Oscar vs Westbrook

[aj1987]

Simple question. Why does Oscar get so much love and people absolutely hate Westbrook.

For instance, in 1965, the Royals has Oscar (First Team All-NBA), Jerry Lucas (First Team All-NBA), Embry (All-Star), Smith (who scored 15 PPG and was an All-Star the next season), and a couple of other good players as well. However, that team won 48 and got absolutely wrecked by Wilt's 76'ers.

He barely ever had a winning record and before Kareem, he won 50 games in a season ONCE.

Why do a lot of people him in their top 15 and not Russell, who could probably replicate the results and stats (get you better stats, TBH)?

[Xiao Yao You]

high iq and good efficiency vs low iq and poor efficiency

[aj1987]

high iq and good efficiency vs low iq and poor efficiency

He has 4% TS over WB that's all.


What did all that high IQ and good efficiency lead to? Dude was getting dusted with multiple All-Stars.

[Xiao Yao You]

He has 4% TS over WB that's all.


What did all that high IQ and good efficiency lead to? Dude was getting dusted with multiple All-Stars.

Wasn't alive. Certainly no fan of Westbrook's game

[aj1987]

Wasn't alive. Certainly no fan of Westbrook's game

Neither am I.

I just want to discuss the reasoning behind people ranking Oscar top 15 and not Westbrook.

[HoopsNY]

Neither am I.

I just want to discuss the reasoning behind people ranking Oscar top 15 and not Westbrook.

I think a lot of it does have to do with the Big O winning a title alongside Kareem whereas Westbrook went to the finals alongside KD, the sixth man of the year in Harden, and a defensive big like Ibaka, and lost as the favorites in 2012.

Then in 2016, alongside KD again, they lose after being up 3-1 to GS. Granted that was a 73 win team, but they still choked.

[ImKobe]

It's because Oscar was either the best or at least a top 5 player in the league his prime and more versatile as an offensive player, though you could argue he did it in a weak era for guards/forwards. The TS% comparison doesn't hold up much, efficiency was lower in his era with little to no spacing & no 3s. He led the league in TS% as a rookie while averaging 31/10/10. Oscar was more skilled for his era while Westbrook's just a freak athlete with an insane motor, it's hard to compare the two. Oscar certainly has a much better RS/Playoff resume. Celtics needed 7 games to beat him in '63 and they had a much better roster.

As far as RS wins go, there were only 8-12 teams in his prime so he was playing the Celtics like 10 times a season, it was much harder to win 50 games back then, O had mediocre help before Milwaukee. They had B2B2B 60+ win seasons with a past-prime Oscar and won 59 games after that. Oscar retires and the Bucks miss the Playoffs with a 38-44 record.

[aj1987]

It's because Oscar was either the best or at least a top 5 player in the league his prime and more versatile as an offensive player, though you could argue he did it in a weak era for guards/forwards. The TS% comparison doesn't hold up much, efficiency was lower in his era with little to no spacing & no 3s. He led the league in TS% as a rookie while averaging 31/10/10. Oscar was more skilled for his era while Westbrook's just a freak athlete with an insane motor, it's hard to compare the two. Oscar certainly has a much better RS/Playoff resume. Celtics needed 7 games to beat him in '63 and they had a much better roster.

As far as RS wins go, there were only 8-12 teams in his prime so he was playing the Celtics like 10 times a season, it was much harder to win 50 games back then, O had mediocre help before Milwaukee. They had B2B2B 60+ win seasons with a past-prime Oscar and won 59 games after that. Oscar retires and the Bucks miss the Playoffs with a 38-44 record.

Oscar was winning ~40 games and getting dusted in the first rounds or missing the playoffs with All-Star help. Lets not act like he was playing with trash.


I think a lot of it does have to do with the Big O winning a title alongside Kareem whereas Westbrook went to the finals alongside KD, the sixth man of the year in Harden, and a defensive big like Ibaka, and lost as the favorites in 2012.

Then in 2016, alongside KD again, they lose after being up 3-1 to GS. Granted that was a 73 win team, but they still choked.

He won it with Kareem, dude. A top 3 GOAT. They also had other good players. Oscar wasn't anything special during that run as well.

[1987_Lakers]

He has 4% TS over WB that's all.


What did all that high IQ and good efficiency lead to? Dude was getting dusted with multiple All-Stars.

Jerry West never had a TS% above 60%, does that make him inefficient? Not having a 3 point line is the cause for those low TS% in the 60's.

The average TS% in 1965 was only 48%, in 2020 it was 56%.

The fact that Oscar Robertson has a higher TS% despite playing in an era that didn't allow it should tell you how much more efficient Oscar was compared to Westbrook.

Oscar always posted a much higher TS% than league average, Westbrook has always had a below average TS%.

[aj1987]

Jerry West never had a TS% above 60%, does that make him inefficient? Not having a 3 point line is the cause for those low TS% in the 60's.

The average TS% in 1965 was only 48%, in 2020 it was 56%.

The fact that Oscar Robertson has a higher TS% despite playing in an era that didn't allow it should tell you how much more efficient Oscar was compared to Westbrook.

Oscar always posted a much higher TS% than league average, Westbrook has always had a below average TS%.

I never said Oscar was inefficient. Where did I even say that? The post you quoted is me saying Oscar is more efficient than WB. :oldlol:

Imagine Oscar playing today and either missing the PO's or getting wrecked in the 1st rounds. Dude would definitely get the WB treatment on social media and from sports talking heads.

[Charlie Sheen]

Wasn't alive.

I think this is the answer right here. Most of us weren't alive to have that connection to hate on big O.

[1987_Lakers]

I never said Oscar was inefficient. Where did I even say that? The post you quoted is me saying Oscar is more efficient than WB. :oldlol:

Imagine Oscar playing today and either missing the PO's or getting wrecked in the 1st rounds. Dude would definitely get the WB treatment on social media and from sports talking heads.

You said "only 4% higher", without any context. You made it seem like they were on the same level efficiency wise, but that isn't the case at all. Big O was superior in terms of efficiency.

I think the Westbrook hate is mostly due to his inefficient play style more than anything else. CP3 doesn't have the best postseason success and he gets hate for it, but most have him as a top 5 pg ever.

[ImKobe]

Imagine Oscar playing today and either missing the PO's or getting wrecked in the 1st rounds. Dude would definitely get the WB treatment on social media and from sports talking heads.

Name me one time Russ made it out of the 1st round without KD/Harden. You do know Oscar made it out of the 1st round multiple times in Cincinnati and took Russell's Celtics to 7 games, right?

[HoopsNY]

Oscar was winning ~40 games and getting dusted in the first rounds or missing the playoffs with All-Star help. Lets not act like he was playing with trash.



He won it with Kareem, dude. A top 3 GOAT. They also had other good players. Oscar wasn't anything special during that run as well.

Milwaukee added Oscar and became a 66 win team. Oscar was 5th in MVP voting and also won All-NBA honors. Not to mention, he led the league in APG (8.9) that playoffs and during the finals, he put up 24/5/10 on 52%.

After the '72 season, things really slowed down for him, but Oscar was already 34 at that time. He joined Milwaukee at the age of 32. So it's tough to criticize him for not being anything special when that was the later stages of his career.

While I understand that he won it with Kareem, OKC were the favorites to beat Miami going into the finals in 2012 and they choked away a 3-1 lead in 2016. We could also include OKC's pitfalls in 2018, 2019, the inability to get along with Harden in 2020, etc. There are many criticisms to highlight about Westbrook's career.

[HoopsNY]

Jerry West never had a TS% above 60%, does that make him inefficient? Not having a 3 point line is the cause for those low TS% in the 60's.

The average TS% in 1965 was only 48%, in 2020 it was 56%.

The fact that Oscar Robertson has a higher TS% despite playing in an era that didn't allow it should tell you how much more efficient Oscar was compared to Westbrook.

Oscar always posted a much higher TS% than league average, Westbrook has always had a below average TS%.

Very good point.

[HoopsNY]

I never said Oscar was inefficient. Where did I even say that? The post you quoted is me saying Oscar is more efficient than WB. :oldlol:

Imagine Oscar playing today and either missing the PO's or getting wrecked in the 1st rounds. Dude would definitely get the WB treatment on social media and from sports talking heads.

Or he would have won with KD, twice. Just saying.

[SaltyMeatballs]

Oscar’s competition was so weak compared to what we have today. Not to mention, the pace back then was insanely fast so his stats are inflated just like everyone else’s in that era

[HoopsNY]

Oscar’s competition was so weak compared to what we have today. Not to mention, the pace back then was insanely fast so his stats are inflated just like everyone else’s in that era

Yea but you have to admire guys like Oscar who did it in his prime, consistently, for 44 minutes a game. That's insane endurance. Westbrook is typically around 34-35 MPG.

[SaltyMeatballs]

Yea but you have to admire guys like Oscar who did it in his prime, consistently, for 44 minutes a game. That's insane endurance. Westbrook is typically around 34-35 MPG.

He was great in his era for sure. And I’m sure if Westbrook was given the option to play more minutes he would, considering his energy levels are always comparable to someone who just snorted a line of coke

[tontoz]

Epic game from Russ tonight. Dallas would be blowing us out if he wasn't going off.

[Bronbron23]

Simple question. Why does Oscar get so much love and people absolutely hate Westbrook.

For instance, in 1965, the Royals has Oscar (First Team All-NBA), Jerry Lucas (First Team All-NBA), Embry (All-Star), Smith (who scored 15 PPG and was an All-Star the next season), and a couple of other good players as well. However, that team won 48 and got absolutely wrecked by Wilt's 76'ers.

He barely ever had a winning record and before Kareem, he won 50 games in a season ONCE.

Why do a lot of people him in their top 15 and not Russell, who could probably replicate the results and stats (get you better stats, TBH)?

I honestly haven't see enough of oscar to compare and i dought you have either. Can't just compare stats.

And we know despite westbrook numbers he's not the most cerebral of players. As i said i Don't know much about oscar but i have time believing he's not smarter than westbrook

[Micku]

I honestly haven't see enough of oscar to compare and i dought you have either. Can't just compare stats.

And we know despite westbrook numbers he's not the most cerebral of players. As i said i Don't know much about oscar but i have time believing he's not smarter than westbrook

Yeah.

Y'all shouldn't compare these efficiency numbers across eras. There is no 3pt line, rules are different, how they coach the game was different. It's better to say how efficient a player was among his peers than he is for a player like decades ahead or behind.

[imdaman99]

Wasn't alive. Certainly no fan of Westbrook's game

Same. He needs to be more like Rudy and set picks.

[Smoke117]

Oscar was 10 times the player Westbrick is.

[imdaman99]

Oscar was 10 times the player Westbrick is.

Are you some old man yells at the cloud? How old are you to figure out someone in the 60s is 10 times the player a current one is? :wtf:

[HoopsNY]

Just there mere fact that Oscar dished as many assists as he did in an era where you couldn't palm the ball....like....at all....and teams hurried to execute plays and get the ball out of your hand, is amazing.

There isn't a single player from his era who averaged nearly as much as he did, all-time. The closest is Guy Rodgers all the way down at #17. Oscar is 3rd all time per game. Not even Cousy is close and Cousy was considered an elite passer.

[HoopsNY]

Are you some old man yells at the cloud? How old are you to figure out someone in the 60s is 10 times the player a current one is? :wtf:

The same way Wilt and Russell are leaps and bounds above guys like Dwight and Embiid? We didn't see them play, but knowing what we know about them, it's a safe assumption.

Okay 10x is a stretch and so is leaps and bounds, but you get the point.

[BigShotBob]

Oscar's assists were more impressive because the way you calculated assists back then was that they had to score directly after the pass. If I remember correctly, two or more dribbles after the pass meant no assist. The parameters were much tighter so less inflated numbers.

Scoring wise Oscar was extremely dominant and Jerry West considered him one of, if not, the best and most dominant player ever.

[HoopsNY]

Oscar's assists were more impressive because the way you calculated assists back then was that they had to score directly after the pass. If I remember correctly, two or more dribbles after the pass meant no assist. The parameters were much tighter so less inflated numbers.

Scoring wise Oscar was extremely dominant and Jerry West considered him one of, if not, the best and most dominant player ever.

Great point! Apparently in Oscar's time, only about 50% of the field goals were assisted. That number has hovered to about 60% since. So his assist numbers, as great as they are, are even greater when you put that into perspective.

[imdaman99]

The same way Wilt and Russell are leaps and bounds above guys like Dwight and Embiid? We didn't see them play, but knowing what we know about them, it's a safe assumption.

Okay 10x is a stretch and so is leaps and bounds, but you get the point.

Well, I've read up on how Oscar's teammates didn't like him. We gonna act like he wasn't chasing stats in the 60s now? Let me guess, his stat stuffing was organic and he didn't have Steven Adams boxing out for him, right?

[Smoke117]

Are you some old man yells at the cloud? How old are you to figure out someone in the 60s is 10 times the player a current one is? :wtf:

Cringe. :facepalm

[dankok8]

When Westbrook started putting up triples doubles for fun I was afraid some millennial would make this thread.

The answer is Oscar and it's not close. Westbrook is a PG with terrible decision-making who plays like a chicken with his head cut off half the time. Westbrook is one of those guys where you are legit unsure if he ever made any team better. Meanwhile Oscar led the league's best offense with average rosters for like five straight seasons.

[HoopsNY]

Well, I've read up on how Oscar's teammates didn't like him. We gonna act like he wasn't chasing stats in the 60s now? Let me guess, his stat stuffing was organic and he didn't have Steven Adams boxing out for him, right?

To dankok's point, Oscar led those teams to the #1 offense year after year, including some the years with Milwaukee. In his final season with Milwaukee, they were 1st in ORTG. He basically ran an elite offensive team 95% of the time.

Westbrook came into the league and in his very first season, his team was 29th in offense. His second season? 12th. Without KD?

2017: 16th in ORTG
2018: 7th in ORTG
2019: 17th in ORTG
2020: 6th in ORTG
2021: 27th in ORTG

2018 and 2019 he had PG as a running mate, 2020 with Harden, and this year with Beal. Even if we were to assume that Oscar was stat chasing, at least it yielded results. And we can claim that well, there were only 8 teams when Oscar started, but then the league jumped to 12 teams, and then again to 17 teams. Yet Oscar had his team as an elite offense every step of the way.

The two are not close.

[imdaman99]

Too many stat nerds out there. TS this TS that.

ORTG
VORP
TS
RAPTOR
AST%
WAR
BPIP
ASG
DRTG
BBW
LGBTQ

I don't give a shit about all this, and that's ironic because Russ's historic seasons are based on him reaching double digits in 3 statistics. I liked him way before he chased these triple doubles. He is one of the most exciting players to ever play, and then we have some fatasses on the internet debating on whether he ever made his teams better. You're right, he made them worse.

[aj1987]

I honestly haven't see enough of oscar to compare and i dought you have either. Can't just compare stats.

And we know despite westbrook numbers he's not the most cerebral of players. As i said i Don't know much about oscar but i have time believing he's not smarter than westbrook
Yeah, and yet, you're acting like Oscar had GOAT level basketball IQ. Quit it.


Or he would have won with KD, twice. Just saying.
Or he would have struggled to make the PO's, even with other All-Stars on his team.


Milwaukee added Oscar and became a 66 win team. Oscar was 5th in MVP voting and also won All-NBA honors. Not to mention, he led the league in APG (8.9) that playoffs and during the finals, he put up 24/5/10 on 52%.

After the '72 season, things really slowed down for him, but Oscar was already 34 at that time. He joined Milwaukee at the age of 32. So it's tough to criticize him for not being anything special when that was the later stages of his career.

While I understand that he won it with Kareem, OKC were the favorites to beat Miami going into the finals in 2012 and they choked away a 3-1 lead in 2016. We could also include OKC's pitfalls in 2018, 2019, the inability to get along with Harden in 2020, etc. There are many criticisms to highlight about Westbrook's career.

This is beyond idiotic. Oscar had ****ing Kareem on his team. The team that had 2nd year Dandridge and 2nd year Kareem. They won 56 games the year before with rookie Kareem and rookie Dandridge.

OKC lost to Miami with freaking LeBron and Wade. No shame in that.

If we're going to talk about career pitfalls:

33
43
42
55
48
45
39
39
41
36

Those were the number of games that Oscar's teams won in Cincy. Lets not forget that he was playing with other All-Star and All-Star level players.

As for WB and Harden, they we a redundant combo in the first place and WB played hurt for half the season. He missed significant time in the PO's as well because of injury. Context helps.


Name me one time Russ made it out of the 1st round without KD/Harden. You do know Oscar made it out of the 1st round multiple times in Cincinnati and took Russell's Celtics to 7 games, right?
Yeah, he was also playing with two other All-Stars and other decent players. Even then, he struggled to maintain a .500 record. When was the last time WB had a healthy season with two other All-Stars and a decent supporting cast? I'll wait.



You said "only 4% higher", without any context. You made it seem like they were on the same level efficiency wise, but that isn't the case at all. Big O was superior in terms of efficiency.

I think the Westbrook hate is mostly due to his inefficient play style more than anything else. CP3 doesn't have the best postseason success and he gets hate for it, but most have him as a top 5 pg ever.

If efficiency was the only thing that mattered, Curry should be in everyone's top 5.

[ImKobe]

Yeah, he was also playing with two other All-Stars and other decent players. Even then, he struggled to maintain a .500 record. When was the last time WB had a healthy season with two other All-Stars and a decent supporting cast? I'll wait.




:facepalm

We're talking about the 60s. Every team had multiple all-stars due to the amount of teams.. I honestly didn't think you were this stupid.


Three all stars then doesn't = 3 all-stars on a team now. The worst team had multiple all-stars. Are you going to trash Wilt for winning 31 games with two "all-star" teammates in '63?

[Rysio]

Westbrook. Oscar played in a weak era and probably be a scrub today.

[Bronbron23]

Yeah, and yet, you're acting like Oscar had GOAT level basketball IQ. Quit it.


Or he would have struggled to make the PO's, even with other All-Stars on his team.



This is beyond idiotic. Oscar had ****ing Kareem on his team. The team that had 2nd year Dandridge and 2nd year Kareem. They won 56 games the year before with rookie Kareem and rookie Dandridge.

OKC lost to Miami with freaking LeBron and Wade. No shame in that.

If we're going to talk about career pitfalls:

33
43
42
55
48
45
39
39
41
36

Those were the number of games that Oscar's teams won in Cincy. Lets not forget that he was playing with other All-Star and All-Star level players.

As for WB and Harden, they we a redundant combo in the first place and WB played hurt for half the season. He missed significant time in the PO's as well because of injury. Context helps.


Yeah, he was also playing with two other All-Stars and other decent players. Even then, he struggled to maintain a .500 record. When was the last time WB had a healthy season with two other All-Stars and a decent supporting cast? I'll wait.




If efficiency was the only thing that mattered, Curry should be in everyone's top 5.

Who said anything about goat level iq? All i said was smarter than westbrook. Shit you can be smarter than westbrook but still be really dumb.

[HoopsNY]

Too many stat nerds out there. TS this TS that.

ORTG
VORP
TS
RAPTOR
AST%
WAR
BPIP
ASG
DRTG
BBW
LGBTQ

I don't give a shit about all this, and that's ironic because Russ's historic seasons are based on him reaching double digits in 3 statistics. I liked him way before he chased these triple doubles. He is one of the most exciting players to ever play, and then we have some fatasses on the internet debating on whether he ever made his teams better. You're right, he made them worse.

So it doesn't matter that Oscar was able to sustain an elite offense for virtually his entire career, while Westbrook ran teams' offenses into the ground?

It doesn't matter that Oscar was a more efficient scorer?

It doesn't matter that the league calculated assists differently, which actually hurt Oscar?

I'm curious to know what makes Westbrook equal or better when you also didn't see him play.

[Micku]

Well, I've read up on how Oscar's teammates didn't like him. We gonna act like he wasn't chasing stats in the 60s now? Let me guess, his stat stuffing was organic and he didn't have Steven Adams boxing out for him, right?

Bob Cousy didn't like how Oscar played and wanted to show him winning basketball if I can recall.


Anyway, what Westbrook doing is impressive. It's very hard to do that. Magic tried doing it too, and couldn't. I'm sure other players tried.

I haven't seen enough of Oscar to really. But Westbrook take a lot of bad shots and not so great decisions compared to other high lvl pgs. And as mentioned, it was harder to get assists in the 60s, but I would say probably easier to get the rebounds.

[imdaman99]

I'm curious to know what makes Westbrook equal or better when you also didn't see him play.

That's the thing, I didn't say he was equal or better. I'm just mocking you all for saying 10 times better than Westbrook and such without even seeing him. If Oscar is top 15, I guess that means Westbrook is in the 100-150 range. OK.

[tpols]

As others have said Oscar was known for being extra smart, and he led #1 offenses in his league. While Westbrook otoh is known for being dumb and leading crap offenses even with good help. Its an insult to the Big O who is routinely ranked top 12-15 that hes being compared to westbrick.

[imdaman99]

Oh look another dumb troll chimes in :oldlol: must have watched a youtube clip in 24p HD to form the opinion that he needed.

[aj1987]

:facepalm

We're talking about the 60s. Every team had multiple all-stars due to the amount of teams.. I honestly didn't think you were this stupid.


Three all stars then doesn't = 3 all-stars on a team now. The worst team had multiple all-stars. Are you going to trash Wilt for winning 31 games with two "all-star" teammates in '63?

We aren't talking about a regular All-Star. We're talking about Oscar, who most people have in their top 12. I admit, I used to ranking him right there, but with retrospect and more research, he was basically the '60's version of WB (a bit more efficient though). If it was a regular star player, then yeah, my standards would be lowered. Most people had him in their top 10-15 because of his triple double average. He did that on a team with a pace of 125. WB did it three time and he's set to do it again. The highest pace on those teams was 102.8. That's a massive difference in pace as well.

With all that being said, I'm going to ask the question again. Why does WB get shit on for his triple double and Oscar get ranked in the top 15? There hasn't been a legit reply till now.

[iamgine]

WB is not getting bad rep for his triple double. He gets bad rep for dumb plays and bad shots.

[tontoz]

I have a more favorable view of WB now than before this season. Previously i would focus on his bad shots and dumb turnovers.

Seeing him every game i appreciate his intensity a lot more. He plays hard all the time and demands the same of everyone else. If someone is being lazy or tentative or missing assignments Russ will get on their ass. The effect on the rest of the team has been very noticable.

Of the last 14 games they have won 12. The only two losses have been an OT loss to the Spurs and a 1 pt loss last night to Dallas. That game last night easily could have been a blowout if it wasn't for Russ going off.

[Xiao Yao You]

I have a more favorable view of WB now than before this season. Previously i would focus on his bad shots and dumb turnovers.

Seeing him every game i appreciate his intensity a lot more. He plays hard all the time and demands the same of everyone else. If someone is being lazy or tentative or missing assignments Russ will get on their ass. The effect on the rest of the team has been very noticable.

Of the last 14 games they have won 12. The only two losses have been an OT loss to the Spurs and a 1 pt loss last night to Dallas. That game last night easily could have been a blowout if it wasn't for Russ going off.

He certainly plays hard. Wouldn't want him on my team though

[tontoz]

He certainly plays hard. Wouldn't want him on my team though

If my team had the 1 seed i wouldn't want him either. :oldlol:

The key issue for us is would we want him more than Wall. That is a clear yes.

[ImKobe]

We aren't talking about a regular All-Star. We're talking about Oscar, who most people have in their top 12. I admit, I used to ranking him right there, but with retrospect and more research, he was basically the '60's version of WB (a bit more efficient though). If it was a regular star player, then yeah, my standards would be lowered. Most people had him in their top 10-15 because of his triple double average. He did that on a team with a pace of 125. WB did it three time and he's set to do it again. The highest pace on those teams was 102.8. That's a massive difference in pace as well.

With all that being said, I'm going to ask the question again. Why does WB get shit on for his triple double and Oscar get ranked in the top 15? There hasn't been a legit reply till now.

? I wasn't arguing about Oscar, just that all-star didn't mean what it does today. He had Jerry Lucas in Cincinnati, but that wasn't enough to compete with Boston or Philly.

He wasn't the Westbrook of the 60s. He was right up there with Wilt and Russell. He had the misfortune of playing on relatively mediocre teams his entire prime. He was among the most efficient scorers (top 5 TS%) while putting up 30+ a game, Westbrook is the opposite with his below-average FG%/TS% numbers. How is that "a bit more efficient"? You're not comparing their FG%/TS% numbers H2H, right? You have to look at the league average. Oscar was BY FAR a better scorer than Westbrook if you look at how they compared to others in their eras.

If Jerry West is in your top 15, then you can't leave out Oscar, as he had slightly better numbers and the same amount of rings despite playing with worse help. Oscar was a more efficient scorer (higher career TS%) than West(him and West were really close, but Oscar was the better FT shooter), Baylor and Wilt. Is Westbrook anywhere near as efficient or as good as the best scorers of his era? Nope.

[Marchesk]

bump

[dankok8]

I have a more favorable view of WB now than before this season. Previously i would focus on his bad shots and dumb turnovers.

Seeing him every game i appreciate his intensity a lot more. He plays hard all the time and demands the same of everyone else. If someone is being lazy or tentative or missing assignments Russ will get on their ass. The effect on the rest of the team has been very noticable.

Of the last 14 games they have won 12. The only two losses have been an OT loss to the Spurs and a 1 pt loss last night to Dallas. That game last night easily could have been a blowout if it wasn't for Russ going off.

There is some floor raising with Westbrook. He is a very capable distributor and when in pass first mode he is a positive. However as you said you wouldn't want him on a #1 seed.

[aj1987]

? I wasn't arguing about Oscar, just that all-star didn't mean what it does today. He had Jerry Lucas in Cincinnati, but that wasn't enough to compete with Boston or Philly.
They were BARELY staying above .500, dumbass. Also, you do realize that Lucas made the All-NBA team as well, right? That's my point. Again, Oscar is considered to be a top 12 GOAT. I don't know about you, but I have higher standards for someone who I rank in the top 15.


He wasn't the Westbrook of the 60s. He was right up there with Wilt and Russell. He had the misfortune of playing on relatively mediocre teams his entire prime. He was among the most efficient scorers (top 5 TS%) while putting up 30+ a game, Westbrook is the opposite with his below-average FG%/TS% numbers. How is that "a bit more efficient"? You're not comparing their FG%/TS% numbers H2H, right? You have to look at the league average. Oscar was BY FAR a better scorer than Westbrook if you look at how they compared to others in their eras.
Wilt is a mental midget whose scoring and pretty much everything else dipped as the season progressed into the PO's and Finals. Dude was considered a statpadder, who cared more about his individual stats, than about championships and the team winning. He said that himself. Yeah, Westbrook isn't as efficient as Oscar, but he manages to produce similar results. Lets not forget what WB is doing right now. Lets not forget the difference in pace either. The slowest pace that Oscar player at (in Cincy) was 114.6. The fastest pace that WB played at is this season at 104. Dude is still putting up 22/11/11. At 32 years old. In fact, when Oscar averaged a triple double, he was playing at a pace of 125. That's 21 points higher than WB's highest pace.

WB's first triple double season came at a pace of 97.8. Dude averaged 32/11/10.

Also, give WB a KAJ level talent along with a Dandridge and a McGlocklin, he'd win multiple titles easily!


If Jerry West is in your top 15, then you can't leave out Oscar, as he had slightly better numbers and the same amount of rings despite playing with worse help. Oscar was a more efficient scorer (higher career TS%) than West(him and West were really close, but Oscar was the better FT shooter), Baylor and Wilt. Is Westbrook anywhere near as efficient or as good as the best scorers of his era? Nope.

Jerry West was a significantly better scorer and defender. Also, worse help? Oscar played with KAJ, Dandrige, and Mcglocklin. Putting all these numbers together and their performances, I'd have to redo my GOAT lists. Context matters.

Also, you keeps harping about efficiency. You do realize that your boy wasn't really an efficient player, right? Dude averages 41% in the Finals for his career. If efficiency is your argument, you're gonna lose a lot of them.

[Xiao Yao You]

The glaring issue with Westbrook remains his unhealthy shot diet. More than a decade into his remarkable career, he still fires many ill-advised shot attempts. Only 15 players in the league have launched more jumpers than him this season, and while that list includes sharpshooters such as Chris Paul, Stephen Curry and Damian Lillard, Westbrook is once again arguably the least efficient volume jump-shooter in the NBA. Out of 66 NBA players who have tried at least 400 jumpers this season, Westbrook ranks last in shooting efficiency, logging an eFG% of just 40.7 on his 621 jumpers (https://www.espn.com/nba/insider/story/_/id/31384185/why-washington-wizards-star-russell-westbrook-great-inefficient-ever).
– via Kirk Goldsberry @ ESPN (https://www.espn.com/nba/insider/story/_/id/31384185/why-washington-wizards-star-russell-westbrook-great-inefficient-ever)

[ImKobe]

They were BARELY staying above .500, dumbass. Also, you do realize that Lucas made the All-NBA team as well, right? That's my point. Again, Oscar is considered to be a top 12 GOAT. I don't know about you, but I have higher standards for someone who I rank in the top 15.


Wilt is a mental midget whose scoring and pretty much everything else dipped as the season progressed into the PO's and Finals. Dude was considered a statpadder, who cared more about his individual stats, than about championships and the team winning. He said that himself. Yeah, Westbrook isn't as efficient as Oscar, but he manages to produce similar results. Lets not forget what WB is doing right now. Lets not forget the difference in pace either. The slowest pace that Oscar player at (in Cincy) was 114.6. The fastest pace that WB played at is this season at 104. Dude is still putting up 22/11/11. At 32 years old. In fact, when Oscar averaged a triple double, he was playing at a pace of 125. That's 21 points higher than WB's highest pace.

WB's first triple double season came at a pace of 97.8. Dude averaged 32/11/10.

Also, give WB a KAJ level talent along with a Dandridge and a McGlocklin, he'd win multiple titles easily!



Jerry West was a significantly better scorer and defender. Also, worse help? Oscar played with KAJ, Dandrige, and Mcglocklin. Putting all these numbers together and their performances, I'd have to redo my GOAT lists. Context matters.

Also, you keeps harping about efficiency. You do realize that your boy wasn't really an efficient player, right? Dude averages 41% in the Finals for his career. If efficiency is your argument, you're gonna lose a lot of them.

Oscar had less help than Russell/Wilt/West. Oscar played in a tougher Division than West (apart from the rookie season, when Royals & Lakers were in the same Division and he only won 3 less games than West despite West being the 2nd option while Baylor was averaging 35). Oscar couldn't afford to miss any games because his team was terrible without him, while West's team was still around .500 without Baylor but played at a 62-win pace with him in '63. Royals and Lakers both went 45-35 in '66, but the Royals were 3rd in the East while the Lakers were #1 in the West, Baylor was hurt and only averaged 17 a game and they were 7 - 8 without him but obviously the Lakers end up making the Finals because they only had to win 1 Playoff series against a 36-win Hawks team while the Royals had to play the Celtics and they ended up losing in 5 in a BO5 series.

I'm not sure if you're trolling/purposely overlooking these facts but it's obvious why Oscar didn't have as much Playoff/RS success in his prime as the other top players, but he still had more success than Westbrook, who's yet to properly win a Playoff series without KD (he missed 4 games against OKC last season and was terrible when he did return and played hurt, they were beating OKC regardless) and he's regressed in the Playoffs all the other times as well. You're really telling me that WB didn't play with a player as good as KAJ? What about Durant, who led OKC to 59 wins and won MVP while Westbrook was injured for half the season? Imagine if Oscar had that kind of luxury in his prime. Westbrook wasn't even the best player on his own team until Durant left in 2016. Harden played one season with him in Houston and wanted out immediately.

West was a 2nd option for almost half of his prime and wasn't as good of an offensive player as Oscar, their scoring numbers are close though.

[aj1987]

Oscar had less help than Russell/Wilt/West. Oscar played in a tougher Division than West (apart from the rookie season, when Royals & Lakers were in the same Division and he only won 3 less games than West despite West being the 2nd option while Baylor was averaging 35). Oscar couldn't afford to miss any games because his team was terrible without him, while West's team was still around .500 without Baylor but played at a 62-win pace with him in '63. Royals and Lakers both went 45-35 in '66, but the Royals were 3rd in the East while the Lakers were #1 in the West, Baylor was hurt and only averaged 17 a game and they were 7 - 8 without him but obviously the Lakers end up making the Finals because they only had to win 1 Playoff series against a 36-win Hawks team while the Royals had to play the Celtics and they ended up losing in 5 in a BO5 series.
What's the Royals record without and with Oscar?


I'm not sure if you're trolling/purposely overlooking these facts but it's obvious why Oscar didn't have as much Playoff/RS success in his prime as the other top players, but he still had more success than Westbrook, who's yet to properly win a Playoff series without KD (he missed 4 games against OKC last season and was terrible when he did return and played hurt, they were beating OKC regardless) and he's regressed in the Playoffs all the other times as well. You're really telling me that WB didn't play with a player as good as KAJ? What about Durant, who led OKC to 59 wins and won MVP while Westbrook was injured for half the season? Imagine if Oscar had that kind of luxury in his prime. Westbrook wasn't even the best player on his own team until Durant left in 2016. Harden played one season with him in Houston and wanted out immediately.

West was a 2nd option for almost half of his prime and wasn't as good of an offensive player as Oscar, their scoring numbers are close though.
The difference between Oscar and WB is that pretty much no one considers WB to be a top 40 player, let alone a top 15 GOAT. That's the difference. If you're going to hold them to similar standards, Oscar needs to be ranked in the 20's or 30's.

You keep crying about WB not winning in the PO's without KD, but fail to acknowledge that Oscar was a career loser without KAJ (a top 3 GOAT). Heck, LeBron has better accolades and stats than almost every single player except MJ (and maybe KAJ), but you don't even have in in your top 7. However, Oscar averages one triple double and wins one title with KAJ and you have him in your top 12, and you have the audacity of saying others are trolling? LMAO.

Also, are you honestly comparing KAJ and KD? Are you off your meds or are you on crack? Also, your comparison is batshit retarded. Let me break it down for you.

You say that WB couldn't win without KD and that KD was a beast when WB was out and won MVP. What happened when WB was healthy and All-NBA First team? What happened when they had Harden, Ibaka, and Thabo as well?

I can't believe that I actually have to say this, but oh well. KAJ absolutely shits on KD as a player. It's not even remotely close. It's like comparing a Mustang to a P1 on a race track. Sure the Mustang is decent, but the P1 is tiers better.

I still don't understand why you insist on making shit up. Harden did not want out of Houston because of WB, you idiot. BOTH Harden AND WB wanted out of Houston. They didn't want to play for the Rockets anymore. There's a reason why Harden is with the Nets now, AFTER WB was traded to the Wizards.

[tpols]

The glaring issue with Westbrook remains his unhealthy shot diet. More than a decade into his remarkable career, he still fires many ill-advised shot attempts. Only 15 players in the league have launched more jumpers than him this season, and while that list includes sharpshooters such as Chris Paul, Stephen Curry and Damian Lillard, Westbrook is once again arguably the least efficient volume jump-shooter in the NBA. Out of 66 NBA players who have tried at least 400 jumpers this season, Westbrook ranks last in shooting efficiency, logging an eFG% of just 40.7 on his 621 jumpers (https://www.espn.com/nba/insider/story/_/id/31384185/why-washington-wizards-star-russell-westbrook-great-inefficient-ever).
– via Kirk Goldsberry @ ESPN (https://www.espn.com/nba/insider/story/_/id/31384185/why-washington-wizards-star-russell-westbrook-great-inefficient-ever)

Great analysis that confirms what we've all said. Russell Westbrook is a retard player. With retard strength nonetheless but intelligence is won at the top level.

[imdaman99]

Kirk Goldsberry @ ESPN[/URL]

https://www.hmhbooks.com/shop/books/assets/contributor/goldsberry$kirk_lres.gif

Great, we need more nerds reading boxscores that have never played discussing TS

[ImKobe]

What's the Royals record without and with Oscar?


The difference between Oscar and WB is that pretty much no one considers WB to be a top 40 player, let alone a top 15 GOAT. That's the difference. If you're going to hold them to similar standards, Oscar needs to be ranked in the 20's or 30's.

You keep crying about WB not winning in the PO's without KD, but fail to acknowledge that Oscar was a career loser without KAJ (a top 3 GOAT). Heck, LeBron has better accolades and stats than almost every single player except MJ (and maybe KAJ), but you don't even have in in your top 7. However, Oscar averages one triple double and wins one title with KAJ and you have him in your top 12, and you have the audacity of saying others are trolling? LMAO.

Also, are you honestly comparing KAJ and KD? Are you off your meds or are you on crack? Also, your comparison is batshit retarded. Let me break it down for you.

You say that WB couldn't win without KD and that KD was a beast when WB was out and won MVP. What happened when WB was healthy and All-NBA First team? What happened when they had Harden, Ibaka, and Thabo as well?

I can't believe that I actually have to say this, but oh well. KAJ absolutely shits on KD as a player. It's not even remotely close. It's like comparing a Mustang to a P1 on a race track. Sure the Mustang is decent, but the P1 is tiers better.

I still don't understand why you insist on making shit up. Harden did not want out of Houston because of WB, you idiot. BOTH Harden AND WB wanted out of Houston. They didn't want to play for the Rockets anymore. There's a reason why Harden is with the Nets now, AFTER WB was traded to the Wizards.

Royals without Oscar

60-61: 1-7
61-62: 0-1
63-64: 1-0
64-65: 1-4
65-66: 1-3
66-67: 0-2
67-68: 4-13
68-69: 0-3
69-70: 4-9

That's a 12 - 42 record.. Lakers were still a .500 team with Baylor or West out, Celtics were still winning a high percentage of their games without Russell (16 - 8 without him his rookie season) and were obviously a Playoff team before him, Philly/Lakers were Playoff teams prior to Wilt. Oscar had the worst situation by far, prior to joining KAJ when O was no longer in his prime. You'd have an argument if Oscar and his teams were putting up mediocre seasons with Kareem, but the Bucks won 59+ games every year and missed the Playoffs when Oscar retired.

And yes, Durant is on Kareem's level as a player :facepalm . Look at the numbers he was putting up in OKC with no spacing, look at how many times WB actually sabotaged the end of close Playoff games when they were legit title contenders.

Harden and WB wouldn't have wanted out of Houston if they had a chance to win a title together, which they didn't. Neither Durant nor Harden believed they could win with him. Westbrook's an inefficient scorer who's hell-bent on taking jump shots (he's a sub-40% jump shooter) when he has a much better scoring option (Durant, PG, Harden or Beal) on his team. I love Russ and have defended him as much as anyone on ISH, but putting him on Oscar's level or using him to discredit Oscar is just wrong.

[Thenameless]

When Westbrook started putting up triples doubles for fun I was afraid some millennial would make this thread.

The answer is Oscar and it's not close. Westbrook is a PG with terrible decision-making who plays like a chicken with his head cut off half the time. Westbrook is one of those guys where you are legit unsure if he ever made any team better. Meanwhile Oscar led the league's best offense with average rosters for like five straight seasons.

And besides the TS% that people have already been talking about, Oscar played the right way. He doesn't yell at teammates for not shooting right after he passes them the ball, so that he can pick up more empty stat assists. I would much, much prefer to have Robertson on my team over Westbrook. This one isn't close.

[aj1987]

Royals without Oscar

60-61: 1-7
61-62: 0-1
63-64: 1-0
64-65: 1-4
65-66: 1-3
66-67: 0-2
67-68: 4-13
68-69: 0-3
69-70: 4-9
Those are just numbers without any context. Were other All-Star level players missing games as well? Here's some numbers without context:

Lakers with Shaq/No Kobe: 36-8


Lakers with Kobe/No Shaq: 53-45

(got this from another thread)

Would you agree that Kobe was just a mediocre low impact player without Shaq?


That's a 12 - 42 record.. Lakers were still a .500 team with Baylor or West out, Celtics were still winning a high percentage of their games without Russell (16 - 8 without him his rookie season) and were obviously a Playoff team before him, Philly/Lakers were Playoff teams prior to Wilt. Oscar had the worst situation by far, prior to joining KAJ when O was no longer in his prime. You'd have an argument if Oscar and his teams were putting up mediocre seasons with Kareem, but the Bucks won 59+ games every year and missed the Playoffs when Oscar retired.
Again, can I have the game win/loss records of the Lakers without West/Baylor? Not that it really matter anyways as both Baylor and West are considered top 20 GOAT's. So yeah, no shit the Lakers had a .500 record even with one of them missing. You think if Shaq missed the entire 2002 season, it would've been surprising that Kobe kept the Lakers at .500?

Also, the Bucks won 56 games the season BEFORE Oscar got there. Lets not act like they were winning 30 games and Oscar lifted them to 60+ wins. As for the '75 season, Kareem missed the first 16 games of the season after breaking his hand. The Bucks went 3-13 in that span (15 win pace). They won 38 games that season. Jim Price only played 41 games for the Bucks.


And yes, Durant is on Kareem's level as a player :facepalm . Look at the numbers he was putting up in OKC with no spacing, look at how many times WB actually sabotaged the end of close Playoff games when they were legit title contenders.
How high are you right now? KAJ is a top 3 GOAT and KD is, at best, top 18-20. At absolute BEST. Ignoring careers, KAJ shits on KD as a player. Dude had a significantly better prime and an ever better peak. As for WB ****ing up close PO games, what about KD? The guy shot 35.5% in games 5 and 6. In the pivotal game 6, dude shot 1-7 for 4 points along with 2 TOV's and ZERO assists in the 4th Q. In G5, he was trash in the 4th Q and was a -6 for that quarter. WB was a +2 in a Q in which the Warriors outscored them by 5 points.

In 2013, KD got humiliated by the Grizz. Dude scored 24 PPG on 31% shooting in games 4 and 5. Got completely locked up by TA.

In 2014, in G6, KD scored ZERO points in the OT. The Thunder lost by 5 to the Spurs. In the final 5 minutes of regulation of that game, WB went 3/4 from the field and 2/2 from the line. Those two clutch FT's got the Thunder to the OT.


Harden and WB wouldn't have wanted out of Houston if they had a chance to win a title together, which they didn't. Neither Durant nor Harden believed they could win with him. Westbrook's an inefficient scorer who's hell-bent on taking jump shots (he's a sub-40% jump shooter) when he has a much better scoring option (Durant, PG, Harden or Beal) on his team. I love Russ and have defended him as much as anyone on ISH, but putting him on Oscar's level or using him to discredit Oscar is just wrong.
The Rockets were a trash team last season and WB was injured. BOTH Harden and WB wanted out of Houston and that's a fact. You can make up stories in that tiny head of yours, but it won't change FACTS. WB wasn't the reason why Harden wanted out of Houston. They're both friends, in fact. You tried to make up shit and got called out for it. Learn to hold the L and move on, when you are wrong.

With all that being said, WB and Oscar are closer than you think and with added context they're about the same tier of players.

[Phoenix]

Oscar's GOAT ranking is probably going to be re-contextualized a bit over the coming seasons. With the way the league has trended towards guard play, we have to start looking at why we tend to have Oscar in the top dozen or so, but yet some people are hesitant to put someone like Steph in their top 20 for whatever reason. There's a shitload of great guards now who are trending into some rarified air so to speak. Hell, all Harden needs now is a prominent role on a title team or 2 and its gonna get interesting where he ends up being ranked.

I was thinking about this the other day actually with Westbrook primed to take over the triple double all-time mark, because end of the day that's what most modern fans know Oscar as.....'the triple double guy'. But Westbrook is going to obliterate that particular category, so it will be interested how Oscar will be viewed in,say, 10 years when he's no longer the first person we think of when it comes to that.

[ImKobe]

Those are just numbers without any context. Were other All-Star level players missing games as well? Here's some numbers without context:

Lakers with Shaq/No Kobe: 36-8


Lakers with Kobe/No Shaq: 53-45

(got this from another thread)

Would you agree that Kobe was just a mediocre low impact player without Shaq?


Again, can I have the game win/loss records of the Lakers without West/Baylor? Not that it really matter anyways as both Baylor and West are considered top 20 GOAT's. So yeah, no shit the Lakers had a .500 record even with one of them missing. You think if Shaq missed the entire 2002 season, it would've been surprising that Kobe kept the Lakers at .500?

Also, the Bucks won 56 games the season BEFORE Oscar got there. Lets not act like they were winning 30 games and Oscar lifted them to 60+ wins. As for the '75 season, Kareem missed the first 16 games of the season after breaking his hand. The Bucks went 3-13 in that span (15 win pace). They won 38 games that season. Jim Price only played 41 games for the Bucks.


How high are you right now? KAJ is a top 3 GOAT and KD is, at best, top 18-20. At absolute BEST. Ignoring careers, KAJ shits on KD as a player. Dude had a significantly better prime and an ever better peak. As for WB ****ing up close PO games, what about KD? The guy shot 35.5% in games 5 and 6. In the pivotal game 6, dude shot 1-7 for 4 points along with 2 TOV's and ZERO assists in the 4th Q. In G5, he was trash in the 4th Q and was a -6 for that quarter. WB was a +2 in a Q in which the Warriors outscored them by 5 points.

In 2013, KD got humiliated by the Grizz. Dude scored 24 PPG on 31% shooting in games 4 and 5. Got completely locked up by TA.

In 2014, in G6, KD scored ZERO points in the OT. The Thunder lost by 5 to the Spurs. In the final 5 minutes of regulation of that game, WB went 3/4 from the field and 2/2 from the line. Those two clutch FT's got the Thunder to the OT.


The Rockets were a trash team last season and WB was injured. BOTH Harden and WB wanted out of Houston and that's a fact. You can make up stories in that tiny head of yours, but it won't change FACTS. WB wasn't the reason why Harden wanted out of Houston. They're both friends, in fact. You tried to make up shit and got called out for it. Learn to hold the L and move on, when you are wrong.

With all that being said, WB and Oscar are closer than you think and with added context they're about the same tier of players.

Then why ask about Royals' record in the first place? It was obvious they were terrible without him. He had the worst supporting cast out of those teams. As far as Shaq/Kobe Lakers go, the '03 team was the worst out of the 00-04 Lakers' teams, so it's no surprise that they struggled to start the season without Shaq, which is why those records are skewed. What is there to be skewed when it comes to the Royals' record without Oscar? He was by far their best player and they obviously couldn't hold it down without him. The Lakers without Shaq were still a Playoff team, the Royals without Oscar were the worst team in the league.

KD is top 15 all-time already and he's only 32 and will likely add more accolades. Kareem had just 1 championship before playing on superteams with the Lakers.

Yes, Durant struggled in a Playoff series, so what?

WB and Oscar are not in the same tier. Oscar was on par with the best scorers of his era, Westbrook had one season comparable to prime Oscar.

[aj1987]

Then why ask about Royals' record in the first place? It was obvious they were terrible without him. He had the worst supporting cast out of those teams. As far as Shaq/Kobe Lakers go, the '03 team was the worst out of the 00-04 Lakers' teams, so it's no surprise that they struggled to start the season without Shaq, which is why those records are skewed. What is there to be skewed when it comes to the Royals' record without Oscar? He was by far their best player and they obviously couldn't hold it down without him. The Lakers without Shaq were still a Playoff team, the Royals without Oscar were the worst team in the league.
It was not just that one season. The Lakers without Kobe did not really miss a beat. However, the Lakers without Shaq and with Kobe were just a mediocre team. The Lakers went 11-3 in '01 without Kobe. The Lakers struggling without Shaq is my point as well. Remove the best player from a team and the team will struggle. I never said he wasn't the best player on the team. No shit, the team struggled without him. The Lakers without Shaq were basically a 44 win team. Going just by the 3peat years, they would've been involved in a tie break for the 8th seed in '00, 10th seed in '01, and again in a tie break for the 8th seed in '02. Again, this is with another top 12 GOAT in Kobe on the team.


KD is top 15 all-time already and he's only 32 and will likely add more accolades. Kareem had just 1 championship before playing on superteams with the Lakers.
LMAO, he's not. He's 18-20 AT BEST. Even if he's top 15, he's still tiers below KAJ, who's a consensus top 3 GOAT. It's not even a competition at this point. KAJ shits on KD as a player. You acting like a couple of good years and he'd catch KAJ? He still has 4 fewer rings and 5 fewer MVP's. KD has a TOTAL of 9 All-NBA selections. KAJ has 10 First Team selections. Not to mention the fact that he's an ATG defender, while KD has been mediocre to bad on that end for like 90% of his career. It's not even a competition.


Yes, Durant struggled in a Playoff series, so what?
Is that why you were acting like WB was the only reason why they never won a title in OKC?


WB and Oscar are not in the same tier. Oscar was on par with the best scorers of his era, Westbrook had one season comparable to prime Oscar.
And Oscar played in an absolutely shit era, where the pace was ridiculously high. Put WB in that era and he's probably up up his stats by over 20%. Oscar is an extremely overrated player and if he played in the social media era, he'd be eviscerated for his failures.

[ImKobe]

It was not just that one season. The Lakers without Kobe did not really miss a beat. However, the Lakers without Shaq and with Kobe were just a mediocre team. The Lakers went 11-3 in '01 without Kobe. The Lakers struggling without Shaq is my point as well. Remove the best player from a team and the team will struggle. I never said he wasn't the best player on the team. No shit, the team struggled without him. The Lakers without Shaq were basically a 44 win team. Going just by the 3peat years, they would've been involved in a tie break for the 8th seed in '00, 10th seed in '01, and again in a tie break for the 8th seed in '02. Again, this is with another top 12 GOAT in Kobe on the team.


LMAO, he's not. He's 18-20 AT BEST. Even if he's top 15, he's still tiers below KAJ, who's a consensus top 3 GOAT. It's not even a competition at this point. KAJ shits on KD as a player. You acting like a couple of good years and he'd catch KAJ? He still has 4 fewer rings and 5 fewer MVP's. KD has a TOTAL of 9 All-NBA selections. KAJ has 10 First Team selections. Not to mention the fact that he's an ATG defender, while KD has been mediocre to bad on that end for like 90% of his career. It's not even a competition.


Is that why you were acting like WB was the only reason why they never won a title in OKC?


And Oscar played in an absolutely shit era, where the pace was ridiculously high. Put WB in that era and he's probably up up his stats by over 20%. Oscar is an extremely overrated player and if he played in the social media era, he'd be eviscerated for his failures.

The Royals were never on that level as a team. They were a Playoff team with Oscar and the worst team in the league without him. Lakers were a Playoff team without one of their 2 stars, the Royals were the worst team in the league without Oscar. Next.

KD is top 15 based on his current accolades. He'll likely be top 10 all-time and maybe better, depending on his Playoff success & longevity. But it's not the accolades that matter in this argument. Durant's on Kareem's level just as a player, he's arguably the best scorer in league history and is a good defensive player as well. The point is that Russ played on title contenders in his prime and came up short in the Playoffs while Oscar was on mediocre teams, where he had to do everything just for them to be competitive.


Westbrook wasn't the only reason, but he made some terrible plays in key Playoff moments and his lack of shooting ability contributed to their poor spacing/3PT shooting around Durant.

How did Oscar fail in his prime, exactly? When did he have a team that should have been getting past Russell's Celtics or Wilt's Sixers out East? Put the Lakers in the East and the Royals in the West, Oscar makes a ton of Finals and loses them as well due to his team being significantly worse, does that make his career any better? '63 was the Royals at their full potential. They beat a higher seed in the Playoffs and pushed the Celtics to the brink of elimination with Oscar averaging 33/12/9 on ~49%FG, they had a chance to win the series in 6 games but his all-time great supporting cast shot 29/79 in a 5-point loss while Oscar had 36/12/10 on 54% shooting in Game 5. As much as we glorify the superstars and act as if they're the only ones impacting the game, it's still a team sport. Put any great player on a crappy team and they'll have little success.

[aj1987]

The Royals were never on that level as a team. They were a Playoff team with Oscar and the worst team in the league without him. Lakers were a Playoff team without one of their 2 stars, the Royals were the worst team in the league without Oscar. Next.
That's because the Lakers still had either Elgin or West to play on the team, you ****ing idiot. How difficult is that to understand? Both West and Elgin are usually considered to be top 15 GOAT's and they were playing together. No shit, the Lakers were still a .500 team without one of them.


KD is top 15 based on his current accolades. He'll likely be top 10 all-time and maybe better, depending on his Playoff success & longevity. But it's not the accolades that matter in this argument. Durant's on Kareem's level just as a player, he's arguably the best scorer in league history and is a good defensive player as well. The point is that Russ played on title contenders in his prime and came up short in the Playoffs while Oscar was on mediocre teams, where he had to do everything just for them to be competitive.
Do you have downs syndrome?

1. KD is not top 15.

2. You say KD is arguably a better scorer, while claiming he's a good defender as well. However, KAJ is one of the greatest defenders ever. Arguably top 10 GOAT defender. KD has had one or two good defensive seasons his entire ****ing career. KAJ has had more All-Def First Team selections than KD has All-NBA First Team selections. It's not even close. KAJ is arguably a better scorer (yeah, KD got shut down by freaking 6'0" CP3), a significantly better rebounder, and a significantly better defender (a billion times better defender). KAJ is a flat out better player than KD and it's not even close.

3. Again, you bring up WB coming short, but completely ignore this:

As for WB ****ing up close PO games, what about KD? The guy shot 35.5% in games 5 and 6. In the pivotal game 6, dude shot 1-7 for 4 points along with 2 TOV's and ZERO assists in the 4th Q. In G5, he was trash in the 4th Q and was a -6 for that quarter. WB was a +2 in a Q in which the Warriors outscored them by 5 points.

4. The Thunder were title contenders BECAUSE of WB. Remove WB from those Thunder teams and they wouldn't go past the second round in any season. Case in point, the '13 season. They got DUSTED by the Grizz in the 2nd round after WB went down in the Rockets series. The Thunder won the first two games that WB played vs the Rockets, BTW.




Westbrook wasn't the only reason, but he made some terrible plays in key Playoff moments and his lack of shooting ability contributed to their poor spacing/3PT shooting around Durant.
Literally every single player in the history of the sport has had some terrible players in key PO moments. Including your boy. Also, why does Russell need to space the floor for Durant. You do know that KD is a great shooter, right? You might know that if you actually watched some games. It's like complaining about Shaq not being a good shooter and hence contributing to their poor 3pt shooting.



How did Oscar fail in his prime, exactly? When did he have a team that should have been getting past Russell's Celtics or Wilt's Sixers out East? Put the Lakers in the East and the Royals in the West, Oscar makes a ton of Finals and loses them as well due to his team being significantly worse, does that make his career any better? '63 was the Royals at their full potential. They beat a higher seed in the Playoffs and pushed the Celtics to the brink of elimination with Oscar averaging 33/12/9 on ~49%FG, they had a chance to win the series in 6 games but his all-time great supporting cast shot 29/79 in a 5-point loss while Oscar had 36/12/10 on 54% shooting in Game 5. As much as we glorify the superstars and act as if they're the only ones impacting the game, it's still a team sport. Put any great player on a crappy team and they'll have little success.
Again, you slow little kid, I'm not talking about Oscar winning the title. I'm not talking about Oscar beating Wilt or Russell. I'm talking about the seasons when his teams STRUGGLED to maintain a .500 record. I've already said this about 20,000 times in this thread and I'll say it one last time. Oscar's teams were completely mediocre outside ONE season when they were legit good. They were usually around the .500 mark or way below it. This, despite having multiple All-Stars on his teams.

I really wouldn't care if it was a random All-Star and All-NBA player like, lets say, Tony Parker. However, TP isn't even close to being a top 50 player, let alone a top 12 GOAT. However, Oscar is ranked in the top 12, and my standards for a player being ranked at that lever are higher than your. No wonder you think Kobe is a top 5 GOAT. :roll:

[ImKobe]

Tired of arguing the same point over & over again. Oscar was top 12 all-time because of his talent and what he meant for the game historically, I'm not sure if he's top 12-15 anymore because you can put a bunch of guys from this era over him (Steph, KD, Kawhi, maybe Lebron) but Westbrook is not on that same level. Oscar was the first to do it. Oscar did it in an era where it was much harder to get assists (you had to shoot directly after a pass for it to count) and he was getting these triple-double averages without knowing what they were/meant and also while being one of the top scorers of his era.

Westbrook is Allen Iverson tier when it comes to scoring efficiency, which would be good enough for the early 2000s (best defensive era), but doing that in this era just puts him out of the convo when comparing him to a player like Oscar. Again, Oscar had 4 straight seasons of 30+ ppg (only him, Wilt, MJ and Dantley have done this IIRC), was routinely top 5 in TS% on top of getting high rebounding and assist numbers. Oscar's accolades are a lot better as well with the championship, 3x more all-star/all-NBA teams and him leading the league in APG 6x to Westbrook's 3.

And please stop parroting the same point about his team success, when it's clear he didn't have nearly as much help as Russell/Wilt/West, he wasn't supposed to win any titles with the teams he had in Cincy. I already gave you the data from Regular Seasons, Lakers/Celtics/Sixers were still a Playoff team if one of their top 2 players got injured, the Royals weren't. Sixers were 22 - 23 before the Wilt trade. They finished the season 40 - 40 with 35 games of Wilt. Lakers went 55 - 27 in '69. Wilt missed 70 games & Baylor missed 28 the following year and they went 46 - 36.

Like, what are we doing here? Because Oscar had mediocre help, I'm supposed to think less of him as a player? I thought the Lebron stans put less stock into Playoff success (because of their King's poor Finals record) and argued stats, are we seeing a shift into using the ring argument over stats for you guys, because other players are going to surpass Lebron statistically?

[HoopsNY]

One thing that I noticed is that Westbrook's triple doubles look amazing, but triple doubles as a whole aren't an anomaly in today's game. The league has about 133 triple doubles where Westbrook has 36 of them. That means that the rest of the league has put up almost 100 triple doubles with just about 66-68 games played.

Compare that to 2009-10 when the league had just 23 in total. So it's not as if Westbrook is the only one seeing an exponential rise in triple doubles.

In Oscar's '62 season, only 16 triple doubles were recorded by other than him. So while Westbrook's triple double totals are impressive, it doesn't seem to come with the same level of dominance as maybe other players in other years had.

[tpols]

One thing that I noticed is that Westbrook's triple doubles look amazing, but triple doubles as a whole aren't an anomaly in today's game. The league has about 133 triple doubles where Westbrook has 36 of them. That means that the rest of the league has put up almost 100 triple doubles with just about 66-68 games played.

Compare that to 2009-10 when the league had just 23 in total. So it's not as if Westbrook is the only one seeing an exponential rise in triple doubles.

In Oscar's '62 season, only 16 triple doubles were recorded by other than him. So while Westbrook's triple double totals are impressive, it doesn't seem to come with the same level of dominance as maybe other players in other years had.

Its because 3 pt shots lead to long wild rebounds allowing guards many more opportunities.

[aj1987]

Tired of arguing the same point over & over again. Oscar was top 12 all-time because of his talent and what he meant for the game historically, I'm not sure if he's top 12-15 anymore because you can put a bunch of guys from this era over him (Steph, KD, Kawhi, maybe Lebron) but Westbrook is not on that same level. Oscar was the first to do it. Oscar did it in an era where it was much harder to get assists (you had to shoot directly after a pass for it to count) and he was getting these triple-double averages without knowing what they were/meant and also while being one of the top scorers of his era.
You just don't get it. The point you're arguing is autistic and completely moronic. Oscar had his triple double season ONCE. Westbrook did it three seasons in a row and is doing it this season as well, while trying to drag the Wizards to a PO spot. You bring up the era when it's convenient for you, but completely ignored it when I brought it up. Oscar got his triple doubles in an insanely high paced era. Not a single season of Westbrook's comes even close to the pace at which Oscar played. The slowest pace that Oscar player at (in Cincy) was 114.6. The fastest pace that WB played at is this season at 104. Dude is still putting up 22/12/12. At 32 years old. In fact, when Oscar averaged a triple double, he was playing at a pace of 125. That's 21 points higher than WB's highest pace. WB's first triple double season came at a pace of 97.8. Dude averaged 32/11/10. That's a difference of 27.2 from the season when Oscar averaged a triple double. Almost 10 minutes more than Westbrook as well.

If converted for pace, WB's triple double season would translate (104 Pace, which is WB's highest) to 25.6/10.4/9.4. So yeah, not even a triple double season.

Did I mention the FACT that Oscar also played 10 minutes more per game than WB? I remember you bringing up the minutes that LeBron played when it was convenient for you, but you choose to ignore it completely now.

As for the bolded, that's one of the reasons why you're a joke and everyone thinks you're an idiot.


Westbrook is Allen Iverson tier when it comes to scoring efficiency, which would be good enough for the early 2000s (best defensive era), but doing that in this era just puts him out of the convo when comparing him to a player like Oscar. Again, Oscar had 4 straight seasons of 30+ ppg (only him, Wilt, MJ and Dantley have done this IIRC), was routinely top 5 in TS% on top of getting high rebounding and assist numbers. Oscar's accolades are a lot better as well with the championship, 3x more all-star/all-NBA teams and him leading the league in APG 6x to Westbrook's 3.
Bruh, you really want to bring up scoring efficiency? Your boy averaged 51% TS% in the Finals for his career. Dude averaged 41% FG% in the Finals. 25 PPG on 41% from the field and 31% from deep. LMAO. So, I guess we should not put him conversation with actual greats like Duncan, Hakeem, Bird, Magic, etc.. Dude is definitely tiers below them, just going by YOUR "logic".

More accolades? You do know that Westbrook missed out of a couple because of injuries, right? Context matters. Not just that, he is going to make another All-NBA Team this season, which would put him only one behind Oscar. In reality, they're very close to each other, when it comes to accolades.

It really is funny how you Kobe stans want to bring up efficiency when it's convenient for you dorks, but completely ignore it and call it useless, when it pertains to your boy.



And please stop parroting the same point about his team success, when it's clear he didn't have nearly as much help as Russell/Wilt/West, he wasn't supposed to win any titles with the teams he had in Cincy. I already gave you the data from Regular Seasons, Lakers/Celtics/Sixers were still a Playoff team if one of their top 2 players got injured, the Royals weren't. Sixers were 22 - 23 before the Wilt trade. They finished the season 40 - 40 with 35 games of Wilt. Lakers went 55 - 27 in '69. Wilt missed 70 games & Baylor missed 28 the following year and they went 46 - 36.
Good lord, you ****ing idiot. For the millionth time, I'm not talking about Oscar winning titles. I'm not talking about him beating Wilt and Russell. I'm talking about him carrying a team to a .500 record.

From my previous post:

Again, you slow little kid, I'm not talking about Oscar winning the title. I'm not talking about Oscar beating Wilt or Russell. I'm talking about the seasons when his teams STRUGGLED to maintain a .500 record. I've already said this about 20,000 times in this thread and I'll say it one last time. Oscar's teams were completely mediocre outside ONE season when they were legit good. They were usually around the .500 mark or way below it. This, despite having multiple All-Stars on his teams.

I really wouldn't care if it was a random All-Star and All-NBA player like, lets say, Tony Parker. However, TP isn't even close to being a top 50 player, let alone a top 12 GOAT. However, Oscar is ranked in the top 12, and my standards for a player being ranked at that lever are higher than your. No wonder you think Kobe is a top 5 GOAT.

Here are the team records of the Royals by season:

1961 - 33

1962 - 43

1963 - 42

1964 - 55

1965 - 48

1966 - 45

1967 - 39

1968 - 39

1969 - 41

1970 - 36

In his last season with the Royals, they won 36 games. After Oscar left, they had a dropoff off THREE games. They won 33 games the next season without him.



Like, what are we doing here? Because Oscar had mediocre help, I'm supposed to think less of him as a player? I thought the Lebron stans put less stock into Playoff success (because of their King's poor Finals record) and argued stats, are we seeing a shift into using the ring argument over stats for you guys, because other players are going to surpass Lebron statistically?
This would make sense, if I was talking about rings, but I did not bring that up even once. Your dumbass Kobe brigade is the one who keeps bringing up constantly, cause you know if we talked about any other accolades or stats, your boy wouldn't stand a chance against a ton of players. That's why you keep crying about rings, even though he was carried to the vast majority of them.

As far as LeBron goes, dude has 4 rings and 4 FMVP's (only one other player in the history of the game has more than him), 16 All-NBA selections, etc.. Not to mention the only player in the history of the game with 35,000/9,000/9,000, which would increase to 36k/10k/10k next season. Dude is cemented as the 2nd greatest player of all time, no matter how much you want to cry about it.

[ImKobe]

All-Star in the 60s doesn't = all-star in this era. Remember, only 8 teams at that time. Anyone half-decent made the team. You weren't winning 50+ games consistently unless you were the Celtics. Even the Lakers were not 50+ every year, they only won 50+ games 4x in the 1960s, and they had two of the 5 best players + added Wilt in '68. A Big 3, and the most they won in that decade was 55 games, same as the Royals.

I already pointed out to you their record without Oscar, many of those sub-.500 seasons occurred because they lost almost every game without him. I don't see why you're still trying to argue this point. They were not good enough, it's not Oscar's fault.

And lol @ anyone carrying Kobe to a title, he ran the triangle and was the closer in key moments on every single title team. He wasn't 2013 Wade when he played with Shaq.

[dankok8]

Tired of arguing the same point over & over again. Oscar was top 12 all-time because of his talent and what he meant for the game historically, I'm not sure if he's top 12-15 anymore because you can put a bunch of guys from this era over him (Steph, KD, Kawhi, maybe Lebron) but Westbrook is not on that same level. Oscar was the first to do it. Oscar did it in an era where it was much harder to get assists (you had to shoot directly after a pass for it to count) and he was getting these triple-double averages without knowing what they were/meant and also while being one of the top scorers of his era.

Westbrook is Allen Iverson tier when it comes to scoring efficiency, which would be good enough for the early 2000s (best defensive era), but doing that in this era just puts him out of the convo when comparing him to a player like Oscar. Again, Oscar had 4 straight seasons of 30+ ppg (only him, Wilt, MJ and Dantley have done this IIRC), was routinely top 5 in TS% on top of getting high rebounding and assist numbers. Oscar's accolades are a lot better as well with the championship, 3x more all-star/all-NBA teams and him leading the league in APG 6x to Westbrook's 3.

And please stop parroting the same point about his team success, when it's clear he didn't have nearly as much help as Russell/Wilt/West, he wasn't supposed to win any titles with the teams he had in Cincy. I already gave you the data from Regular Seasons, Lakers/Celtics/Sixers were still a Playoff team if one of their top 2 players got injured, the Royals weren't. Sixers were 22 - 23 before the Wilt trade. They finished the season 40 - 40 with 35 games of Wilt. Lakers went 55 - 27 in '69. Wilt missed 70 games & Baylor missed 28 the following year and they went 46 - 36.

Like, what are we doing here? Because Oscar had mediocre help, I'm supposed to think less of him as a player? I thought the Lebron stans put less stock into Playoff success (because of their King's poor Finals record) and argued stats, are we seeing a shift into using the ring argument over stats for you guys, because other players are going to surpass Lebron statistically?

Good post but Westbrook is clearly below Iverson tier in scoring. AI scored on 3% better rTS.

[aj1987]

All-Star in the 60s doesn't = all-star in this era. Remember, only 8 teams at that time. Anyone half-decent made the team. You weren't winning 50+ games consistently unless you were the Celtics. Even the Lakers were not 50+ every year, they only won 50+ games 4x in the 1960s, and they had two of the 5 best players + added Wilt in '68. A Big 3, and the most they won in that decade was 55 games, same as the Royals.

I already pointed out to you their record without Oscar, many of those sub-.500 seasons occurred because they lost almost every game without him. I don't see why you're still trying to argue this point. They were not good enough, it's not Oscar's fault.

And lol @ anyone carrying Kobe to a title, he ran the triangle and was the closer in key moments on every single title team. He wasn't 2013 Wade when he played with Shaq.

Good lord, you ****ing idiot. For the millionth time, I'm not talking about Oscar winning titles. I'm not talking about him beating Wilt and Russell. I'm talking about him carrying a team to a .500 record.

From my previous post:

Again, you slow little kid, I'm not talking about Oscar winning the title. I'm not talking about Oscar beating Wilt or Russell. I'm talking about the seasons when his teams STRUGGLED to maintain a .500 record. I've already said this about 20,000 times in this thread and I'll say it one last time. Oscar's teams were completely mediocre outside ONE season when they were legit good. They were usually around the .500 mark or way below it. This, despite having multiple All-Stars on his teams.

I really wouldn't care if it was a random All-Star and All-NBA player like, lets say, Tony Parker. However, TP isn't even close to being a top 50 player, let alone a top 12 GOAT. However, Oscar is ranked in the top 12, and my standards for a player being ranked at that lever are higher than your. No wonder you think Kobe is a top 5 GOAT.

Here are the team records of the Royals by season:

1961 - 33

1962 - 43

1963 - 42

1964 - 55

1965 - 48

1966 - 45

1967 - 39

1968 - 39

1969 - 41

1970 - 36

In his last season with the Royals, they won 36 games. After Oscar left, they had a dropoff off THREE games. They won 33 games the next season without him.

[ImKobe]

Good lord, you ****ing idiot. For the millionth time, I'm not talking about Oscar winning titles. I'm not talking about him beating Wilt and Russell. I'm talking about him carrying a team to a .500 record.

From my previous post:

Again, you slow little kid, I'm not talking about Oscar winning the title. I'm not talking about Oscar beating Wilt or Russell. I'm talking about the seasons when his teams STRUGGLED to maintain a .500 record. I've already said this about 20,000 times in this thread and I'll say it one last time. Oscar's teams were completely mediocre outside ONE season when they were legit good. They were usually around the .500 mark or way below it. This, despite having multiple All-Stars on his teams.

I really wouldn't care if it was a random All-Star and All-NBA player like, lets say, Tony Parker. However, TP isn't even close to being a top 50 player, let alone a top 12 GOAT. However, Oscar is ranked in the top 12, and my standards for a player being ranked at that lever are higher than your. No wonder you think Kobe is a top 5 GOAT.

Here are the team records of the Royals by season:

1961 - 33

1962 - 43

1963 - 42

1964 - 55

1965 - 48

1966 - 45

1967 - 39

1968 - 39

1969 - 41

1970 - 36

In his last season with the Royals, they won 36 games. After Oscar left, they had a dropoff off THREE games. They won 33 games the next season without him.

I already ****ing told you that the only team that was constantly winning 50+ games had like 8 HOFers on it. If the Lakers could only win 50+ games 4x in that decade with West AND Baylor + adding Wilt at the end of it, how the **** do you expect the Royals with just Oscar to be close to that level? :facepalm It's not surprising that they were a .500 team for half of it, when he had to do it all just for them to be competitive.

Again, I already ****ing replied to this shit


Royals without Oscar

60-61: 1-7
61-62: 0-1
63-64: 1-0
64-65: 1-4
65-66: 1-3
66-67: 0-2
67-68: 4-13
68-69: 0-3
69-70: 4-9

That's a 12 - 42 record.. Lakers were still a .500 team with Baylor or West out, Celtics were still winning a high percentage of their games without Russell (16 - 8 without him his rookie season) and were obviously a Playoff team before him, Philly/Lakers were Playoff teams prior to Wilt. Oscar had the worst situation by far, prior to joining KAJ when O was no longer in his prime. You'd have an argument if Oscar and his teams were putting up mediocre seasons with Kareem, but the Bucks won 59+ games every year and missed the Playoffs when Oscar retired.


I gave you their records without Oscar in those seasons, they were supposed to be a 50-win team at best if Oscar was completely healthy and maybe other teams had some injuries, but they peaked at 55 wins in an 80-game season (SAME AS THE LAKERS WITH BAYLOR AND WEST AND WILT IN A 82-GAME SEASON) with Twyman (who?) as Oscar's 2nd option. That's what you get when you pair an all-timer with a bunch of mediocre trash compared to what all the other big contenders had, you get a 40-50-win team with no title hopes in a small league.

[aj1987]

I already ****ing told you that the only team that was constantly winning 50+ games had like 8 HOFers on it. If the Lakers could only win 50+ games 4x in that decade with West AND Baylor + adding Wilt at the end of it, how the **** do you expect the Royals with just Oscar to be close to that level? :facepalm It's not surprising that they were a .500 team for half of it, when he had to do it all just for them to be competitive.

Again, I already ****ing replied to this shit
Can you read and comprehend BASIC English, you mouth breathing idiot?

Good lord, you ****ing idiot. For the millionth time, I'm not talking about Oscar winning titles. I'm not talking about him beating Wilt and Russell. I'm talking about him carrying a team to a .500 record.

From my previous post:

Again, you slow little kid, I'm not talking about Oscar winning the title. I'm not talking about Oscar beating Wilt or Russell. I'm talking about the seasons when his teams STRUGGLED to maintain a .500 record. I've already said this about 20,000 times in this thread and I'll say it one last time. Oscar's teams were completely mediocre outside ONE season when they were legit good. They were usually around the .500 mark or way below it. This, despite having multiple All-Stars on his teams.

I really wouldn't care if it was a random All-Star and All-NBA player like, lets say, Tony Parker. However, TP isn't even close to being a top 50 player, let alone a top 12 GOAT. However, Oscar is ranked in the top 12, and my standards for a player being ranked at that lever are higher than your. No wonder you think Kobe is a top 5 GOAT.

Here are the team records of the Royals by season:

1961 - 33

1962 - 43

1963 - 42

1964 - 55

1965 - 48

1966 - 45

1967 - 39

1968 - 39

1969 - 41

1970 - 36

In his last season with the Royals, they won 36 games. After Oscar left, they had a dropoff off THREE games. They won 33 games the next season without him.


Oscar also had Jerry Lucas who was not just an All-Star, but an All-NBA player and a HOF'er. A walking 20/20 machine.


I gave you their records without Oscar in those seasons, they were supposed to be a 50-win team at best if Oscar was completely healthy and maybe other teams had some injuries, but they peaked at 55 wins in an 80-game season (SAME AS THE LAKERS WITH BAYLOR AND WEST AND WILT IN A 82-GAME SEASON) with Twyman (who?) as Oscar's 2nd option. That's what you get when you pair an all-timer with a bunch of mediocre trash compared to what all the other big contenders had, you get a 40-50-win team with no title hopes in a small league.

Here are the team records of the Royals by season:

1961 - 33 (Missed only 8 games and even if they win every single won, they would've won only 41)

1962 - 43 (Triple double season and missed only ONE game. ONE game over .500)

1963 - 42 (Played every single game and the team was at .500)

1964 - 55 (Missed one game and the team won the game without him)

1965 - 48 (Missed 5 games that season)

1966 - 45 (Missed 4 games that season)

1967 - 39 (Missed 2 game and even if they won those two, the team would've been under .500)

1968 - 39 (44 win pace WITH Oscar in the lineup)

1969 - 41 (Missed 3 games)

1970 - 36 (38 win pace WITH Oscar in the lineup)

So yeah, outside three seasons, they were basically hovering around or UNDER .500.

[ImKobe]

Can you read and comprehend BASIC English, you mouth breathing idiot?

Good lord, you ****ing idiot. For the millionth time, I'm not talking about Oscar winning titles. I'm not talking about him beating Wilt and Russell. I'm talking about him carrying a team to a .500 record.


Bro, the league only had 8 ****ing teams in the mid-60s and it only went up to 14 in his last season in Cincy. Lakers, Royals, Warriors & Celtics account for half the ****ing teams when he was at his peak, they played eachother 8-10 times a year. I didn't talk about the ****ing championship in my post, I said his teams couldn't have won more games with what he ****ing had, jesus christ.. How retarded are you?

And your dumbass still hasn't addressed the fact that the Royals drafted Tiny Archibald after Oscar left.

[aj1987]

Bro, the league only had 8 ****ing teams in the mid-60s and it only went up to 14 in his last season in Cincy. Lakers, Royals, Warriors & Celtics account for half the ****ing teams when he was at his peak, they played eachother 8-10 times a year. I didn't talk about the ****ing championship in my post, I said his teams couldn't have won more games with what he ****ing had, jesus christ.. How retarded are you?
A rock would make sense than you in this argument. I'll try one last time.

1. Oscar's teams were trash in Cincy.

2. Oscar had an ATG and HOF'er on his team in Lucar.

3. Oscar had one good season one decent one in his 10 seasons in Cincy.

Stating those three FACTS, I have higher standards for a player who I might rank in my top 15.

Also, for the millionth time, I'm talking about trying to be close to .500. Not get over 50 wins a season or make the Finals or win the title, FFS.


And your dumbass still hasn't addressed the fact that the Royals drafted Tiny Archibald after Oscar left.

It's not worth addressing because your dumbass doesn't know the fact that an ATG in Jerry Lucas was gone as well. A rookie Tiny replacing Oscar AND Lucas. Yeah, makes a ton of sense. Idiot.

[ImKobe]

A rock would make sense than you in this argument. I'll try one last time.

1. Oscar's teams were trash in Cincy.

2. Oscar had an ATG and HOF'er on his team in Lucar.

3. Oscar had one good season one decent one in his 10 seasons in Cincy.

Stating those three FACTS, I have higher standards for a player who I might rank in my top 15.

Also, for the millionth time, I'm talking about trying to be close to .500. Not get over 50 wins a season or make the Finals or win the title, FFS.



It's not worth addressing because your dumbass doesn't know the fact that an ATG in Jerry Lucas was gone as well. A rookie Tiny replacing Oscar AND Lucas. Yeah, makes a ton of sense. Idiot.



Jerry Lucas played 4 games. :facepalm Also, Oscar's 2nd option missed 11 games but played all 82 the next year.

So you admit that his teams were complete trash, so how does he then win more than 40-45 games for most of those seasons in a small league? Hello?

[Thenameless]

KD is top 15 based on his current accolades. He'll likely be top 10 all-time and maybe better, depending on his Playoff success & longevity. But it's not the accolades that matter in this argument. Durant's on Kareem's level just as a player, he's arguably the best scorer in league history and is a good defensive player as well. The point is that Russ played on title contenders in his prime and came up short in the Playoffs while Oscar was on mediocre teams, where he had to do everything just for them to be competitive.



You're exposing yourself as either ignorant of basketball, or never having watched Kareem in action. In no basketball universe will Durant ever be ranked higher than Kareem. Kareem is dominant at every level since childhood; he's considered the best ever high school player, maybe the best ever college player, and Top 3 at the NBA level. He's the all time scoring leader without shooting 3's for a living. And way better defender and rebounder than Durant could ever hope to be. Give your head a shake man. If you don't believe what I'm saying, create a poll between the two on who the better/greater player is.

[ImKobe]

You're exposing yourself as either ignorant of basketball, or never having watched Kareem in action. In no basketball universe will Durant ever be ranked higher than Kareem. Kareem is dominant at every level since childhood; he's considered the best ever high school player, maybe the best ever college player, and Top 3 at the NBA level. He's the all time scoring leader without shooting 3's for a living. And way better defender and rebounder than Durant could ever hope to be. Give your head a shake man. If you don't believe what I'm saying, create a poll between the two on who the better/greater player is.

KD was dominant right away too, what's your point? I didn't say he was better, just that he's on that ATG level that Kareem is as well as one of the greatest scorers/players we've ever seen, only 2nd to Lebron in the 2010s.

I don't know why idiots like AJ and you overlook the overall argument and just poke at the most random shit here. Westbrook played with the 2nd best player of his era with both in their primes, Oscar never had that luxury. He had Jerry ****ing Lucas while West had Baylor & Wilt and while Russell had Havlicek and Cousy. When he joined Kareem, he was on his way out of the league. That's the point here, not whether KD is better or equal to Kareem.

[72-10]

I think Westbrook has a more powerful motor than Oscar has, but Westbrook doesn't shoot well, and all he did for four years was try for a stat. Oscar's stats were a result of playing within the flow of the team's offense, although he might have been the centerpiece of it.

[aj1987]

KD was dominant right away too, what's your point? I didn't say he was better, just that he's on that ATG level that Kareem is as well as one of the greatest scorers/players we've ever seen, only 2nd to Lebron in the 2010s.

I don't know why idiots like AJ and you overlook the overall argument and just poke at the most random shit here. Westbrook played with the 2nd best player of his era with both in their primes, Oscar never had that luxury. He had Jerry ****ing Lucas while West had Baylor & Wilt and while Russell had Havlicek and Cousy. When he joined Kareem, he was on his way out of the league. That's the point here, not whether KD is better or equal to Kareem.
KD is not even remotely close to being a same level of player as KAJ. KAJ is tiers above him as a player. I've literally proved that already. For all the shit you want to talk about WB, and that KD is a GOAT level player, dude had his fair share of chokes and was a reason why they did not have great success in the PO's. Dude was also a trash defender with the Thunder and an average passer.

As for KD being right being LeBron at #2 for the decade, Curry has a better argument and there are other players who you could make a case for as well.

And then, there's the fact that WB actually made the Finals with a great player in KD. Oscar was STRUGGLING TO MAINTAIN A .500 RECORD. You see the difference now, retard?


Jerry Lucas played 4 games. :facepalm Also, Oscar's 2nd option missed 11 games but played all 82 the next year.
And with Lucas playing 74 games and dropping 20/20 got them 41 wins. Arsdale played 77 games that year as well.


So you admit that his teams were complete trash, so how does he then win more than 40-45 games for most of those seasons in a small league? Hello?

So, you admit that having a legit ATG and HOF'er in Lucas are barely maintaining a .500 record in Cincy is not worthy for a top 12-15 ranking?

We aren't talking about a regular All-Star. We're talking about Oscar, who most people have in their top 12. I admit, I used to ranking him right there, but with retrospect and more research, he was basically the '60's version of WB (a bit more efficient though). If it was a regular star player, then yeah, my standards would be lowered. Most people had him in their top 10-15 because of his triple double average. He did that on a team with a pace of 125. WB did it three time and he's set to do it again. The highest pace on those teams was 102.8. That's a massive difference in pace as well.

[ImKobe]

KD is not even remotely close to being a same level of player as KAJ. KAJ is tiers above him as a player. I've literally proved that already. For all the shit you want to talk about WB, and that KD is a GOAT level player, dude had his fair share of chokes and was a reason why they did not have great success in the PO's. Dude was also a trash defender with the Thunder and an average passer.

As for KD being right being LeBron at #2 for the decade, Curry has a better argument and there are other players who you could make a case for as well.

And then, there's the fact that WB actually made the Finals with a great player in KD. Oscar was STRUGGLING TO MAINTAIN A .500 RECORD. You see the difference now, retard?


And with Lucas playing 74 games and dropping 20/20 got them 41 wins. Arsdale played 77 games that year as well.



So, you admit that having a legit ATG and HOF'er in Lucas are barely maintaining a .500 record in Cincy is not worthy for a top 12-15 ranking?

We aren't talking about a regular All-Star. We're talking about Oscar, who most people have in their top 12. I admit, I used to ranking him right there, but with retrospect and more research, he was basically the '60's version of WB (a bit more efficient though). If it was a regular star player, then yeah, my standards would be lowered. Most people had him in their top 10-15 because of his triple double average. He did that on a team with a pace of 125. WB did it three time and he's set to do it again. The highest pace on those teams was 102.8. That's a massive difference in pace as well.

KD doesn't have to be better than Kareem all-time, the point is that Westbrook played with the 2nd best player of his era, in his ****ing prime and arguably at his ****ing peak. Oscar didn't play with anyone near KD's level in his prime. Guess what, Oscar had more success with Kareem than WB did with KD, AND he had more success in Cincy than Westbrook's had without Durant or Harden.

Curry is not better than Durant. He only impacts one side of the court and Durant was the alpha of the team when they played together.

Yes, Westbrook made 1 Finals with Durant, Ibaka & Harden. Great. Oscar won 59+ games 4 straight years and won a championship with Kareem.

Now look at their success without playing with another MVP-level player. Russ lost in the 1st round every year, even with Paul George, while Oscar at least won a Playoff series and took the Celtics to 7 games.

They had him ranked very high because he was so ahead of his time, and it's not just the triple-double season, it's him averaging ~30 on more efficient numbers than West, Wilt or Baylor for the 60s. Wilt averaged 34.1 ppg on 54.5%TS from 60-69, Oscar averaged 29.7 ppg on 57%TS that decade. He was arguably the 2nd best scorer of his era, one of the best rebounders at his size and the best playmaker of that era as well. Westbrook is the best rebounding guard, but he's a sub-par scorer and not the best passer, nor someone you'd pick to have the ball in his hands at the end of the game.

Remember, when KD won MVP, the Thunder only won 1 less game than the year before, with Russ sitting out half the season.

The 2016 Thunder went up against the two greatest shooters ever, while OKC was playing Roberson, Waiters, Westbrook and Steven Adams/Ibaka at the same time, that's 0 spacing. Russ was the main reason that they lost that Game 6. Westbrook had 3 straight turnovers in the last minute of that game, OKC was only down 3.

Jerry Lucas is not a "legit ATG", unless you think Paul George is as well.

[aj1987]

KD doesn't have to be better than Kareem all-time, the point is that Westbrook played with the 2nd best player of his era, in his ****ing prime and arguably at his ****ing peak. Oscar didn't play with anyone near KD's level in his prime. Guess what, Oscar had more success with Kareem than WB did with KD, AND he had more success in Cincy than Westbrook's had without Durant or Harden.
LeBron ran into LeBron ****ing James at his PEAK when he made the Finals, you idiot. A player who is in conversation for GOAT and is cemented as a top 2 GOAT. A couple of seasons after that, KD bounced and joined the 73 win team that they lost to the previous seasons. WB was on shit teams after than and never had great help.

Without Harden AND KD? How much success did Kobe have without Shaq and Pau? Dude was getting wrecked in the first rounds or in the lottery. Context matters.

As I PROVED time and time again, Oscar was a glorified stat padder, who struggled to carry his teams to .500 records.


Curry is not better than Durant. He only impacts one side of the court and Durant was the alpha of the team when they played together.
1. Curry won a ring before KD came to the Warriors.

2. Curry beat KD. :roll:

3. The Warriors were still an elite team without KD and with Curry.

"The Golden State #Warriors have now won 27 of their last 28 games when Stephen Curry plays and Kevin Durant sits."

https://twitter.com/TheDuelSports/status/1129422749309505536

https://i.postimg.cc/KYb8qT2t/D6xu-F22-Xs-AELh-W0.jpg


It's funny how you flip flop whenever it's convenient for your argument.

The Warriors finished off the Rockets in the WCSF WITHOUT KD and SWEPT the Blazers in the WCF (again WITHOUT KD).

Would've won the Finals as well, if Klay doesn't get injured.


Yes, Westbrook made 1 Finals with Durant, Ibaka & Harden. Great. Oscar won 59+ games 4 straight years and won a championship with Kareem.
The Thunder won:

2011 - 55 games

2012 - 58 games (made the Finals)

2013 - 60 games

2014 - 59 (61 win pace with WB in the lineup - 34 wins out of the 46 he played)

2015 - 45 games (the team was complete dog shit that season)

2016 - 55 games

Again, just a note that KD is not even remotely close to KAJ, who is the 3rd greatest player and is significantly better than KD.


Now look at their success without playing with another MVP-level player. Russ lost in the 1st round every year, even with Paul George, while Oscar at least won a Playoff series and took the Celtics to 7 games.
Paul George? LMAO. Oscar was getting shit on with Jerry ****ing Lucas and you want to bring up Playoff P? Sit down and don't think too hard, kid. You'll hurt yourself.

Even this season WB carried the absolutely terrible Wizards to the play-in games. The Wizards went 17-6 to close out of the season with WB averaging 23/14/14/2. This at a pace SIGNIFICANTLY slower than what Oscar played at.


They had him ranked very high because he was so ahead of his time, and it's not just the triple-double season, it's him averaging ~30 on more efficient numbers than West, Wilt or Baylor for the 60s. Wilt averaged 34.1 ppg on 54.5%TS from 60-69, Oscar averaged 29.7 ppg on 57%TS that decade. He was arguably the 2nd best scorer of his era, one of the best rebounders at his size and the best playmaker of that era as well. Westbrook is the best rebounding guard, but he's a sub-par scorer and not the best passer, nor someone you'd pick to have the ball in his hands at the end of the game.
So, only stats matter now, with no context? Make sure you bring the same energy to other topics. Especially the ones involving Kobe and LeBron.

With that being said, I'm going to assume that you barely watched WB play this season. Ask any Wizards fan how his passing has been. Dude was a complete monster and you'd know that if you watched the games.


Remember, when KD won MVP, the Thunder only won 1 less game than the year before, with Russ sitting out half the season.
Yes, I do. I also remember the Thunder being better with WB in the lineup that season. I also remember you Kobe turds hitching onto his wagon and then disappearing once they got embarrassed by the Spurs with KD playing well below his MVP level.


The 2016 Thunder went up against the two greatest shooters ever, while OKC was playing Roberson, Waiters, Westbrook and Steven Adams/Ibaka at the same time, that's 0 spacing. Russ was the main reason that they lost that Game 6. Westbrook had 3 straight turnovers in the last minute of that game, OKC was only down 3.
Wait. So, the 2nd greatest player of this generation couldn't beat two shooters? A player you said is KAJ's equivalent. A player who had a 3-1 lead in the series. Damn!

Anyways, from my previous post:

As for WB ****ing up close PO games, what about KD? The guy shot 35.5% in games 5 and 6. In the pivotal game 6, dude shot 1-7 for 4 points along with 2 TOV's and ZERO assists in the 4th Q. In G5, he was trash in the 4th Q and was a -6 for that quarter. WB was a +2 in a Q in which the Warriors outscored them by 5 points.

As bad as you think WB was in game 6, KD was even worse. KD was 1/7 in the 4th Q for 4 points and a -15. WB was 2/7 for 8 points and -14.


Jerry Lucas is not a "legit ATG", unless you think Paul George is as well.
You do know that Jerry Lucas was in the NBA's 50 greatest players list, right? Not to mention the FACT that Oscar had other All-Stars on his team.

[ImKobe]

LeBron ran into LeBron ****ing James at his PEAK when he made the Finals, you idiot. A player who is in conversation for GOAT and is cemented as a top 2 GOAT. A couple of seasons after that, KD bounced and joined the 73 win team that they lost to the previous seasons. WB was on shit teams after than and never had great help.

Without Harden AND KD? How much success did Kobe have without Shaq and Pau? Dude was getting wrecked in the first rounds or in the lottery. Context matters.

As I PROVED time and time again, Oscar was a glorified stat padder, who struggled to carry his teams to .500 records.


1. Curry won a ring before KD came to the Warriors.

2. Curry beat KD. :roll:

3. The Warriors were still an elite team without KD and with Curry.

"The Golden State #Warriors have now won 27 of their last 28 games when Stephen Curry plays and Kevin Durant sits."

https://twitter.com/TheDuelSports/status/1129422749309505536

https://i.postimg.cc/KYb8qT2t/D6xu-F22-Xs-AELh-W0.jpg


It's funny how you flip flop whenever it's convenient for your argument.

The Warriors finished off the Rockets in the WCSF WITHOUT KD and SWEPT the Blazers in the WCF (again WITHOUT KD).

Would've won the Finals as well, if Klay doesn't get injured.


The Thunder won:

2011 - 55 games

2012 - 58 games (made the Finals)

2013 - 60 games

2014 - 59 (61 win pace with WB in the lineup - 34 wins out of the 46 he played)

2015 - 45 games (the team was complete dog shit that season)

2016 - 55 games

Again, just a note that KD is not even remotely close to KAJ, who is the 3rd greatest player and is significantly better than KD.


Paul George? LMAO. Oscar was getting shit on with Jerry ****ing Lucas and you want to bring up Playoff P? Sit down and don't think too hard, kid. You'll hurt yourself.

Even this season WB carried the absolutely terrible Wizards to the play-in games. The Wizards went 17-6 to close out of the season with WB averaging 23/14/14/2. This at a pace SIGNIFICANTLY slower than what Oscar played at.


So, only stats matter now, with no context? Make sure you bring the same energy to other topics. Especially the ones involving Kobe and LeBron.

With that being said, I'm going to assume that you barely watched WB play this season. Ask any Wizards fan how his passing has been. Dude was a complete monster and you'd know that if you watched the games.


Yes, I do. I also remember the Thunder being better with WB in the lineup that season. I also remember you Kobe turds hitching onto his wagon and then disappearing once they got embarrassed by the Spurs with KD playing well below his MVP level.


Wait. So, the 2nd greatest player of this generation couldn't beat two shooters? A player you said is KAJ's equivalent. A player who had a 3-1 lead in the series. Damn!

Anyways, from my previous post:

As for WB ****ing up close PO games, what about KD? The guy shot 35.5% in games 5 and 6. In the pivotal game 6, dude shot 1-7 for 4 points along with 2 TOV's and ZERO assists in the 4th Q. In G5, he was trash in the 4th Q and was a -6 for that quarter. WB was a +2 in a Q in which the Warriors outscored them by 5 points.

As bad as you think WB was in game 6, KD was even worse. KD was 1/7 in the 4th Q for 4 points and a -15. WB was 2/7 for 8 points and -14.


You do know that Jerry Lucas was in the NBA's 50 greatest players list, right? Not to mention the FACT that Oscar had other All-Stars on his team.


Doesn't matter, OKC was favored in the Finals, right? Westbrook was hot trash in the first half of Game 2 (called out by Magic Johnson) and cost them Game 4 by intentionally fouling down 3 after a jump ball, didn't know they only had 5 seconds on the shot clock :facepalm.

Yes, the Warriors were loaded, and Durant was their best player in the Playoffs. Your point? Russ played with an MVP and the best scorer in the league and didn't win shit. Oscar won 59+ games every season with KAJ and got the championship.

I watch WB games regularly, he's great in the first 45 minutes, not so much in crunch time. His raw averages are fine, but the ORTG has never been higher in league history (highest ORTG all-time for the 5th straight seasons). Yes, the pace was higher in Oscar's era, but scorers were much less efficient, and it was much harder to pile up assist numbers, as your guy had to shoot right after the pass for it to count.

It's not just stats. Oscar has the better accolades and is considered by many the 3rd best player of the 60s after Russ & Wilt.

Warriors were huge favorites, but Steph Curry absolutely shat on Russ in the last 3 games. Also, it's funny how Games 5 and 6 are the only ones you mention from that series. What about Game 7? KD was lighting it up but only got 19 shots because Warriors could deny him the ball with the terrible spacing they had, Waiters was scared to shoot 3s and Westbrook went 7/21 and the Thunder were -10 in the 2 minutes KD rested.. Warriors had such a huge advantage in that series, OKC was essentially playing 3 on 5 on offense because the defenders could sag off Russ & Roberson.


Lucas & PG are both 7x All-Stars & 5x All-NBA, PG will likely make more All-Star games/All-NBA teams. He's a better scorer & defender than Lucas, he's had a better career. Great, Lucas was considered top 50 like 25 years ago, plenty of players have passed him since.

[aj1987]

Doesn't matter, OKC was favored in the Finals, right? Westbrook was hot trash in the first half of Game 2 (called out by Magic Johnson) and cost them Game 4 by intentionally fouling down 3 after a jump ball, didn't know they only had 5 seconds on the shot clock :facepalm.
Literally the only reason why the Thunder were even in the game in G4 was because of WB. WB absolutely torched the Heat. If it wasn't for him, they would've lost by over 20.

You bring up WB being "hot trash" in the first hald of G2, but funny how you ignored the FACT that KD was in fact even worse. This is why you're a joke and no one ever takes you seriously. WB has 9/2/3 on 10 shots and KD has 6/3/1 on 9 shots. KD had ZERO assists. One of the reasons why the Thunder lost was KD being absolute dog shit out outside scoring. A horrendous passer and defender.


Yes, the Warriors were loaded, and Durant was their best player in the Playoffs. Your point? Russ played with an MVP and the best scorer in the league and didn't win shit. Oscar won 59+ games every season with KAJ and got the championship.
Oscar played with KAJ and Oscar didn't run into arguably the GOAT, you autistic little child. Get that through your thick skull. As for 59 win seasons:

The Thunder won:

2011 - 55 games

2012 - 58 games (made the Finals)

2013 - 60 games

2014 - 59 (61 win pace with WB in the lineup - 34 wins out of the 46 he played)

2015 - 45 games (the team was complete dog shit that season)

2016 - 55 games

Again, just a note that KD is not even remotely close to KAJ, who is the 3rd greatest player and is significantly better than KD.


I watch WB games regularly, he's great in the first 45 minutes, not so much in crunch time. His raw averages are fine, but the ORTG has never been higher in league history (highest ORTG all-time for the 5th straight seasons). Yes, the pace was higher in Oscar's era, but scorers were much less efficient, and it was much harder to pile up assist numbers, as your guy had to shoot right after the pass for it to count.
That's what teammates are for. Not every single player performs every single minute of every single game. As for clutch stats, this is from this season:

"Russell Westbrook has the highest field goal percentage (57.1%) of any player in clutch situations (min. 50 FGA), which are defined by the final five minutes of regulation and overtime when the game is within five points."

Per 36 minutes of clutch time production, WB is averaging 31/11/8/2/1 on 50/35/80 this season. I'm not going to go through every single season, but during his MVP season, WB was a net +27.8 in the clutch, which resulted in a 28-11 record in close games. So yeah, there's that.

As for you ignoring pace, even if you want to go by the points teams scored, the average team scored 119 PPG during Oscar's triple double season. 106 PPG during WB's first triple double season. As for their respective teams, the Thunder were at 107 PPG and the Royals were at 123 PPG. That's a massive difference.


It's not just stats. Oscar has the better accolades and is considered by many the 3rd best player of the 60s after Russ & Wilt.
Two more All-NBA selections (one of which he's going to get this season) and a title and they'd have pretty much identical accolades. Well, put WB on a team with a KAJ level player and he's winning a title in his sleep.


Warriors were huge favorites, but Steph Curry absolutely shat on Russ in the last 3 games. Also, it's funny how Games 5 and 6 are the only ones you mention from that series. What about Game 7? KD was lighting it up but only got 19 shots because Warriors could deny him the ball with the terrible spacing they had, Waiters was scared to shoot 3s and Westbrook went 7/21 and the Thunder were -10 in the 2 minutes KD rested.. Warriors had such a huge advantage in that series, OKC was essentially playing 3 on 5 on offense because the defenders could sag off Russ & Roberson.
They wouldn't have needed a G7 if KD showed up in games 5 and 6. Dude had a 3-1 lead and took a massive shit. He was one of the main reasons as to why they lost that series.

Imagine LeBron taking 19 shots in an elimination game. You'd be spamming this board about how LeBron massively choked and quit. Same doesn't apply to KD, huh? Him quitting makes more sense as he literally joined the team that beat him.

You completely ignored the previous two games and want to focus on one in which WB was bad. The 2 games during which the Thunder could've closed out the Warriors and went to the Finals. The two games in which KD was utter trash.


Lucas & PG are both 7x All-Stars & 5x All-NBA, PG will likely make more All-Star games/All-NBA teams. He's a better scorer & defender than Lucas, he's had a better career. Great, Lucas was considered top 50 like 25 years ago, plenty of players have passed him since.
The only thing that PG has over Lucas is longevity. Better scorer? Lucas was putting up 22 PPG on 52% shooting. For his career, Lucas shot 50% from the field. PG averaged 43.6% for his career. 41.9% in the PO's with several massive chokes. Here's something fun for you to read:

"His outside shooting, which often extended past today's three point line, bewildered and changed defenses, as opponents were forced to send their big man 20 feet from the basket to guard Lucas. Lucas shot 51.2% from the floor that season, with many coming on what today would be three-point shots."

Also, from what all I have researched on Lucas, dude was a legit good defender. He anchored the Knicks' defense.

[ImKobe]

You have to be trolling at this point, right? Why are you comparing their FG%s like it means jack shit, when George is a volume 3PT shooter? George was a 28 ppg scorer that one year in OKC, and wanted out 1 year after signing his contract. Seems like every star's wanted to get away from Westbrook.


All the other shit, we've been over it 100x, I think this thread has run it's course. Westbrook is not on Oscar's level. He's not good enough as a scorer to warrant such a comparison. Not a top 5 player & scorer of his era like Oscar, not an NBA champion, prone to dumb mistakes and horrible shooting nights in the biggest games. Triple-doubles is the only reason he's mentioned in the same sentence, and Oscar did it without knowing what a triple-double was.

[Hamtaro CP3KDKG]

One of the most retarded threads ever

Imagine thinking Shitbrick is half the player of Oscar

Another big game playoff another guard sonning Shitbrick

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/E1uHjp_X0AEEx2V?format=jpg&name=large

[Thenameless]

KD was dominant right away too, what's your point? I didn't say he was better, just that he's on that ATG level that Kareem is as well as one of the greatest scorers/players we've ever seen, only 2nd to Lebron in the 2010s.

I don't know why idiots like AJ and you overlook the overall argument and just poke at the most random shit here. Westbrook played with the 2nd best player of his era with both in their primes, Oscar never had that luxury. He had Jerry ****ing Lucas while West had Baylor & Wilt and while Russell had Havlicek and Cousy. When he joined Kareem, he was on his way out of the league. That's the point here, not whether KD is better or equal to Kareem.

I agree that Oscar Robertson is better than Russell Westbrook. That's why I don't want you using weak arguments to support that fact by saying things like Durant is on Kareem's level. Kareem is at worst a Top 6 or 7 player all time and some even have him at 1, 2, or 3. Durant, at best, is in the next tier of players.

[ImKobe]

I agree that Oscar Robertson is better than Russell Westbrook. That's why I don't want you using weak arguments to support that fact by saying things like Durant is on Kareem's level. Kareem is at worst a Top 6 or 7 player all time and some even have him at 1, 2, or 3. Durant, at best, is in the next tier of players.

I already covered this. It's not about their achievements/all-time standing, it's about their ability and them being MVP-level players, I don't know why anyone would think I was talking about all-time rankings.

[aj1987]

I already covered this. It's not about their achievements/all-time standing, it's about their ability and them being MVP-level players, I don't know why anyone would think I was talking about all-time rankings.

That's not how it works, you low IQ numbskull. KAJ is still the GOAT for a lot of people. Durant is not in the same universe. Let me it dumb it down. Wade had MVP level Shaq in '05. However, that's not the same as Kobe having PEAK Shaq.


You have to be trolling at this point, right? Why are you comparing their FG%s like it means jack shit, when George is a volume 3PT shooter? George was a 28 ppg scorer that one year in OKC, and wanted out 1 year after signing his contract. Seems like every star's wanted to get away from Westbrook.
Can you read and comprehend basic English? Going by thread, I highly doubt it.

"His outside shooting, which often extended past today's three point line, bewildered and changed defenses, as opponents were forced to send their big man 20 feet from the basket to guard Lucas. Lucas shot 51.2% from the floor that season, with many coming on what today would be three-point shots."

Lucas wasn't sitting in the paint and spamming layups and dunks. :oldlol:


All the other shit, we've been over it 100x, I think this thread has run it's course. Westbrook is not on Oscar's level. He's not good enough as a scorer to warrant such a comparison. Not a top 5 player & scorer of his era like Oscar, not an NBA champion, prone to dumb mistakes and horrible shooting nights in the biggest games. Triple-doubles is the only reason he's mentioned in the same sentence, and Oscar did it without knowing what a triple-double was.

Hold the L and move. FACT is, Oscar was and is massively overrated as a player. I've proved it time and time again with STATS and FACTS. If you want to keep your head in the sand and ignore all that, that's on you.

[ImKobe]

That's not how it works, you low IQ numbskull. KAJ is still the GOAT for a lot of people. Durant is not in the same universe. Let me it dumb it down. Wade had MVP level Shaq in '05. However, that's not the same as Kobe having PEAK Shaq.


Can you read and comprehend basic English? Going by thread, I highly doubt it.

"His outside shooting, which often extended past today's three point line, bewildered and changed defenses, as opponents were forced to send their big man 20 feet from the basket to guard Lucas. Lucas shot 51.2% from the floor that season, with many coming on what today would be three-point shots."

Lucas wasn't sitting in the paint and spamming layups and dunks. :oldlol:



Hold the L and move. FACT is, Oscar was and is massively overrated as a player. I've proved it time and time again with STATS and FACTS. If you want to keep your head in the sand and ignore all that, that's on you.

Again, why are you arguing the all-time ****ing standings? Kareem played until his 40s, Durant's still adding to his resume. Kareem had 2 titles at KD's current age with 1 FMVP. KAJ played on superteams too, he only had 2 FMVPs, obviously he missed out on one because of his injury, but Magic deserved it for that performance he had anyways, at least to me.

I'll take 2019 PG over any version of Lucas. I believe he led the league in RAPM and averaged 32+ppg for almost a 3-month stretch. George took teams to the ECF and pushed peak Lebron to 7 games. He gets clowned for his poor shooting in the POs but Lucas wasn't great either.

There's no L to hold. Oscar is highly respected among his peers for a reason, he was a top 3 player of his era by any metric you want to put out there, Westbrook wasn't. Oscar didn't chase triple-doubles, nor did he know what they were. He was a much better scorer for his era than Russ. 29.7 ppg from on 57%TS from 60-69. Only Wilt averaged more points than him for that decade (34.1), but he wasn't as efficient (54.5%TS to Oscar's 57.1) and it didn't translate into the Playoffs (25.8 PPG on 52.6%TS to Oscar's 29.7 PPG on 56.6%TS).

Hate on past legends all you want, but all the evidence is in favor of Oscar. Westbrook is not even top 30 all-time, I'm not sure why you're riding for him so hard on this topic. He has nothing on Oscar but the amount of triple-doubles.