Oscar Robertson averages for his FIRST FIVE years: 30/10/10 :

[oarabbus]

:biggums:

Weak era or not, faster pace/inflated stats or not, this guy averaged:

30.3 points/10.3 rebounds/10.6 assists in his first 5 years in the league
30.5 points, 10.1 rebounds and 9.7 assists as a rookie (!)
30.8 points, 12.5 rebounds and 11.4 assists in his 2nd year

That **** would be impressive in a god damn YMCA basketball league, much less the NBA.






:biggums:

[navy]

Weak era.

[Stringer Bell]

Faster paced era, but still, no one else did it.

He led the league in assists 7 in his first 9 seasons and was top 5 in scoring every year.

[moe94]

Silly ring argument keeps him out of the top 10 discussion doe

[Deuce Bigalow]

Silly ring argument keeps him out of the top 10 discussion doe
I have him in my top 10. Many "experts" also have him top 10 too, not ISH though.

Oscar averaged 29/8/10 on 49%FG his first 10 seasons. All of these seasons were before joining Kareem's Bucks in 70-71 already past his prime.

[IncarceratedBob]

Lebrons adjusted numbers for big O's era, 42/19/14

[moe94]

Lebrons adjusted numbers for big O's era, 42/19/14

Big O's numbers adjusted for this era: 10/4/4

[Milbuck]

Kareem's numbers adjusted for this era: 6

[ArbitraryWater]

I read somewhere that he was short of like 6 rebounds from averaging a triple double through his first 6 years.

[longhornfan1234]

Top 15 player

11. Hakeem
12. Moses
13. West
14. Oscar
15. Dr. J

[r15mohd]

BigO was a 6'5" starting PG in a very mediocre talented league...I give him props for what he did, as that was the competition back then, but let's not be facetious in thinking others like Magic, Lebron, MJ could not do the same or better

[riseagainst]

Oscar is just another Wilt. Stat padder who can't deliver the wins for his team. Neither really deserve to be in the top 10, this is where stats can be deceiving.

[Bob Dole]

Top 15 player

11. Hakeem
12. Moses
13. West
14. Oscar
15. Dr. J

Shut it fool. Oscar is easily top 10. Having someone like Kobe or Hakeem ranked above him is blasphemous. Easily two of the most overrated players of all time.

[Bob Dole]

BigO was a 6'5" starting PG in a very mediocre talented league...I give him props for what he did, as that was the competition back then, but let's not be facetious in thinking others like Magic, Lebron, MJ could not do the same or better

Yeah those 3 could have but people act like anyone could have. He was at once considered goat material. No one else in his era was even close. He's a top 5 perimeter player all time with mj,bird,magic, and bron.

[moe94]

Shut it fool. Oscar is easily top 10. Having someone like Kobe or Hakeem ranked above him is blasphemous. Easily two of the most overrated players of all time.

Remember when Oscar won a title as the best player on the team? Good times. Were you watching then?

[riseagainst]

Remember when Oscar won a title as the best player on the team? Good times. Were you watching then?

:roll:

[longhornfan1234]

Shut it fool. Oscar is easily top 10. Having someone like Kobe or Hakeem ranked above him is blasphemous. Easily two of the most overrated players of all time.


Oscar never won a championship as the man and missed the playoffs multiple times in his prime. Hakeem is clearly better two player than Oscar. Hakeem and Kobe are better playoff performers than Oscar.

[Bob Dole]

Remember when Oscar won a title as the best player on the team? Good times. Were you watching then?

For some reason this kind of logic only works with sports idiots. If winning titles as the best player on your team is what matters and you don't have bill Russell ranked #1 all time, then you my good friend just pick and choose criteria based on what you want the answer to be.

Makes no dang sense.

[Bob Dole]

Oscar never won a championship as the man and missed the playoffs multiple times in his prime. Hakeem is clearly better two player than Oscar. Hakeem and Kobe are better playoff performers than Oscar.

Read my post above. Bill Russell or Michael Jordan? Don't give me that but Michael still won six bull. 11 is way greater so he should be the unanimous #1 right?

Wrong

[moe94]

For some reason this kind of logic only works with sports idiots. If winning titles as the best player on your team is what matters and you don't have bill Russell ranked #1 all time, then you my good friend just pick and choose criteria based on what you want the answer to be.

Makes no dang sense.

It's a combination, genius. That can happen.

Oscar, on the team/winning side, was hilariously pedestrian compared to other top 10 candidates. He literally has no argument over Dream, all things considered.

11-15 is a good spot for him

Put it this way, if Oscar is top 5-10, then Wilt is the overwhelming GOAT.

[Bob Dole]

It's a combination, genius. That can happen.

Oscar, on the team/winning side, was hilariously pedestrian, compared to other top 10 candidates. He literally has no argument over Dream, all things considered.

11-15 is a good spot for him

Put it this way, if Oscar is top 5-10, then Wilt is the overwhelming GOAT.

Idiot I know this. What I'm saying is oscars combination is better than Kobe's or Hakeem's. Using the you had to win a title as the best player on your team as a qualifier is stupid. It takes out the circumstances of the situation. The better team wins not the better player always.

Hakeem wasn't event considered definitely better than David, Patrick, or a young Shaq when they played. Y'all are such damn revisionists.

Is Chauncey billups better than Chris Paul?

Espn has ruined people's ability to think with this rinnnggzz bull. It greatly underrates and overrates some players based strictly on circumstance.

[moe94]

Idiot I know this. What I'm saying is oscars combination is better than Kobe's or Hakeem's. Using the you had to win a title as the best player on your team as a qualifier is stupid. It takes out the circumstances of the situation. The better team wins not the better player always.

Hakeem wasn't event considered definitely better than David, Patrick, or a young Shaq when they played. Y'all are such damn revisionists.

Is Chauncey billups better than Chris Paul?

Your arguments are retarded.

You are suggesting Oscar is Paul to Kobe/Dream's Chauncey.

:roll: :biggums: :facepalm

And yeah, Hakeem was the best player in the league when he won his titles and there was absolutely no argument to the contrary.

MR BOB DOLE YOU'RE TOO OLD TO UNDERSTAND THE WAY THE GAME'S TOLD

[Bob Dole]

Your arguments are retarded.

You are suggesting Oscar is Paul to Kobe/Dream's Chauncey.

:roll: :biggums: :facepalm

And yeah, Hakeem was the best player in the league when he won his titles and there was absolutely no argument to the contrary.

Wow that so went over your head. Good day friend.

[moe94]

Wow that so went over your head. Good day friend.

What circumstance makes Hakeem god damn Billups for his rings or Kobe, for that matter?

Why the hell are you running away? :oldlol:

[riseagainst]

Wow that so went over your head. Good day friend.

http://reactiongifs.me/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/my-reaction-when-I-get-into-an-argument-with-women-homer-simpson-hide-in-bush-disappears.gif

[Bob Dole]

What circumstance makes Hakeem god damn Billups for his rings or Kobe, for that matter?

Why the hell are you running away? :oldlol:

Idiot it doesn't make Hakeem into Chauncey. I'm just showing you how circumstance can have an inferior player win a championship while the superior player doesn't.

I'm done with this convo. You continue with your ish rankings of players. No wonder all you *******s lists look almost identical. No thought process just monkey see, monkey do.

[moe94]

Idiot it doesn't make Hakeem into Chauncey. I'm just showing you how circumstance can have an inferior player win a championship while the superior player doesn't.

I'm done with this convo. You continue with your ish rankings of players. No wonder all you *******s lists look almost identical. No thought process just monkey see, monkey do.

I'm not sure you understand how analogies work. :coleman:

[stanlove1111]

Silly ring argument keeps him out of the top 10 discussion doe

Its not the rings its the fact that he didn't add a lot of value to a basketball team when compared to others. His teams often went nowhere at all. His college team was better without him. He was the king of empty stats. And we all know he dominated the ball like nobody else ever. When everything has to go through you, you should have pretty good stats.


Not sure why there is so much obsession with stats on this site. All great players have great stats, its about how much value your game added to winning and losing. I don't expect a great player to led a weak tam to a title, I do expect him to take weak teams and often challenge or usually be very good. I will take what Lebron did with Cleveland over what Kobe did with LA anytime for one example. Lebron would easily win titles with Shaq's Lakers, Kobe wouldn't lead a weak team anywhere.

[Bob Dole]

I'm not sure you understand how analogies work. :coleman:

My god you are dumb.

Here's a lesson real quick class:

Wolfs are to dogs as tigers are to cats

Does this make wolfs and tigers the same? No

Does it make dogs and cats the same? No

It just shows a relationship. That relationship I tried to show you earlier was circumstance of a better player not winning a ring but a lesser player did. Here it is an animal kingdom relationship.

[moe94]

My god you are dumb.

Here's a lesson real quick class:

Wolfs are to dogs as tigers are to cats

Does this make wolfs and tigers the same? No

Does it make dogs and cats the same? No

It just shows a relationship. That relationship I tried to show you earlier was circumstance of a better player not winning a ring but a lesser player did. Here it is an animal kingdom relationship.

You're suggesting that they are comparable when they are not, which is the entire point, you absolute retard.

[Marlo_Stanfield]

Oscar is just another Wilt. Stat padder who can't deliver the wins for his team. Neither really deserve to be in the top 10, this is where stats can be deceiving.
sounds just like Kobe:lol

[Bob Dole]

You're suggesting that they are comparable when they are not, which is the entire point, you absolute retard.

My god you must have done horribly on the SAT.

[riseagainst]

sounds just like Kobe:lol

5 time champion and he led his team to 3 consecutive finals and back to back chips. Hardly a stat padder to me.

:coleman:

[Psileas]

:biggums:

Weak era or not, faster pace/inflated stats or not, this guy averaged:

30.3 points/10.3 rebounds/10.6 assists in his first 5 years in the league
30.5 points, 10.1 rebounds and 9.7 assists as a rookie (!)
30.8 points, 12.5 rebounds and 11.4 assists in his 2nd year

That **** would be impressive in a god damn YMCA basketball league, much less the NBA.

:biggums:

Top-3 MDE guard, along with Jordan and Magic. Weak era my ass. He was doing the same things against Jerry West and West was a great defender. Only the Celtics' defense seemed to trouble him at times, with also great defender KC Jones pressing him and Bill Russell roaming, ready to contest any of his closest shots - and even then, he still averaged 33-13-9 vs them in the 1963 playoffs.

[WillC]

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

Introduction:

Educated authors agree that Oscar Robertson is one of the top ten basketball players ever.

And yet, in 2012, members of the Inside Hoops message board voted Oscar Robertson as the 13th greatest player of all-time behind Moses Malone, Hakeem Olajuwon and others.

Meanwhile, over on the RealGM message board, the forum's members ranked the Big O 14th all-time behind Karl Malone, Kevin Garnett and eleven other players.

What has caused Oscar to fall from the second best player of the millennium (as voted by the associated press) to a player many fans and some authors don't even consider for their top 10 just a decade later?

........

[stanlove1111]

Top-3 MDE guard, along with Jordan and Magic. Weak era my ass. He was doing the same things against Jerry West and West was a great defender. Only the Celtics' defense seemed to trouble him at times, with also great defender KC Jones pressing him and Bill Russell roaming, ready to contest any of his closest shots - and even then, he still averaged 33-13-9 vs them in the 1963 playoffs.


Another stats obsessed post. You do understand this is not baseball right, where everyone gets basically the same amount of attempts to put up stats.

Oscar dominated the ball like no player in history. He had better have good stats.

He was a great player but not in the to 10. He didn't add the value to a team.

[Calabis]

:biggums:

Weak era or not, faster pace/inflated stats or not, this guy averaged:

30.3 points/10.3 rebounds/10.6 assists in his first 5 years in the league
30.5 points, 10.1 rebounds and 9.7 assists as a rookie (!)
30.8 points, 12.5 rebounds and 11.4 assists in his 2nd year

That **** would be impressive in a god damn YMCA basketball league, much less the NBA.






:biggums:

People can say what they want...weak era, competition....but why didn't anyone else do it....He is my Top 10

[WillC]

The faster pace argument doesn't hold up. After all, Robertson's assists and rebounds (for his position) were head-and-shoulders above his competition.

Oscar Robertson led the league in assists by a large margin. During his Cincinnati Royals career conveniently spanning the 1960s, Oscar Robertson averaged 10.3.apg for the decade. His closest rival over the same time period was Guy Rogers with an average of 7.9apg followed by Bob Cousy (7.2apg), Walt Frazier (6.8apg) and Lenny Wilkens (6.2apg).

Then of course we have the rebounds. Again, using the 1960s as our time period, Oscar Robertson averaged 8.5rpg compared to Jerry Sloan (7.3rpg), Tom Gola (6.7rpg), Jerry West (6.3rpg) and Hal Greer (6.3rpg).

In other words, Oscar Robertson was not only the best passer in the league by a big margin, but he was also clearly the best rebounder at his position.

As if his passing and rebounding weren

[stanlove1111]

People can say what they want...weak era, competition....but why didn't anyone else do it....He is my Top 10

Why are you acting like a triple double is some magic feat that is all that matters. Baylor for one averaged just as many points, and many more rebounds, and he was a better defender. Plus he did it with the ball in his hand a lot less. Why does a triple double mean more then that?

[SHAQisGOAT]

Points and assists are the most impressive stuff, he was leading the league in assists every now and then while at the top in terms of points (led once) :bowdown: The rebounding is also pretty impressive when compared to his competition, at guard, but estimated TRB% suggest he's not quite on the same level as a player like Magic or even Fat Lever, Kidd too I believe, so, I'll say it it again, while pretty impressive he can't claim to be the best rebounding PG or that he would have better numbers while playing in the same league as those guys.

I have him at 13th in my all-time list, for the record.

[stanlove1111]

[QUOTE=WillC]The faster pace argument doesn't hold up. After all, Robertson's assists and rebounds (for his position) were head-and-shoulders above his competition.

Oscar Robertson led the league in assists by a large margin. During his Cincinnati Royals career conveniently spanning the 1960s, Oscar Robertson averaged 10.3.apg for the decade. His closest rival over the same time period was Guy Rogers with an average of 7.9apg followed by Bob Cousy (7.2apg), Walt Frazier (6.8apg) and Lenny Wilkens (6.2apg).

Then of course we have the rebounds. Again, using the 1960s as our time period, Oscar Robertson averaged 8.5rpg compared to Jerry Sloan (7.3rpg), Tom Gola (6.7rpg), Jerry West (6.3rpg) and Hal Greer (6.3rpg).

In other words, Oscar Robertson was not only the best passer in the league by a big margin, but he was also clearly the best rebounder at his position.

As if his passing and rebounding weren

[WillC]

He doesn't mention that Oscar was legendary for dominating the ball, of course he will have more assists then someone like West who didn't.

West was a much better defender also. Why do you kids only think about stats.

Firstly, I'm probably twice your age.

Secondly, Oscar led the league in TS%, so if anyone should have the ball in their hands, it's the Big O.

[Calabis]

Why are you acting like a triple double is some magic feat that is all that matters. Baylor for one averaged just as many points, and many more rebounds, and he was a better defender. Plus he did it with the ball in his hand a lot less. Why does a triple double mean more then that?

:lol

Baylor wasn't in charge of running the offense, his job was to score....Oscar scored and rebounded and got people involved....why didn't Baylor just rack up 10 assists per game as well?

[LAZERUSS]

Oscar not "winning" in the 60's was the equivalent of MJ not "winning" in the 80's.

He wouldn't be expected to "win" when his team's were battling the greatest dynasty in NBA history (and narrowly losing to them in a seven game series in '63, and then 3-2 in a best of five series in '66), as well as the Baylor-West Lakers, and the Wilt 76ers and Lakers...any more than MJ should have beaten the Laker-Celtic-Piston teams of the 80's.

As for his numbers...

The only area in which "pace" affects his numbers was in the rebounding category. His assists likely would be HIGHER in today's NBA. And he was averaging 30 ppg on a little over 20 FGAs per game in the first half of the 60's. Does anyone here honestly believe that he couldn't take 21 FGAs per game in today's NBA?

I personally have Oscar somewhere between 10-15, but there are many other's that have him in their Top-10. And I really wouldn't argue with any of them.

[stanlove1111]

Firstly, I'm probably twice your age.

Secondly, Oscar led the league in TS%, so if anyone should have the ball in their hands, it's the Big O.

So you don't deny that he totally dominated the ball. Ball stoppers are not good for a team, which explains somewhat why Oscar's teams didn't do better. Even in college his team didn't win a title until the year after he left. Not surprising.

[LAZERUSS]

So you don't deny that he totally dominated the ball. Ball stoppers are not good for a team, which explains somewhat why Oscar's teams didn't do better. Even in college his team didn't win a title until the year after he left. Not surprising.

I guess that is why Worthy was the real winner on the Carolina teams. After he left MJ couldn't win an NCAA title in the next two years.

[stanlove1111]

I guess that is why Worthy was the real winner on the Carolina teams. After he left MJ couldn't win an NCAA title in the next two years.

Not sure what you are even trying here. Carolina didn't get better when Jordan left. And Jordan went on to win 6 titles in the NBA. He was obviously very valuable to a team.

Oscar's team got better after he left in College and his teams rarely went anywhere in pros. Don't think he had the team to win title sin the 60s but if he all time top 10 they would have done much better.

His ball stopping was a problem. Have you ever played basketball? Hard to play well when a teammate is sitting there pounding the ball most of the time.

[LAZERUSS]

Not sure what you are even trying here. Carolina didn't get better when Jordan left. And Jordan went on to win 6 titles in the NBA. He was obviously very valuable to a team.

Oscar's team got better after he left in College and his teams rarely went anywhere in pros. Don't think he had the team to win title sin the 60s but if he all time top 10 they would have done much better.

His ball stopping was a problem. Have you ever played basketball? Hard to play well when a teammate is sitting there pounding the ball most of the time.

What was Milwaukee's record before, and after Oscar retired?

[LAZERUSS]

Top-3 MDE guard, along with Jordan and Magic. Weak era my ass. He was doing the same things against Jerry West and West was a great defender. Only the Celtics' defense seemed to trouble him at times, with also great defender KC Jones pressing him and Bill Russell roaming, ready to contest any of his closest shots - and even then, he still averaged 33-13-9 vs them in the 1963 playoffs.

That 62-63 Celtic team had NINE HOFers, and yet Oscar carried his Royals to a game seven loss against them. And in game seven he put up a 43-6-6 game. I would compare that with Jordan's 85-86 playoff series against the Celtics (in a 3-0 series loss BTW.)

[stanlove1111]

What was Milwaukee's record before, and after Oscar retired?


So you are going to cherry pick that. I don't even believe that you think Oscar was valuable at that point.
I do know that 5 times in his 10 years in Cincy in his prime his team didn't even have a winning record. He has no great team achievments to balance that. Not actually top 10 material.

[LAZERUSS]

So you are going to cherry pick that. I don't even believe that you think Oscar was valuable at that point.
I do know that 5 times in his 10 years in Cincy in his prime his team didn't even have a winning record. He has no great team achievments to balance that. Not actually top 10 material.

I think you are downplaying Oscar's contributions to the Bucks. In his four seasons there, they went 66-16, and winning a dominant title, 63-19, 60-22, and 59-23 (losing a game seven in the Finals.) After he retired they fell to 38-44.

[stanlove1111]

That 62-63 Celtic team had NINE HOFers, and yet Oscar carried his Royals to a game seven loss against them. And in game seven he put up a 43-6-6 game. I would compare that with Jordan's 85-86 playoff series against the Celtics (in a 3-0 series loss BTW.)


Could you stop with the Celtics has all of these hall of famers argument. First of all guys like Cousy was not exactly in his prime at that point. That he made the hall for his career means nothing at that point.

Many of the Celtics made it because they won the titles, they weren't that good.


And yes what Oscar did with that team was impressive I don't deny. Problem was his career in total.

[LAZERUSS]

Could you stop with the Celtics has all of these hall of famers argument. First of all guys like Cousy was not exactly in his prime at that point. That he made the hall for his career means nothing at that point.

Many of the Celtics made it because they won the titles, they weren't that good.


And yes what Oscar did with that team was impressive I don't deny. Problem was his career in total.

I agree with some of this, but think about this...the 62-63 Celtics acquired Clyde Lovellette, and in a season after he averaged 20 ppg...and he would be their EIGHTH best player.

Russell surely led some of those players into the HOF, but players like Bill Sharman, Tom Heinsohn, and Bob Cousy would probably have made it on their own, and Sam Jones and John Havlicek would surely have.

And players like Satch Sanders and KC Jones were widely regarded as among the best defensive players at their positions for much of their NBA careers. And later Bailey Howell, who was a 20 ppg scorer on very good effciency, would join Russell's Celtics, and continue with 20+ ppg seasons.

[LAZERUSS]

As a sidenote...I wonder how many titles Oscar would have won in the 60's had he had Chamberlain all those seasons? Can you imagine an Oscar, Lucas, Wilt team?

[Psileas]

Another stats obsessed post. You do understand this is not baseball right, where everyone gets basically the same amount of attempts to put up stats.

Oscar dominated the ball like no player in history. He had better have good stats.

He was a great player but not in the to 10. He didn't add the value to a team.

Are you serious? Oscar didn't add to the value of the team? On the contrary, Oscar's absense made the rest of his team look like crap:

1961: Royals go 1-7 w/o Oscar and 0-3 in games when he only got limited minutes due to getting injured. Not surprising, given that one season before, Twyman's (and secondarily, Embry's) Royals posted a horrible 19-56 record.

1962-1964: Oscar's healthiest years result in the Royals making the Eastern Finals twice in a row, pushing the Celtics to 7 games in 1963 (you know, that series that made my previous post "stats obssessed", and that's before Jerry Lucas arrived).

1965: 1-4 w/o Oscar.

1966: 1-3 w/o Oscar.

1967: 0-2 w/o Oscar. So, 2-9 in these last 3 seasons w/o Oscar. But, hey, it's still a small sample, given it's 3 years, right?

1968: 4-18 w/o Oscar or w/Oscar getting limited minutes. Now, this is getting disturbing. The annoying pattern of the Royals playing like crap w/o Oscar continues. When Oscar was there: 36-24

1969: 0-3 w/o Oscar (yawn...)

1970: 5-8 w/o Oscar, 32-37 w/Oscar.

Seriously, how garbage were the Royals w/o Oscar. We're talking about a team that, without him, barely manages to crack a combined 20% winning rate...

1971: 1-0 w/o Oscar. (:applause: )

1972: 13-7 w/o Oscar, 50-12 w/Oscar. WTF? This is a 63-win team, this is a past prime Oscar and his absense still hurts his team like hell.

Funnily enough, your cute theory of Oscar being a non-impactful player only looks true in his final 2 seasons, when he actually did become less dominant and efficient. And, to add a final insult to injury of your theory, the Oscar-less Bucks in 1975 went 35-30 in the games Kareem played, still a good decline from the 59-23 record they posted 1 season ago.

As for "Oscar dominated the ball like no player in history. He had better have good stats", yeah, right (at least if you're talking with absolute terms and you're not talking after having "adjusted" ball dominance, which I'm sure you have no way of doing)! As if it's so possible to be the most ball-dominating player in history in an era when the pace was ball-dominant players' hell.
Was he ball-dominant? Of course he was - there's no guard who produced elite stats and wasn't ball-dominant. But Oscar was more than ball dominant, he was super-efficient, and that's not something you can say about all ball-dominant guards.

[SHAQisGOAT]

I think you are downplaying Oscar's contributions to the Bucks. In his four seasons there, they went 66-16, and winning a dominant title, 63-19, 60-22, and 59-23 (losing a game seven in the Finals.) After he retired they fell to 38-44.

Silly-ass, hating-ass jlauber coming through once again, downplaying Kareem to try and prop up Wilt :lol It ain't working son, try harder.

Just neglect the fact that Kareem was out for the 1st 15 games due to a broken hand(on some dumb shit though) and the Bucks lost 13 of those games :rolleyes: Kareem played 65 games during that season and the Bucks went 35-30, after "losing" their PG and Lucius Allen was also traded to the Lakers for Jim Price, who didn't play plenty of games. Kareem had to, and was able to raise up his game.

If that was for Wilt you wouldn't forget to highlight the shit out of it, for players like Kareem or Bird, forget it. Then you have the nerve to talk about other people's lack of argument when you use very selected facts, ignorant statements and dumb arguments. :facepalm

POS :oldlol:

[LAZERUSS]

Silly-ass, hating-ass jlauber coming through once again, downplaying Kareem to try and prop up Wilt :lol It ain't working son, try harder.

Just neglect the fact that Kareem was out for the 1st 15 games due to a broken hand(on some dumb shit though) and the Bucks lost 13 of those games :rolleyes: Kareem played 65 games during that season and the Bucks went 35-30, after "losing" their PG and Lucius Allen was also traded to the Lakers for Jim Price, who didn't play plenty of games. Kareem had to, and was able to raise up his game.

If that was for Wilt you wouldn't forget to highlight the shit out of it, for players like Kareem or Bird, forget it. Then you have the nerve to talk about other people's lack of argument when you use very selected facts, ignorant statements and dumb arguments. :facepalm

POS :oldlol:

So, I guess that means that you think Oscar wasn't worth a damn with Milwaukee, then? Which was the entire point of my argument.

And please, jlauber is dead.

[SHAQisGOAT]

So, I guess that means that you think Oscar wasn't worth a damn with Milwaukee, then? Which was the entire point of my argument.

And please, jlauber is dead.

Never said that so stop putting word in my mouth. You're the one who only gives praise to fullfil your agenda of downplaying players like Kareem or Bird.
Oscar was a pretty important piece but Kareem was always their best player and more important piece by a clear margin.
If it was for Wilt you wouldn't forget to mention what I've said, for Kareem or Bird, forget it.

POS :oldlol:

[LAZERUSS]

Never said that so stop putting word in my mouth. You're the one who only gives praise to fullfil your agenda of downplaying players like Kareem or Bird.
Oscar was a pretty important piece but Kareem was always their best player and more important piece by a clear margin.

POS :oldlol:

Well, then go back and re-read my post you idiot.


I think you are downplaying Oscar's contributions to the Bucks. In his four seasons there, they went 66-16, and winning a dominant title, 63-19, 60-22, and 59-23 (losing a game seven in the Finals.) After he retired they fell to 38-44.

Did I at any time put Kareem down? I merely stated the FACT that Oscar was A KEY reason that Milwaukee went 66-16, 63-19, 60-22, and 59-23 in those four seasons, and that without him, they tumbled to a 38-44 record (or, if you like, "only" 35-30 with Kareem.)

If anyone is jumping to any conclusions, my friend, it is you.

[houston]

He overrated but great none the less

[LAZERUSS]

He overrated but great none the less

I shouldn't ask this, since I will be accused of being you, but just why do you think he is over-rated, and where do you rank him?

[Deuce Bigalow]

Oscar never won a championship as the man and missed the playoffs multiple times in his prime. Hakeem is clearly better two player than Oscar. Hakeem and Kobe are better playoff performers than Oscar.
And you are the same group of people that put Kareem #2 alltime too huh? :oldlol:

KAJ from '72-'79: 0 championships. After Oscar retired Kareem missed back to back playoffs.

[LAZERUSS]

The problem with any of these GOAT discussions is that it is a TEAM game.

I have said it before, but the only way you could ever come up with a true GOAT, would be if they all played in the same era, and each of them were giving the same rosters, with no injuries, and then playing a full season. And even the same exact rosters would be a problem, since these GOATs don't all play the same position. Then, you could throw out the pure statistics, and go strictly on wins and losses.

Obviously that is an impossibility.

[houston]

I shouldn't ask this, since I will be accused of being you, but just why do you think he is over-rated, and where do you rank him?


He top 15 for sure. The thing is with Oscar is the same problem with alot of certain great players. Sometimes their personalities really conflict their teams.

I give Oscar props for being dominant winning MVP for a guard during the peaks of Russell and Wilt. But Oscar also was making first team all-nba while missing playoffs.

His Bucks year what really showed his true value helping them win.

But yea I'm rank him over Hakeem:roll:

[stanlove1111]

Are you serious? Oscar didn't add to the value of the team? On the contrary, Oscar's absense made the rest of his team look like crap:

1961: Royals go 1-7 w/o Oscar and 0-3 in games when he only got limited minutes due to getting injured. Not surprising, given that one season before, Twyman's (and secondarily, Embry's) Royals posted a horrible 19-56 record.

1962-1964: Oscar's healthiest years result in the Royals making the Eastern Finals twice in a row, pushing the Celtics to 7 games in 1963 (you know, that series that made my previous post "stats obssessed", and that's before Jerry Lucas arrived).

1965: 1-4 w/o Oscar.

1966: 1-3 w/o Oscar.

1967: 0-2 w/o Oscar. So, 2-9 in these last 3 seasons w/o Oscar. But, hey, it's still a small sample, given it's 3 years, right?

1968: 4-18 w/o Oscar or w/Oscar getting limited minutes. Now, this is getting disturbing. The annoying pattern of the Royals playing like crap w/o Oscar continues. When Oscar was there: 36-24

1969: 0-3 w/o Oscar (yawn...)

1970: 5-8 w/o Oscar, 32-37 w/Oscar.

Seriously, how garbage were the Royals w/o Oscar. We're talking about a team that, without him, barely manages to crack a combined 20% winning rate...

1971: 1-0 w/o Oscar. (:applause: )

1972: 13-7 w/o Oscar, 50-12 w/Oscar. WTF? This is a 63-win team, this is a past prime Oscar and his absense still hurts his team like hell.

Funnily enough, your cute theory of Oscar being a non-impactful player only looks true in his final 2 seasons, when he actually did become less dominant and efficient. And, to add a final insult to injury of your theory, the Oscar-less Bucks in 1975 went 35-30 in the games Kareem played, still a good decline from the 59-23 record they posted 1 season ago.

As for "Oscar dominated the ball like no player in history. He had better have good stats", yeah, right (at least if you're talking with absolute terms and you're not talking after having "adjusted" ball dominance, which I'm sure you have no way of doing)! As if it's so possible to be the most ball-dominating player in history in an era when the pace was ball-dominant players' hell.
Was he ball-dominant? Of course he was - there's no guard who produced elite stats and wasn't ball-dominant. But Oscar was more than ball dominant, he was super-efficient, and that's not something you can say about all ball-dominant guards.

Those sample margins are way to small to mean anything.

I am not saying Oscar had no value to a team, just not enough to rank him in the top 10. His Cincy teams didn't even have a winning record for half of his years there In his prime.

I would take West over Oscar anyday.

[Rameek]

As a sidenote...I wonder how many titles Oscar would have won in the 60's had he had Chamberlain all those seasons? Can you imagine an Oscar, Lucas, Wilt team?
Although he was basically a 1 man team he gets discredited. No one was beating that Celtics team.

If I remember correctly Wilt dominated Russell in their match ups but because Russell's team was better he couldnt get over the hump.

Similar to LBJ in Cleveland but Oscar didnt have as much talent as LBJ.

[Psileas]

Those sample margins are way to small to mean anything.

I am not saying Oscar had no value to a team, just not enough to rank him in the top 10. His Cincy teams didn't even have a winning record for half of his years there In his prime.

I would take West over Oscar anyday.

Sorry, but 1968 ιs among the closest you'll ever get to a good sample that shows Oscar's impact during a season - definitely more meaningful than an argument of the "his team won X games without him, then X+20 games in the following season, with him" type. Plus, there are a few more seasons when Oscar missed 10+ games, and his team always played badly without him.
Even if I had agreed with you, I'm asking: Then how did you arrive to your conclusions about his impact?

[stanlove1111]

Although he was basically a 1 man team he gets discredited. No one was beating that Celtics team.

If I remember correctly Wilt dominated Russell in their match ups but because Russell's team was better he couldnt get over the hump.

Similar to LBJ in Cleveland but Oscar didnt have as much talent as LBJ.


LBJ challenged year after year in Cleveland with an awful team and before he was even in his prime.

Wilt challenged many times without a good team. If you had Wilt you had a good team.

Oscar's teams in his prime rarely went anywhere, and only had a winning record 5 out of ten years in Cincy. he is not top 10.

[LAZERUSS]

Oscar gets ripped for playing with basically inferior supporting casts in an era when West and Baylor, combined, had a season in which their team could only go 36-45.

You can go right down the list. A peak scoring MJ's Bulls went 40-42. A prime KAJ played on a 40-42 team. A prime Hakeem played on a 41-41 team. A prime Kobe played on a 34-48 team. A prime Chamberlain played on a 31-49 team.

How is that possible? How can the greatest players who have ever played the game, play on team's with such poor records?

And then, when Oscar is a key player on team's that went 66-16, 63-19, 60-22, and 59-23, he gets no credit. Or the fact that the Bucks collapsed right after the season he retired.

And as Psileas pointed out, take Oscar out of the equation, and his team's were downright awful.

[HurricaneKid]

Rebounding stats in Oscar's era are so inflated as to be inconsequential. The season Oscar avg the triple double he was 7th on his team in rebounding rate. That is NOT a fantastical statistical achievement.

Oscar played 10 years for Cincy. They made the playoffs 6 times (missing 4 times). He made it out of the first round of the playoffs 2 times. Saying he couldn't have won "because the Celtics" is disingenuous; he only ran into them three times in 10 years (Wilt faced them 9 times in the playoffs). He not only did not win a title until he became Kareem's second fiddle, he never got to the Finals without Kareem. In fact, the year he won his title he was the Bucks' 3rd leading scorer in the playoffs and per36 in the reg season to Dandridge (and Lew). The other season Milwaukee made it to the Finals Oscar was 35 and was 6th on the team in pts/36.

Oscar was a fantastic player that had to fight a great many battles by himself. And I salute him for battling the way he did. A great number of my favorite games were watching a great player battle a great team, almost always succumbing to the superior team. But his inability to win but a handful of those battles will always cost him when measured against the giants of the game. I still have him as a top ~11-13 player but his career is riddled with what-ifs.

[BoutPractice]

Rebounding stats in Oscar's era are so inflated as to be inconsequential. The season Oscar avg the triple double he was 7th on his team in rebounding rate. That is NOT a fantastical statistical achievement
Agreed about the rebounds, but leading the league in assists while also being top 5 in scoring for so many years is something else entirely.Can you imagine someone today scoring as many points as Melo or LeBron AND handing out as many assists as Chris Paul, something like 5 years in a row?

[WillC]

Rebounding stats in Oscar's era are so inflated as to be inconsequential. The season Oscar avg the triple double he was 7th on his team in rebounding rate. That is NOT a fantastical statistical achievement.

From the article...

Then of course we have the rebounds. Critics will point out that, although Robertson

[BoutPractice]

Yeah, but today the league leader in rebounds at guard averages 7 per game (Stephenson, and he's quite the outlier as a rebounder). No one comes close to 10 at that position.

Still, translating just the rankings relative to the rest of the league, what Oscar did would be like someone today averaging over 25 ppg, 10 apg, and say 6 rpg, for 5 years in a row... Raw stats don't tell the whole story but stats like THIS would be impressive on any team, in any context.

[LAZERUSS]

Yeah, but today the league leader in rebounds at guard averages 7 per game (Stephenson, and he's quite the outlier as a rebounder). No one comes close to 10 at that position.

Still, translating just the rankings relative to the rest of the league, what Oscar did would be like someone today averaging over 25 ppg, 10 apg, and say 6 rpg, for 5 years in a row... Raw stats don't tell the whole story but stats like THIS would be impressive on any team, in any context.

I honestly believe that Oscar would still be putting up 30-8-10 seasons in today's NBA. For those who want to use "pace" against him, he was scoring 30 ppg on 20 FGAs at his peak. And, he was shooting .518 from the field in league's that shot .441 overall.

I just don't see an elite player like Oscar not being capable of 20 FGAs in a game. And we already know that his apg would probably be on the LOW side in today's NBA.

In fact, I think he would be putting up Lebron-type numbers across the board, including FG%'s. That .518 in '63 translates to about .570 in today's NBA.

[Marlo_Stanfield]

I honestly believe that Oscar would still be putting up 30-8-10 seasons in today's NBA. For those who want to use "pace" against him, he was scoring 30 ppg on 20 FGAs at his peak. And, he was shooting .518 from the field in league's that shot .441 overall.

I just don't see an elite player like Oscar not being capable of 20 FGAs in a game. And we already know that his apg would probably be on the LOW side in today's NBA.

In fact, I think he would be putting up Lebron-type numbers across the board, including FG%'s. That .518 in '63 translates to about .570 in today's NBA.
i would say 27-10-7 which would be fcking insane:bowdown: :bowdown:

[LAZERUSS]

i would say 27-10-7 which would be fcking insane:bowdown: :bowdown:

And probably a reasonable estimate...

[WillC]

I agree that he'd average around 25/7/10 in today's league.

Meanwhile, in terms of height, he was 6' 4.75" barefoot...

https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-15eX_e7Rxr4/UdXbnYp0dZI/AAAAAAAAEdE/dOlhbKyP6Zg/s800/oscar%2520height%2520wo%2520shoes2.jpg

By comparison, he's exactly the same height as Michael Carter-Williams (6' 4.75"). Oscar was taller than Larry Hughes, Latrell Sprewell, Jerry Stackhouse, Jamal Crawford and Lance Stephenson (all 6' 4.5").

Just out of interest: http://www.draftexpress.com/nba-pre-draft-measurements/?year=All&sort2=DESC&draft=&pos=&source=All&sort=2

[LAZERUSS]

I agree that he'd average around 25/7/10 in today's league.

Meanwhile, in terms of height, he was 6' 4.75" barefoot...

https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-15eX_e7Rxr4/UdXbnYp0dZI/AAAAAAAAEdE/dOlhbKyP6Zg/s800/oscar%2520height%2520wo%2520shoes2.jpg

By comparison, he's exactly the same height as Michael Carter-Williams (6' 4.75"). Oscar was taller than Larry Hughes, Latrell Sprewell, Jerry Stackhouse, Jamal Crawford and Lance Stephenson (all 6' 4.5").

Just out of interest: http://www.draftexpress.com/nba-pre-draft-measurements/?year=All&sort2=DESC&draft=&pos=&source=All&sort=2

BTW, you are a great poster...

:applause:

[Kblaze8855]

Not actually top 10 material.

Except it seems....to everyone who ever so much as saw him play a game of basketball. Including people still watching now.......

[PsychoBe]

his style of play was correctly labeled cancerous by one of his contemporaries (will find the exact quote later) and those stats did not translate into enough success in the post season or many championships at all.

if he was more of a winner then his stats would be remembered.

[Shabba Ranks]

rex chapman was better