While I believe that there is reason for discussion.
yes there is room for discussion...a very brief discussion...is he top 5 all-time? or top 10? maybe stretch it to top 15. other than that, there's not much to discuss. he is, very simply, one of the GOAT
Players that played in his day and saw the game when he played said he is a very underrated defender, and yes, he really was that good of a basketball player.
Sad but true soccer. I don't know why its so wrong to even discuss this. Its like his place in history was proclaimed by the Pope on the Seat of Peter.
Once again, no one's trying to diss Oscar Robertson. Its absolutely OBVIOUS that he was a once in a lifetime athlete. The only thing i'm questioning is our basis for rankings now that all of this has been brought up. When we have discussed rankings on this board in the past, the majority of justifications for lower rankings has been team impact, championships, and playoff performance. This is why there is reason to at least question his stature and place in NBA history. I'm sure factors such as his heroic off court actions and the rare stats he put up have added to his overall legacy but if that is the case, we should be able to use these other factors when we rank players.
Garnett, a player with a pinch of team success, will definitely go down as one of the "freak" type players that we will never see again. Same goes with Iverson and Kobe because I believe that their games will never be witnessed again. Therefore, we should give them passes for things like bad management/bad teammates/competition (maybe not kobe since it is the consensus that he chose this path) for when they are ranked down the line. I know i'm gna get hanged for this but it is what I believe.
Glove, it's not about Kobe. Artificial, that's the whole thing, you're wrong. I'm just curious about Oscar. I didn't even have a stance before this thread, was just interested in how he can be so great yet have such a terrible team record.
Glove, now that Bucks argument is a good one. Seems like he really was THAT important to them. But let's face it, he was already a vet there. He didn't average more than 20 ppg.
It's definitely good to see that he meant so much to his team but the fact remains is that he was a 2nd guy there.
However, what I'm curious about are his years in Cincinnati.
As you can see, that's what these posts are mostly about.
He failed to lead them to the playoffs 5 times. Even when he got to the playoffs he wasn't really succesful there and his teammates had good stats.
Now, for someone that statistically dominant isn't safe to say that his impact wasn't quite on the level of his statistics and that something was wrong?
I mean, we can't say he was all that because he meant so much to the Bucks.
For someone that statistically dominant, isn't a given that his teams should be much better, more succesful in the playoffs, have more appearances in the playoffs?
Think about it. It's weird.
His stats were THAT dominant. Yet his teams weren't good even though they had good players. And just by his stats and status in history wouldn't you say that even as a one man team, his teams would be pretty damn good?
Yet, they were not..
I don't think that there is really an explanation for that.
See Lebron James and Cleveland Cavaliers....
decent team on paper and LBJ will get monster stats but...they really aren't that good. Lets see how long that's teh case and he stays around..
The greatest perimeter player in the game was only a champion when his running mate was teh 2nd best perimter player in the game...Mj had mediocre teams as well.
Also you ahve to take into account how training, treatment were different from today players just brokedown a lot earlier. He never heavily relied on his quickness but it changes teh calibre of player he was interms of being a scorer.
Also you ahve to take into account how training, treatment were different from today players just brokedown a lot earlier. He never heavily relied on his quickness but it changes teh calibre of player he was interms of being a scorer.
Really? I find that players break down much easier nowadays then they did before. There was true warriors back then, if a team didn't have at least 2 players playing 82 games everyone would be shocked, now though, everyone would be surprised if more then 10 players in the whole league played 82 games.
Really? I find that players break down much easier nowadays then they did before. There was true warriors back then, if a team didn't have at least 2 players playing 82 games everyone would be shocked, now though, everyone would be surprised if more then 10 players in the whole league played 82 games.
By breakdown I don't mean they don't play I mean they played with decreased mobility, sorta like Bird playing in pain and barely being able to run. Now players sit out and heal properly and have better treatment so they return from injury better and retain a great fluidity and athletcism for more of their playing career.
Sad but true soccer. I don't know why its so wrong to even discuss this. Its like his place in history was proclaimed by the Pope on the Seat of Peter.
Once again, no one's trying to diss Oscar Robertson. Its absolutely OBVIOUS that he was a once in a lifetime athlete. The only thing i'm questioning is our basis for rankings now that all of this has been brought up. When we have discussed rankings on this board in the past, the majority of justifications for lower rankings has been team impact, championships, and playoff performance. This is why there is reason to at least question his stature and place in NBA history. I'm sure factors such as his heroic off court actions and the rare stats he put up have added to his overall legacy but if that is the case, we should be able to use these other factors when we rank players.
Garnett, a player with a pinch of team success, will definitely go down as one of the "freak" type players that we will never see again. Same goes with Iverson and Kobe because I believe that their games will never be witnessed again. Therefore, we should give them passes for things like bad management/bad teammates/competition (maybe not kobe since it is the consensus that he chose this path) for when they are ranked down the line. I know i'm gna get hanged for this but it is what I believe.
The greatest perimeter player in the game was only a champion when his running mate was teh 2nd best perimter player in the game...Mj had mediocre teams as well.
I can understand not winning championships. I can't understand not making the playoffs for half of his career in Cincinnati when he was putting up all those monster stats.
5 outta 10 times in the playoffs, that's unimpressive to say the least.
But I've said the same thing over and over again.
This is a very legit reason to doubt Oscar. No one can say otherwise. Absolutley no one.
Yet Oscar being all that great is a very general consensus among people.
His legacy has been passed on from generation to generation, from kids in 70's to now kids 2000's and I don't expect much to change, even here but if anyone has open mindedly read this thread he certainly will see that if we put Oscar's career in perspective, there's plenty of reason to doubt him.
Of course, he is great. He's the only player in the league that averaged triple double for the whole season but yet, the main standard is winning and if a guy with those kind of stats missed the playoffs that much then I think there's reason to doubt his overall impact on his team.
One time is a coincidence, two times..oh well, it happens. But 5 outta 10 times? That's a gee bit too much.
Wow, another smart response from another touchy Laker fan.
You guys wouldn't survive 2 days in the real world, I mean, you cry if someone doesn't agree with your opinion. Booohooo.
I can understand not winning championships. I can't understand not making the playoffs for half of his career in Cincinnati when he was putting up all those monster stats.
5 outta 10 times in the playoffs, that's unimpressive to say the least.
But I've said the same thing over and over again.
This is a very legit reason to doubt Oscar. No one can say otherwise. Absolutley no one.
Yet Oscar being all that great is a very general consensus among people.
His legacy has been passed on from generation to generation, from kids in 70's to now kids 2000's and I don't expect much to change, even here but if anyone has open mindedly read this thread he certainly will see that if we put Oscar's career in perspective, there's plenty of reason to doubt him.
Of course, he is great. He's the only player in the league that averaged triple double for the whole season but yet, the main standard is winning and if a guy with those kind of stats missed the playoffs that much then I think there's reason to doubt his overall impact on his team.
One time is a coincidence, two times..oh well, it happens. But 5 outta 10 times? That's a gee bit too much.
But how many teams made the play-offs? It's not the same measuring stick as now or even in the 70's I don't think...I am too lazy to look it up but the amount of play-of spots are much more limited...I mean going to the play-offs every year isn't a big thing anyways if you always eliminated....Winning even one Championship as a main cog is signifigantly better than making the play-offs 10 straight years.
Sure what your saying has merit. Interms of how great are his stats or his Triple Double season etc. Were they really just the result of him having the rock a lot and playing on a mediocre team....That probably had alot to do with it...
but most of the greats did that for atime and they never put up tri dub's so it kinna puts him in a place where no one else is.....reason why he's remembered revered
Re: So, was Oscar Robertson overrated?
