Exposing Oscar Robertson

[AirJordan&Magic]

Did anyone watch oscar rebertson play?

Answer is, HELL NO.

The only person I truly believe that watched Oscar play on this site is Jlauber.

Anyways, though I have never really thought highly of Oscar in terms of all time rankings (Mainly due to his lack of team success and a few mediocre playoff performances), you simply cannot take away the kind of player he was.
I have seen some clowns say crap like "Oscar wouldn't make it to the Wnba", or even recently, and this is word for word "Lmao, Oj Mayo would run circles around this fairy"... Nothing but utter bs.

It's the same when I hear people diminish big men like Wilt Chamberlain and Kareem Abdul Jabbar (I remember someone on Espn saying Wilt would be a Samuel Dalembert if he played today)..... I'm not old timer or anything, but this disrespect for 60's and 70's players is beyond asinine.

To alot of these boneheads, because Oscar wasn't doing fancy ankle-breaking crossovers or trick reverse layups, he would be a scrub. They don't focus on the fundamentals of basketball.

[sh0wtime]

Versatility

When it comes to versatlity, the first name that often comes to mind is Magic Johnson. In today's game everyone marvels at the versatility of LeBron James.

You want versatility? Oscar Robertson not only averaged a triple-double for an entire season, he averaged a career triple-double for his 5 first years.

In fact, in his 10 years in Cincinnati, he averaged 29.3 points, 10.2 assists, and 8.5 rebounds per game while shooting 48.9 percent from the field.

How can a player with numbers like that be so overlooked? Well, for starters, he played for the Cincinnati Royals. To say the very least, that's a small-market team.

That's not only poor for getting exposure, but it's poor for attracting players to sign to the team, which is more than important for building a legit championship contender.

It's no coincidence that the players considered the greatest of all time almost all played for big-market teams, and almost all of those guys with multiple championships played in those major markets.

Championship Stumbling Block

Speaking of championships, that gets into one of the biggest reasons why "The Big O" is so underrated. He never won a ring in Cincinnati.

But the implications for punishing him for that is suggesting that it was his fault. Let's take a closer look at the seasons that Robertson had individually and what happened to his team via the postseason.

Career on Cincinnati Royals (10 Seasons)

1960—No postseason (30.5/10.1/9.7 on 47% shooting in regular season)
1961—Lost vs. Pistons (averaged 28.8/11/11 on 52% in postseason)
1962—Lost vs. Celtics (averaged 31.8/13/9 on 47% in postseason)
1963—Lost vs. Celtics (averaged 29.3/8.9/8.4 on 45% in postseason)
1964—Lost vs. 76ers (averaged 28/4.8/12 on 43% in postseason)
1965—Lost vs. Celtics (averaged 31.8/7.6/7.8 on 41% in postseason)
1966—Lost vs. 76ers (averaged 24.8/4.0/11.3 on 52% in postseason)
1967—No postseason (averaged 29.2/6/9.7 on 50% in regular season)
1968—No postseason (averaged 24.7/6.4/9.8 on 49% shooting in regular season)
1969—No postseason (averaged 25.3/6.1/8.1 on 51% shooting in regular season)

For starters, in the 1960 season, Robertson virtually averaged a triple-double but his team was not even good enough to qualify for the playoffs. Same for the stellar numbers he had in the 1968 and 1969 seasons.

Now how about the six times he took his team to the postseason?

His playoff averages in Cincinnati were 29.7 points, 9.3 rebounds, 9.4 assists per game while shooting 46 percent from the floor.

So it doesn't look like his level of play exactly dipped in the postseason. What's more telling than those eye-popping numbers is the eye-popping list of teams his squad ran into during those postseason trips.

If you noticed, for five of the six trips to the postseason, his team ran into one of two teams.

Either the Boston Celtics or the Philadelphia 76ers.

The same Boston team that is the epitome of the word "dynasty" in regard to sports, winning a whopping 11 championships in 13 years and making the NBA Finals in 12 of those seasons.

Then there is the Philadelphia 76ers, the one team to put an end to the eight-year streak of championships by Boston.

The same Philadelphia 76ers team that held the best record in NBA history before the 1996 Chicago Bulls broke that mark.

It was a loaded Philadelphia 76ers team, by far the best team Wilt Chamberlain ever played for, and, if it stayed intact, perhaps could have been a dynasty its own right.

Now this isn't to say that Robertson didn't have a supporting cast. But he ran into a couple of the most dominant teams of all time while, again, putting up numbers across the board in an effort to carry his team. Certainly a valiant effort.

But as we can see, there's certainly no rationale to punish Robertson along those lines.

Winning a championship is all about having a cast—something The Big O didn't really have until he went to Milwaukee, which was in the twilight of his career

But He Played So Long Ago...

Outside of the misconceptions about Robertson's lack of success in the postseason is the misconception that we often see with regard to evaluating players who played at any time before the advent of color television.

The notion that their game wouldn't translate into today's game. That's called chronological snobbery. It's fallacious logic.

Michael Jordan came into the NBA in 1984. That was over 25 years ago and similar to the pace of Oscar Robertsons team.

When we suggest Robertson, who played in the 1960s, wouldn't be good in the 1990s/2000s, we essentially imply that a 1980s version of Michael Jordan couldn't play in the NBA four or five years from now.

That includes the 1987-88 version of Jordan who:

•Won League MVP
•Won Defensive Player of the Year
•Won the Slam Dunk Contest
•Won All-Star Game MVP

•Scored 35 points per game with 5.5 rebounds, 5.9 assists, 3.2 steals, and 1.6 blocks per game, all while shooting a whopping 53 percent from the field
So using the rationale used against Robertson, we can establish that Jordan
would not be that elite player he was back then in this decade and especially beyond.

It's obviously a preposterous suggestion, but that's essentially what we suggest with chronological snobbery. Perhaps it only sticks out as absurd when it includes the player regarded by most as the greatest of all time. However, given the media hype machine that revolves around being prisoner of the moment, perhaps there will be people making those assertions.

Conclusion

It's just as foolish to suggest that the game and talent of Oscar Robertson wouldn't translate to the modern-day NBA as it is to say that a player who played in the 80s or 90s wouldn't make the same translation.

People can point out the league having better athletes today, but it can also just as easily be pointed out that advantages that actually benefit guards since Robertson's day. For example, the three-pointer, which opens up even more room to dish to teammates as well as score, or the hand check rule, which makes it even easier for players on the perimeter to get to the lane.

Am I saying Robertson is the greatest of all time? Not at all. But he deserves to be in the conversation of the all-time greats.

At the very least, The Big O should be more than just an answer to a trivia question.

http://m.bleacherreport.com/articles...er-of-all-time

[Javat_90]

its called reverse trolling

he might not be as bad as i made him look. but sometimes trashing someone unmercifully is the only way to get people to look up stuff for themselves. and in trying to prove me wrong. they prove me right... like the ones who say "he wasnt trash, he was above average. well you just proved my point

it works better than creating an unbiased positive argument.

???

Do you have to study in the Michigan State Troll University to get these terms or what?

[ThaRegul8r]

Great way to reduce his total game down to PPG.

The majority of people

[sh0wtime]

What you younglings also overlook and try to ignore is that being one of the greatest players of all time has also to do much with "Impact and Importance in NBA basketball".

The impact and importance Oscar Robertson had is arguably the biggest in NBA history. Basketball wise he created the term "Point-Forward" and made it possible to be an "untraditional PG", as in a big PG. Without him there would be no Magic Johnson or Penny or Jason Kidd or Pippen or Dwyane Wade or Michael Jordan or Lebron James and so on.

Sure those names would still existed, but the magnitude of those household names would not have been the same without Oscar Robertson and most of those players especially Magic Johnson and Lebron James would have been only strict Power-Forwards without Oscar Robertson......

What you younglings are doing is no different than discrediting the humans who were the ones inventing and creating the start of todays technology, because in comparasant to today they were minor right? Thats just stupid.

Also Oscar Robertson and his Free-Agency rule he created is a poignant reminder of our game's history and its tremendous evolution as a result of resolute pioneers like Oscar Robertson.

His contributions to professional basketball are second to none, as is his tremendous dedication to the well-being of former players. As a role model, both on and off the court, Oscar, one of the esteemed NBRPA Founders, continues to make a difference in our game - past, present and future.

Add a ridicilous basketball resume to boot and you got yourself a Top 5-10 player of all time. Speaking of his resume, yes he had not huge amount of rings, but rings are only team accomplishments, its not something one individual can manipulate with his skills & talent if he doesnt have the correct team.

Rings are hence like the icing on top of the cake, its the cake that will shape your career the most and Oscar Robertsons cake is unmatched.

[mcrd101]

1. 3 years from retirement he was the 3rd leading scorer on his team for his one and only ring

so because he wore down towards the end of his career he's not elite?

Shaq hasn't been his dominant self in years, id still say he's one of the best centers in league history. It's not like you'd judge MJ because of his time with the Wizards, or Willie Mays with his time with the Mets.

Robertson is better than Jordan in Assists Per Game Career(Robertson-9.5, Jordan-5.3) and Free throw percentage career (Robertson-.838, Jordan-.835), along with a comparable Shooting percentage (Robertson-.485, Jordan-.497)

I'm not saying Robertson is better than Jordan, but its not like Jordan, who many consider the best, at the very least 2 or 3, is WAY better than Robertson. That being the case, why shouldnt Robertson be considered top 5?

Also, the whole "he wasn't on a winning team," argument shouldn't be held against him as if it's like a top criteria. One guy alone can't bring a team to a championship. That's why LeBron couldn't win one in Cleveland, Kobe couldn't win one without Shaq or the supporting cast he has now(Artest, Pau Gasol, Lamar Odom, Andrew Bynum). There's other examples that show that to but my point still stands.

[get these NETS]

silly thread..


if you disagree, answer this question.


people say that the Big O only won with Alcindor (KAJ)....

how many rings did Kareem win between playing with O and playing with Magic?

[magnax1]

Just to put the stats into perspective, Oscar's 31-12-11 season ends up to be about 23-8-8 in late 80's early 90's pace.

[ShaqAttack3234]

I have mentioned this before, but I guess I have to go thru it again. This "PACE" argument is getting old.

No it's not, it helps put context with the stats so people aren't just comparing Oscar's triple double season with Lebron's 30/8/7 season or 30/7/9 season without taking into consideration that Oscar's teams got 35 more possessions a game. Not to mention Oscar playing 4-5 more mpg.

Furthermore, Oscar generally averaged between 20-23 FGAs in the prime of his career. Are we to believe that Oscar playing in 2011 would only be capable of getting 13-16 FGAs per game?

Lets put it this way. Put Oscar on Lebron's Cavs for example, if you give him 22.9 FGA, 11 FTA and 11.4 apg(not to mention several turnovers a game). He'd be using at least 43 or so possessions per game. Almost half of his team's possessions!

People say Lebron dominates the ball a lot, yet the most possessions he's used were around 38 in '06 when he was playing 42.5 mpg, 37-38 in 2008 when he was playing 40.4 mpg and around 37 in 2010 when he was playing 39 mpg.

So Oscar would be a lot more ball-dominant than Lebron(who people already claim is too ball dominant)?

And, then there is the one stat that is seldom brought up here...LEAGUE AVERAGE FG%. Oscar shot .478 in 61-62, in a league that shot .426. In his next season, he shot .518 in a league that shot .441. The FACT was, Robertson CONSISTENTLY shot way over the league average in his prime. Why is that important? Take Oscar's 61-62 season for example. Divide his .478 by .426, and mutliply it by MJ's '87 league average of .480. and he would have shot .539. Divide his .518 season by .441, and multiply it by .480 and he would have shot .564! Only Magic's .565 season has ever been greater by a PG, and Oscar was averaging over 30 ppg in the year in which he shot .518.

at this. Adjusting FG% up is funny and implies that defense was better in the 60's.

Ultimately, IMO, Oscar, and at his peak, would probably be a 30-8-10 .500+ shooter in TODAY's NBA...even adjusting for this poorly argued point of "pace."

In any case, I am getting so sick-and-tired of the PACE arguments against the great players of the 60's.

Of course context is something you don't want with these numbers. A difference of 35 or so possessions a game is extremely significant.

[Fatal9]

Especially funny because despite watching all their careers (allegedly), he had this to say about Oscar before he got all insecure about Wilt's era:

[QUOTE=jlauber]How many other basketball players could you say that about? Perhaps Russell would be another Ben Wallace, albeit a better passer...but that is not saying much. Sure, West, Robertson, and maybe a handful of others would be good players today, but all-stars?

[TootsieRoll]

hey dickwad, its double digit not double *didget*

haahaha... google it next time please.. im a total ass because im tootsie!

[Simple Jack]

So Griff, Kobe was a better player after that game 7 of the finals than before? I think we would all agree that wasn't one of Kobe's best games; in fact, it was probably one of his worst in the finals. But somehow, he became a better player after the game ended?

For the sake of argument, let's say you convinced yourself Kobe had a good game 7, so we can use another player. Lets call him Player A.

Player A, in the first situation, shoots 10/15, but loses the game due to a buzzer beater by the opposing team.

Now Player A, in the second situation, shoots 4/26, in an abysmal performance, but manages to win the game.

Somehow, Player A became better after the 2nd situation, because the game ended, than in the first because he failed tow in despite having a great game? 48 minutes of play, doesn't magically make you a better player. That's what you seem to be suggesting here.

[Eat Like A Bosh]

Oscar the Grouch lives in a trash can.

[madmax11]

Especially funny because despite watching all their careers (allegedly), he had this to say about Oscar before he got all insecure about Wilt's era:


http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/sho...7&postcount=53

i just read that regul8r post.damn man, does jlauber lie about everything??? i think he has several disorders and should get a check up or something. he might be related to wilt too. ya never know....

[AirJordan&Magic]

silly thread..


if you disagree, answer this question.


people say that the Big O only won with Alcindor (KAJ)....

how many rings did Kareem win between playing with O and playing with Magic?

Here this crap goes... I am defending Oscar in this thread, but why is it that people continue to use this "great pg" excuse as if Oscar was still a top player during his last days on the Bucks?... It's arguable he wasn't even the 3rd best player on the Bucks in his last season with them.