faster runner than Owens was able to be. And that's the same statement I'm making about Oscar and Kobe

my argument isn't based on just athleticism, it's more general. The best athletes in any sport are outliers to the far right of any distribution and the when you are drawing from a greater participant pool then the best of the larger sample will most likely be better than the best of a smaller less competitive group.

it's interesting you brought up those records that were not broken for a long time because if you notice they are sports that are not as well monetized. When a sport becomes extremely lucrative as basketball did post 1980s, then the incentive structure heightens and we get a more competitive league that's harder to get into.

You used the example of the 1980's, so I'll start there. What about the players whose careers spanned the 70's and 80's? How come Moses, Dr. J., Gilmore, Lanier, McAdoo, Dantley, Gervin, and Kareem were not suddenly overwhelmed by this influx of new talent?

The first four MVPs of the 80's were players from the 70's. The first five scoring champions were players from the 70's. The first six rebounding champions were players from the 70's. The first five FG% leaders were players from the 70's.

Not only that, but players like Gilmore and Kareem were dominating the 80's at ages of 35+. In fact, if you look at what some of the players who played in the 70's and then into the 80's...were accomplishing in the 80's, there is a strong argument that could be made that the 80's competition was worse. My god, and old Gilmore was scoring as many ppg, on far greater efficiencies, than what a prime Gilmore was in the 70's. And a 35-36 Gilmore was putting up staggering numbers against Hakeem. KAJ was winning a FMVP at age 37, and wiping the floor with Hakeem and Ewing at age 39. Here again, KAJ dominated those two at an advanced age, far more than he did his peers in the 70's, and in his absolute prime. A well-past-his-prime Moses was still outplaying and outrebounding Hakeem and Ewing, as well, even into the late 80's.

And you can carry those arguments from the 60's into the 70's, and then from the 80's into the 90's, and so on.

Furthermore, and as Marchesk mentioned...how can a John Stockton or Steve Nash be playing on nearly the same overall level as a Kobe Bryant or Vince Carter? How can a 6-8 Kevin Love, with no more height, athleticism, or skill-levels than a 6-8 Jerry Lucas, not only be winning rpg titles, but in only 36 mpg? Or a 37 year-old Nash win apg titles and in only 33 mpg? Or a 6-11 stumble-bum like the 6-11 Bogut win a bpg title? And then, on the other end of the spectrum, how come a James White or the 7-4 350 lb. Priest Lauderdale ride the bench, or not even make an NBA team?


And where are the Shaq's today? And how did an old MJ average over 20 ppg in the 00's? And are the centers of today more skilled than Hakeem from 20 years ago? Do you believe that a Hibbert or Howard would easily outplay Moses? How about even a mid-30's KAJ? And then, how about a prime Kareem? Years ago Pat Riley envisioned a team with five Magic's on the floor. I haven't seen anyone close since. Hell, an old Magic, several years removed from the league, overweight, and fighting a deadly disease was putting up 15-6-7 numbers in the mid-90's, and in less than 30 mpg. Or maybe you honestly believe that the players of the mid-90's finally caught up to his level?

I have read those here who claim that a peak Chamberlain would be a bench-warmer in today's NBA. Yep...over 7-1, and who would measure at 7-3 today, at 280-300+ lbs, longer, stronger, more athletic, and more skilled than Shaq, would be a bench-warmer in today's NBA. Meanwhile, a Ben Wallace, who was only 6-7, and couldn't hit the rim from five feet, is supposedly a better player than a prime Russell, who was nearly 6-10, a world-class athlete, and considerably more skilled in every facet of the game? And find me a player today who could do what Maravich was doing some 50 years ago (and please don't give me Jason Williams who couldn't do anything remotely close, either.)

And I mentioned it previously. How come the NBA collectively shot .756 from the FT line in the 58-59 season...and yet can only shoot .750 in the current NBA? Wouldn't the much-better trained players of today be light-years ahead of those that played 50-60 years ago?

So, even with this world-wide population explosion, where are all the MJs, Bird's, Moses', KAJ's, and Chamberlain's? And how come we don't have 7-5 "Magic's" running up-and-down the floor at breakneck speeds?

The game is well over 100 years old. And aside from the shot-clock, the 3pt line, and a few less significant rule changes, is essentially being played the same way it was when it was invented. Same size hoop, roughly the same ball, same size dimensions, and with the same number of players. There isn't anything being done on the floor today, that wasn't being done in the 60's, either. Gus Johnson was jumping as high as anyone in today's game (and BTW, with all of his athleticism and skill, how come he wasn't a 30-20 player in the 60's?) Dr. J was doing the same dunks in college in the 60's, and anyone is doing in the NBA today. Willis Reed was Zach Randolph long before Randolph was. Jerry Lucas was Kevin Love long before Love was. Pistol was a taller, more athletic Nash long before Nash was. Russell was a taller, longer, more athletic and far more skilled Wallace, long before Ben was. And you can't find anyone remotely close to a Chamberlain in today's NBA.

As for Oscar, how can you possibly believe that he would not be a dominating superstar in today's NBA? There is footage now of Oscar easily skying for a dunk. But, very little of it. Why? Because he seldom needed to do so. And you and other's scoff at his dribbling, just because he was not flashy. And yet, his dribbling skills are so much more fundamentally sound than just about anyone playing today. He didn't do the behind-the-back, between-the-legs nonsense, because it was unncessary. Instead he methodically dribbled and backed his defender(s) down, and then put himself in position to take the easiest shot. He didn't jack up 25+ ft. shots because there was no 3pt line back then. Here again, it was well-known that if he had an easy 20 ft shot, he would work to take an even an easier 15 ft shot.

I'm not disputing Kobe's tremendous skills here. He is one of the game's greatest pure scorers, and would have been in any era. But, I have no doubt that you could transport an Oscar from the mid-60's right into the current NBA, and within a short period of time, he would adapt to the current rules, and be just as dominant as he was in the 60's. What his numbers would be, I don't know. But, let him handle the ball as much as today's PGs, and he likely would come close to triple-double seasons again.

[LAZERUSS]

honestly it's just common sense. And don't quote Kareem as if he's infallible, it's common to have rosy retrospection. The golden age syndrome if you will. There are many baseball old timers that claim Babe Ruth would have dominated if he played today, this is as silly as that.

And what makes you think that the Babe would not be a great player today?

And before you mention pre-integration as argument, explain this to me...

Ted Williams batting .406 with 37 HRs in 1941 (pre-integration), and then at age 38, batting .388 with 38 HRs (post-integration), and in leagues that had Aaron, Mantle, and Mays.

Ruth was a great athlete. He was an outstanding pitcher, as well as perhaps one the most powerful hitters in baseball history. While players like Sosa were swinging corked bats, Ruth was hitting tape-measure HRs with a 42 ounce bat.

[INDI]

Why do most people have Kobe ranked over Oscar Robertson? Oscar's career averages are 25.7/7.5/9.5. Kobe is 25.5/4.2/5.3. Oscar has the most triple doubles of all-time by far, and he has the only season in NBA history where someone averaged a triple double.

Robertson has the same number of MVPs as Kobe. He was a 12 time NBA all-star, with nine of those being first team. His MVP voting:

63: Russell, Baylor, Oscar
64: Oscar, Wilt, Russell
65: Russell, Oscar, West
66: Wilt, West, Oscar

He was fourth in 67 and fifth in 68.

Oscar is the other point guard Kareem won a championship with. If Kobe is worthy of top ten, as many seem to think, why not Oscar Robertson? What does Kobe have on him? Longevity? Kobe got to enter the league at 18. Oscar was 22.

For the same reasons that people rank about 11 other players over Oscar.

Oscars stats are better than everyone besides wilts. If stats held the most weight than Oscar should be at a minimum in everyones top 3. His stats blow hakeem, shaq, magic, bird, duncan, lebron, kobe out the water.

he either moves into the top 3/4 or stays where hes at which is 11-13. No cherry picking

[bizil]

GOAT wise, it's because of resume. Kobe's 5 rings to Big O's 1 is basically the difference. To think Big O and West aren't in many top 10 GOAT lists is crazy to think. But the game evolves and guys from the 2000s like Bron, Kobe, Shaq, and Duncan have compiled epic resumes with more rings than Oscar. But Oscar is still the 2nd GOAT PG and Kobe is the 2nd GOAT SG. But the THING Oscar does have over Kobe is the fact that he revolutionized the sport. As great as Kobe was, he didn't really revolutionize the sport.

[STATUTORY]

And what makes you think that the Babe would not be a great player today?

And before you mention pre-integration as argument, explain this to me...

Ted Williams batting .406 with 37 HRs in 1941 (pre-integration), and then at age 38, batting .388 with 38 HRs (post-integration), and in leagues that had Aaron, Mantle, and Mays.

Ruth was a great athlete. He was an outstanding pitcher, as well as perhaps one the most powerful hitters in baseball history. While players like Sosa were swinging corked bats, Ruth was hitting tape-measure HRs with a 42 ounce bat.

I'll respond to your other post later, I have some work at the moment. But I will explain Ted Williams to you right now

Ted Williams played during an era where many healthy american males either were drafted or stayed in college to avoid draft, this depleted the available talent for baseball and other sports severely. And there is a similar talent depletion in the 50s, 60s because of Vietnam. Hence Ted Williams played against a lower baseline of talent even irrespective of segregation.

And to your integration point, integration didn't happen overnight and the pace of integration was much slower in the AL where Williams played compare to the NL. Ted Williams never meaningfully played in an integrated league, the Aaron/Mays of the world played in the NL league which was much more progressive and more readily accepted blacks in order to fill the ranks lost to draft and needed for expansion.

[LAZERUSS]

I'll respond to your other post later, I have some work at the moment. But I will explain Ted Williams to you right now

Ted Williams played during an era where many healthy american males either were drafted or stayed in college to avoid draft, this depleted the available talent for baseball and other sports severely. And there is a similar talent depletion in the 50s, 60s because of Vietnam. Hence Ted Williams played against a lower baseline of talent even irrespective of segregation.

And to your integration point, integration didn't happen overnight and the pace of integration was much slower in the AL where Williams played compare to the NL. Ted Williams never meaningfully played in an integrated league, the Aaron/Mays of the world played in the NL league which was much more progressive and more readily accepted blacks in order to fill the ranks lost to draft and needed for expansion.

Actually Williams played in an era when baseball was THE sport. The best athletes played professional baseball...period. Football and basketball were slowing gaining in popularity in the 50's and both exploded in the 60's.

But Williams was also another "bridge." In his rookie season, in 1939, he batted .327 with 31 HRs. In that same season, Jimmy Foxx batted .360 with 35 HRs. Just the year before, Foxx batted .349 with 50 HRs. Go back to 1932, and Foxx slammed 58 HRs. In that same season, a well-past-his-prime Ruth batted .341 with 41 HRs. Go back a few years before, in 1927, and Ruth batted .356 with 60 HRs.

The point being, that Williams certainly faced the same pitchers that Foxx did. And he certainly faced some of the same pitchers that an old Ruth had, as well.

Then fast forward to the 50's. Here was Williams just pounding post-integration pitching. The same pitching that Aaron, Mays, and Mantle were facing. Hell, at age 41 and in 1960, Williams batted .316 with 29 HRs in 310 ABs.

And how about Aaron? In that 1957 season in which a 38 year old Williams hit .388 with 38 HRs, Aaron slugged 44 HRs. In 1973 Aaron hit 40 HRs in 392 ABs.

How about Nolan Ryan? In the 8th inning of a game in which he had thrown 162 pitches, he was clocked at 101 MPH...by a SLOW gun. (Just ask Mitch Williams about the speed of the guns.) At age 46, and on an injured arm, and on his very last pitch, he was clocked at 98 MPH. The man was dominating baseball in Aaron's '73 season, and was still throwing no-hitters in the 90's.

And there are those that believe that no one has ever thrown harder than Ryan.

http://www.efastball.com/baseball/stats/fastest-pitch-speed-in-major-leagues/

And BTW, just google the name of Steve Dalkowski. He was pitching in the minors in the late 50's.


And finally...how about Mantle?

http://www.themick.com/10homers.html

Even if you don't accept the above, there was no question that the 5-11 190 lb was hitting the longest HRs ever. But what is interesting, is that SI ran article a few years ago about every one of Barry Bonds HRs. The longest HR Bonds ever hit was 490 ft. Mantle had many HRs over that distance. My god, even Lou Brock hit a KNOWN homerun of at least 475 ft (and I believe it was actually measured at 505 BTW)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polo_Grounds


One of the oddest features at the Polo Grounds was the rather deep dimensions in straight away center field. The wall was so far away from home plate, at 483 feet, that no Major League player, including Babe Ruth, ever hit a fly ball that reached the wall. The clubhouse was also located in that area, and was considered in play, as the windows were on the in-play side of the wall. The ground rules of the Polo Grounds were set up so that if a ball went through an open window in the clubhouse, it was a ground rule double, rather than a home run. Since no ball ever reached the clubhouse in the life of the stadium, that rule was never tested.
In Game 1 of the 1954 World Series, Giants outfielder Willie Mays made a sensational catch of a fly ball hit by the Cleveland Indians' Vic Wertz into deep center field, a catch which, in the words of NBC television sports announcer Jack Brickhouse, "must have looked like an optical illusion to a lot of people", and which turned the tide of that Series in the Giants' favor.
On October 2, 1936, in Game 2 of the 1936 World Series, Yankees centerfielder Joe DiMaggio made a similar, though far less crucial, catch (his team being ahead 18-4) for the final out of the game.[21][22] The Giants' Hank Leiber hit a long fly ball to deep center field that DiMaggio caught in the runway, perhaps 430–440 from the plate, and his momentum carried him partway up the clubhouse steps. He then stopped and turned around, as the crowd stood and acknowledged the departure of Franklin D. Roosevelt, who was in attendance that day.[23]


Center field in the 1950s, with famous Chesterfield cigarettes advertisement visible above the clubhouse.
Babe Ruth hit many of his early signature blasts at the Polo Grounds, reaching the center field seats on several occasions. His longest blast at the grounds, over the right-center upper deck in 1921, was estimated at over 550 feet. Had Ruth played regularly in the remodeled Polo Grounds, he would have been capable of hitting the clubhouse if conditions were right.[speculation?] Neither he nor anyone else ever did, but a few came close.
After the 1923 remodeling, only four players ever hit a home run into the center field stands:[24]
Luke Easter in a Negro League game in 1948
Joe Adcock in 1953 (April 29)
Hank Aaron and Lou Brock on consecutive days (June 17 and 18) in 1962

http://www.baseball-almanac.com/stadium/st_polo.shtml

Centerfield wall in 1962 was 475 feet away.

And don't forget players like Reggie Jackson (his mammoth HR in the '71 ASG), or McCovery, Killebrew, Howard, and Stargell.

[The Iron Fist]

There's tons of athletic dudes who don't make the NBA or ride the end of the bench. Yes, there is a lot of athletic play in the league. But no, it's not more important than the other qualities such as skill and team play.

Was Bird considered athletic in the sense of Wilkins or Jordan? Heck no. He's top 7 in almost everyone's list. How about Stocton? No, but he's one of the greatest PGs ever. Kidd? Again, not known for his outstanding athleticism. Neither was Magic. Dirk, again nope. Was Karl Malone some great athlete? Maybe compared to the average Joe on the street. But not as an elite basketball player. There are tons of examples.

Is Duncan some superior athletic specimen in his late 30s? Heck no. But dude is fundamentally sound as they come and he has great team play.

Athleticism is overrated.
:applause:

First person I think of when reading that,

http://ionetheurbandaily.files.wordpress.com/2011/08/darius-miles.jpg

"he can jump out of the building!"

[Psileas]

What the heck is the deal with some posters being that obsessed with fancy dribbling? Do you honestly think that just because Oscar didn't dribble like Kobe (notice: "didn't", not "couldn't" - btw, once upon a time, lots believed that Oscar didn't and possibly couldn't perform crossovers, yet he's among the pioneers of the move), he would somehow have the ball stripped multiple times? Last time I checked, Magic wasn't dribbling like Kobe either and nobody could pick his pocket at will. Mark Jackson and Dennis Johnson would at times dribble at chest level in the 80's and 90's and protected it just fine.
As for the rest, it pretty much goes without saying: He knew how to perform excellent, fundamental passes, he could play with his back like few guards ever and his shot release, from a great height by itself and with the ball forming a high angle in the air, made his shot about as unblockable as Jordan's fade-away. If he played nowadays, I don't doubt at all he'd be among the greatest fadeaway shooters as well - after all, his form is the granddaddy of the move.