If you want to ignore all his achievements, he is. Twelve All Star games? Eleven All NBA selections? MVP?
Averaging a triple double over a season? Make the playofffs during that season? He made it to the Eastern finals averaging about 30 pts, 10+ rebounds and almost 10 assists. Sure he's a little bigger than Kidd at 6-5, but this is a major achievement. He was a leader for the Bucks when they won their only championship. He went to the finals later on too.
He won a gold medal during the '60 olympics. With a team which probably was even more dominant than the Dream Team.
And even with all that, you might ignore all his off court achievements (enduring rascism, taking the NBA to court, winning the case, helping the league get to where it's at now for players, fighting for their rights), and sure, call him overrated. Let's take his name off that 50 Greatest Ever List. Let's vote Kobe in. Or Maybe Reggie Miller.
If you ever happen to visit amazon.com or go to a American Bookstore (don't know if they've got those in Serbia?) buy The Big O. It's his own book. Good read.
1. I've never ever been to Serbia
2. He was not the leader of the Bucks that year, it was clearly Kareem and it's not like it was the case of Kobe and Shaq, Kareem had much better numbers and they had 2 more guys averaging over 15 ppg.
His stats were mind blowing but what he has done with his teams...not so much.
And from what I can read, he had some pretty good teammates.
My whole point is that perhaps his stats were much bigger than his overall impact.
I'm obviously just assuming since I wasn't able to watch him play but some people did so I'm just wondering..maybe it's him, maybe he had a bunch of Lamar Odoms..
Although I doubt I"ll get them to say anyting negative about Oscar since they all probably have the "good ol days" syndrome
He was not the leader of the Bucks that year, it was clearly Kareem and it's not like it was the case of Kobe and Shaq, Kareem had much better numbers and they had 2 more guys averaging over 15 ppg.
Actually he was a leader that season. You probably go by stats, and even then you can't deny. He was a floor general and he led by example too. I'd really like to see you make a case for Dandrige or McGlockling to be more of a leader or more important to teir championsquad than Oscar. Sure Kareem was there, he was their MVP (correct me if I'm wrong), but Oscar was a leader, undeniable.
Also, these years were during the later period of his carreer. When Osacr retired, the Bucks failed to make the play offs, while reaching the finals the year before. (Had to look that one up).
Actually he was a leader that season. You probably go by stats, and even then you can't deny. He was a floor general and he led by example too. I'd really like to see you make a case for Dandrige or McGlockling to be more of a leader or more important to teir championsquad than Oscar. Sure Kareem was there, he was their MVP (correct me if I'm wrong), but Oscar was a leader, undeniable.
Also, these years were during the later period of his carreer. When Osacr retired, the Bucks failed to make the play offs, while reaching the finals the year before. (Had to look that one up).
Please. Kareem averaged 31 ppg. Oscar averaged 19. They had other good guys too. Vocal leadership doesn't count.
If Kobe can get no credit for the Lakers rings even though he was a go to guy in clutch, had much better stats than Oscar and won more, then why should I give credit to Oscar who played on an even better team?
And how about all his years in Cincinnati? Not exactly the greatest records for someone with such dominant stats and guys that statistically seem to be pretty good.
Statistically, I think Oscar beats both Magic and Jordan. He probably averaged over 30 ppg, 10 apg and 9 apg in his first 6 years or so.
For someone that statistically dominant...his team records don't seem good at all and again, it does seem like he had good teammates.
When you compare their stats to the stats of the Pistons team that they've lost to in Oscar's 2nd season, it really isn't close.
It would seem like Oscar himself could beat them.
Please. Kareem averaged 31 ppg. Oscar averaged 19. They had other good guys too. Vocal leadership doesn't count.
If Kobe can get no credit for the Lakers rings even though he was a go to guy in clutch, had much better stats than Oscar and won more, then why should I give credit to Oscar who played on an even better team?
And how about all his years in Cincinnati? Not exactly the greatest records for someone with such dominant stats and guys that statistically seem to be pretty good.
Statistically, I think Oscar beats both Magic and Jordan. He probably averaged over 30 ppg, 10 apg and 9 apg in his first 6 years or so.
For someone that statistically dominant...his team records don't seem good at all and again, it does seem like he had good teammates.
When you compare their stats to the stats of the Pistons team that they've lost to in Oscar's 2nd season, it really isn't close.
It would seem like Oscar himself could beat them.
Ah another Kobe groupˇe with a double agenda. I can't believe I actually tried to make this into a quality tread.
You tried to make it into a quality thread? It's not even your thread in the first place, I just used Kobe to beat your argument about Oscar's leadership.
But what about Oscar in Cincinnati? That agenda too? No, I'm just wondering. Because from those stats, you can easily make a case from him as the g.o.a.t, he had god teammates statistically and yet his teams sucked more so than not. But yeah, chalk that up to agenda too.
How do non statistical forms of leadership not count? Ive heard Kareem praise Oscar a lot for his role in the title. Im willing to take his word for it.
Ive only seen one game of Oscars with the Bucks but he looked pretty important to me.
And as for Shaq, you don't have to laugh. 4 rings and 3 Finals MVP's.
His team has basically had only 1 season season below 50 wins and that was in his rookie year when they still won more games than Oscar did in a couple of his seasons...
I say basically because we can't count the lockout season and this year...well, Shaq is past his prime...but still we saw his impact when he returned. They were on pace for 50+ wins without their no 1 star.
How do non statistical forms of leadership not count? Ive heard Kareem praise Oscar a lot for his role in the title. Im willing to take his word for it.
Ive only seen one game of Oscars with the Bucks but he looked pretty important to me.
It doesn't count in the overall picture.
When people say the Lakers, they see Shaq the leader.
They don't see Derek Fisher, Brian Shaw, Rick Fox, Robert Horry and other vets that certainly had a lot of impact in that department.
Even Kobe isn't looked as a leader.
That's all I'm saying.
And my point isn't that Oscar wasn't important. I'm sure he was.
well, considering the top 5 was as i said jordan, wilt, kareem, russell, and robertson..and no magic johnson, the answer to your question is yes oscar is greater than magic
Quote:
And as for Shaq, you don't have to laugh. 4 rings and 3 Finals MVP's.
oscar was competing with, and was in the same conference as the best dynasty in the history of sports, who was shaq competing against? the sacramento kings?
Quote:
His team has basically had only 1 season season below 50 wins and that was in his rookie year when they still won more games than Oscar did in a couple of his seasons...
ever heard of these guys: penny hardaway, kobe bryant, dwyane wade?. cincinnati were playing boston 10 times in the regular season, in one of the toughest era's ever, shaq never won a title until jordan left the league, got swept out of the playoffs something like 6 of 7 appearences in the 90's, and even when he did win championships he was winning them against teams that would struggle to win 30 games in the 60's.
So, was Oscar Robertson overrated?
It's not even your thread in the first place, I just used Kobe to beat your argument about Oscar's leadership.
