Like us on Facebook


Follow us on Twitter





Page 4 of 10 FirstFirst ... 23456 ... LastLast
Results 46 to 60 of 142
  1. #46
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    HCA (Homecourt Advantage)
    Posts
    65,566
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by Hawkeye15 View Post
    I am not in the condition, nor mood, to have a discussion about the bolded, but I would love to have it with you at some point, I think you have a very good understanding of the game.
    What about against me?


    By ThaRegul8r
    Russell and Jordan in my opinion won the title everytime they were surrounded by enough talent that someone considered the greatest ever should win a title. Jabbar was surrounded by a very good Bucks team in 73 and failed to even make it past the Warriors. In 81 surrounded by a great Laker team he lost to the Rockets. In 83 surrounded by a great Laker team he was swept by the 76ers. I couldn't see this happening to Russell or Jordan.
    "Talent wins games, but teamwork and intelligence wins championships."
    - Michael Jordan

    Thanks MJ-Bulls for the picture.

  2. #47
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Miami Beach, FL
    Posts
    7,310
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by mightybosstone View Post
    Yeahhh.... That's a horrible argument, because you're just ignoring context. There weren't that many skilled 6' 5" guards in the 60s and there weren't nearly as many black players when Oscar first came into the league.
    oh ok, so basically you go by judging how many "skilled same height players with same physique" were playing during that era right? i wonder what you must think of kobe, jordan, magic, , lebron, SHAQ, kareem, wilt, and basically any player in the top 50 in nba history.
    very silly argument you have. the point is he got a triple double. end of discussion. give the guy credit.

    Quote Originally Posted by .
    Again, you're ignoring context, and the Lebron argument is a horrible one. The athletes of today are completely superior to athletes of the 60s, which is why Lebron's numbers are all the more astonishing. If Lebron did this in the 60s, it wouldn't be anywhere near as impressive.
    lol!!! why do you think the athletes of today are superior to the athletes of the 60s? im actually curious now. pls answer this question lol

    jesus christ, is it so hard to think that if he was playing during this era, that he would train with todays equipments, supllements, trainers, medical knowledge and advancements, and surgeries? lol


    Quote Originally Posted by .
    His teammates also said he was a hard *** that would rip you for making mistakes and that they were afraid to fail while playing with him. So, clearly he was respected, but I'm not sure he was liked or that he made his teammates better.

    And I know I keep ripping on O, but I just think the whole "He averaged a triple-double!" thing is totally overrated, just like Wilt's numbers. I respect titles in the 60s more than I respect the numbers, because it was a different game with far more possessions and far fewer black athletes.
    I see nothing wrong with ripping on your teammates for making mistakes. thats why he was respected by the players he played against.

    don't get me wrong, i am not saying he will average a trip dub in this era, but to dismiss it without looking at all the variables isn't fair.

    i also look at titles no matter what the era, but that is not the only thing I look at. individual wise it is hard to use titles as the only argument because that is a team accomplishment.
    I am not saying that the big o is a top 5 player or top 10, but what he did shoud be respected and not brushed off.
    what the big o did is phenomenal, i just feel we aren't giving him the benefit of the doubt.


    LETS GO HEAT




  3. #48
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Trinidad and Tobago
    Posts
    14,914
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by mightybosstone View Post
    I'm sorry dude, but that's ********. You honestly don't think Oscar's numbers would take a massive hit in today's NBA? The dude averaged 31/11/12 in 61-62 playing at a MUCH faster pace than in today's NBA with far more possessions and playing 44 minutes per game. In today's NBA, he'd be lucky to average 20/10/5.
    The only players to have done such were Magic (your #3 player of all time and the best PG ever), Chris Paul (statistically the best regular season by a PG ever) and Oscar himself. When you consider the fact that Oscar is one of the most efficient scorers in the history of the league relative to the era in which he played. I'd say 20/10/5 on stellar efficiency and + defense would easily make him a top 5 player in today's NBA and arguably top 3.

    So we're just supposed to ignore context completely because he put up freakish numbers? In that case, why aren't players in the 50s given more credit? Because you could argue George Mikan was a top 10 player all-time if you just looked at the numbers and ignored the fact that he was a 6' 10" center playing without a shot clock in an inferior league.
    Are we going to apply this thinking to every single player then? Wilt shouldn't be top 10, Russell shouldn't be as well, Baylor shouldn't be top 30 etc. I think you're losing the context of context.
    Last edited by Swashcuff; 10-29-2012 at 11:02 AM.

  4. #49
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Trinidad and Tobago
    Posts
    14,914
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by JordansBulls View Post
    What about against me?


    By ThaRegul8r
    JB everyone on that site knows ThaRegul8r infatuation with Russell. Hell most of those guys are infatuated with Russell. They overrate him greatly over there.

  5. #50
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Houston, TX
    Posts
    23,658
    vCash
    2502
    Quote Originally Posted by KnicksorBust View Post
    You are making my point for me. 20-10-5 production is the same today as 31/11/12 and would put him in the discussion with LeBron-Durant for the game's MVP.
    I said he's be extremely lucky to average that, and I don't necessariily think that puts him in the discussion. Deron Williams and Chris Paul have both put up similar numbers and never won an MVP.

    I'm asking you to do the exact OPPOSITE. Put players in the context of their peers. I'll give you a simple example. Babe Ruth is the best player of all-time because he hit more home runs in a season than other TEAMS. He was so far superior to his competition that we will never see that type of production again. In that same vein, Oscar Robertson averaged a triple double for an entire season. None of his peers were able to do that, and no one has done it since. That's historical. There's a reason why players from that era revere Oscar the player.
    But I still think you're missing the point. His peers were inferior athletes. And if you're going to make that argument, you have to do the same thing for guys like Mikan in the 50s.

    This is what makes arguing all-time NBA players so difficult, because there are so many factors involved that if you just looked at any one thing, you'd be completely ignoring something else. It's not an exact science.


  6. #51
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    2,736
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by realsportsfan1 View Post
    I was looking up Oscar Robinsons stats, and he averaged a triple double for a season once and almost did it 2 other times. I understand basketball wasn't as competitive as it is now, but he still deserves more credit. Why doesn't he get enough credit as he should?
    He's overrated more than underrated.

  7. #52
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Houston, TX
    Posts
    23,658
    vCash
    2502
    Quote Originally Posted by Swashcuff View Post
    Are we going to apply this thinking to every single player then? Wilt shouldn't be top 10, Russell shouldn't be as well, Baylor shouldn't be top 30 etc. I think you're losing the context of context.
    No, you guys aren't getting it. I'm not ONLY using the context to discount his numbers. OBVIOUSLY the numbers matter, and his spectacular stats should be taken into account. But that's not the whole story. Just like you have to put Mikan's numbers in perspective, you have to do the same with Wilt's and Oscar's.

    Like I said, this isn't an exact science, but I don't think you can simply take numbers at face value and say "Look how amazing this guy was!" without taking a step back and looking at why those numbers were so phenomenal to be begin with.


  8. #53
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    20,904
    vCash
    1000
    Quote Originally Posted by JordansBulls View Post
    What about against me?


    By ThaRegul8r
    That quote can easily be teared up because each player's level of "teammates good enough to win a championship" is different. How many HoFers did Russell play with?

    Quote Originally Posted by Swashcuff View Post
    The only players to have done such were Magic (your #3 player of all time and the best PG ever), Chris Paul (statistically the best regular season by a PG ever) and Oscar himself. When you consider the fact that Oscar is one of the most efficient scorers in the history of the league relative to the era in which he played. I'd say 20/10/5 on stellar efficiency and + defense would easily make him a top 5 player in today's NBA and arguably top 3.


    Are we going to apply this thinking to every single player then? Wilt shouldn't be top 10, Russell shouldn't be as well, Baylor shouldn't be top 30 etc. I think you're losing the context of context.
    Exactly. Even if we try and adjust his numbers to the modern ERA he's still an elite player. He was the most complete player in the NBA and a consensus type 5 player for a DECADE. He wasn't overrated.

    Quote Originally Posted by mightybosstone View Post
    I said he's be extremely lucky to average that, and I don't necessariily think that puts him in the discussion. Deron Williams and Chris Paul have both put up similar numbers and never won an MVP.


    But I still think you're missing the point. His peers were inferior athletes. And if you're going to make that argument, you have to do the same thing for guys like Mikan in the 50s.

    This is what makes arguing all-time NBA players so difficult, because there are so many factors involved that if you just looked at any one thing, you'd be completely ignoring something else. It's not an exact science.
    Yet many would argue Chris Paul should have an MVP? And Oscar still has one. LeBron gets to play everyday with inferior athletes. We don't hold it against him. People talk about Oscar and Wilt like they were mutations from Dimension X. They were extremely well-conditioned athletes who maximized their skills and deserve credit for that accomplishments not excuses.

  9. #54
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    39,383
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by Hawkeye15 View Post
    titles are overrated why attempting to rank individuals.
    Yes. Even more so when there were 8 or 9 teams in the whole league - which was true for most of Russell's years. Much easier to win titles when the there are two rounds, and only 2-3 actual competitors for a title.

    Another issue is that hardly anyone here saw the guy play. My first game I ever saw was Oscar in 1965, and he was all over the place. He mostly played on weak teams. Back then Centers dominated much more than today, and he didn't have a great one.
    Last edited by bagwell368; 10-29-2012 at 11:12 AM.


    6/27/09: “We expect [Rondo] to play by the rules and be a leader as a point guard. We need him to be more of a leader,” Ainge said. “There were just a couple situations where he was late this year, I don’t know if he was sitting in his car, but showed up late and the rest of the team was there. We have team rules and you have to be on time. He was fined for being late, he said he was stuck in traffic, and it’s just unacceptable.”

    Some jerks never learn.....

  10. #55
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Trinidad and Tobago
    Posts
    14,914
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by mightybosstone View Post
    No, you guys aren't getting it. I'm not ONLY using the context to discount his numbers. OBVIOUSLY the numbers matter, and his spectacular stats should be taken into account. But that's not the whole story. Just like you have to put Mikan's numbers in perspective, you have to do the same with Wilt's and Oscar's.

    Like I said, this isn't an exact science, but I don't think you can simply take numbers at face value and say "Look how amazing this guy was!" without taking a step back and looking at why those numbers were so phenomenal to be begin with.
    I know exactly what you're trying to say but you're faulting the player for the era in which he played and all I am saying is that this should be done across the board. Because Oscar averaged a triple double doesn't mean that he should be the only player to be viewed at from that POV.

    Even when Oscar's #s are adjusted for pace they are still quite respectable even in the context of best players ever. Of course he wouldn't be a 30/10/10 player but I think 23, 10 and 5 is quite logical for him. He was solid defensively, INSANELY efficient and despite the fact that he wasn't well liked by his teammates he was never hated by them. He always had their respect.

    I think those who are quick to say OMG he averaged a triple double he has to be top 10 overrated him greatly but for the most part he is accurately rated across the board as a top 15 player all time. Look at all the most current top 50/100 lists he's constantly found in that bracket.

  11. #56
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    39,383
    vCash
    1500
    I saw Russell play a lot from 1966-1969, and Hakeem or KG and plenty of guys in between would have chewed him up and spit him out.

    It's like being a very good Jr in HS who is the 2nd best player on his team, getting hauled back to play 8th grade travel - that's the competition Russell faced his first 3 years or so, by 1965 every team had a decent Center and Russell's offense was done.


    6/27/09: “We expect [Rondo] to play by the rules and be a leader as a point guard. We need him to be more of a leader,” Ainge said. “There were just a couple situations where he was late this year, I don’t know if he was sitting in his car, but showed up late and the rest of the team was there. We have team rules and you have to be on time. He was fined for being late, he said he was stuck in traffic, and it’s just unacceptable.”

    Some jerks never learn.....

  12. #57
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Houston, TX
    Posts
    23,658
    vCash
    2502
    Quote Originally Posted by KnicksorBust View Post
    Yet many would argue Chris Paul should have an MVP? And Oscar still has one. LeBron gets to play everyday with inferior athletes. We don't hold it against him. People talk about Oscar and Wilt like they were mutations from Dimension X. They were extremely well-conditioned athletes who maximized their skills and deserve credit for that accomplishments not excuses.
    But Chris Paul isn't spoken in the same conversation as top 10 all-time is Oscar? Why? Because he never put up freakish numbers like Robertson. And I think Paul could go down as one of the five greatest point guards to ever play the game.

    And I'm not making excuses for their accomplishments, simply putting them in context. Numbers without context are pointless just like titles and career accomplishments are pointless without averages and stats. At nowhere in any of my posts am I saying that Oscar wasn't one of the greatest players in NBA history. He most certainly cracks my top 15. I'd put him in the same category right now as Lebron, Moses and West in that 11-14 range.

    Since you put him at 11, you clearly agree with me. For example, compare his numbers to Hakeem or Kobe or Timmy. Clearly those numbers are better, and yet you put him behind those players. Why? Because you subconsciously were using context. Otherwise, Oscar would easily be a top 10 player and you could make a case for top five.

    Anybody who says they aren't discounting Oscar because of his era and lack of titles are kidding themselves. Because if you weren't, you would have him much higher on your lists...


  13. #58
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    20,904
    vCash
    1000
    Quote Originally Posted by bagwell368 View Post
    I saw Russell play a lot from 1966-1969, and Hakeem or KG and plenty of guys in between would have chewed him up and spit him out.

    It's like being a very good Jr in HS who is the 2nd best player on his team, getting hauled back to play 8th grade travel - that's the competition Russell faced his first 3 years or so, by 1965 every team had a decent Center and Russell's offense was done.
    But that's irrelevant. Hakeem and KG would have chewed up 98% of the players from that era. Does that mean none of them deserve credit for winning championships and MVPs? A season is a season. They still had contemporaries they had to play.

  14. #59
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Houston, TX
    Posts
    23,658
    vCash
    2502
    Quote Originally Posted by Swashcuff View Post
    I think those who are quick to say OMG he averaged a triple double he has to be top 10 overrated him greatly but for the most part he is accurately rated across the board as a top 15 player all time. Look at all the most current top 50/100 lists he's constantly found in that bracket.
    This is exactly what I'm trying to say in a nutshell. You and I are arguing the same thing, the only difference being that you're faulting me for trying to explain the context of why he's top 15 and not top 10.


  15. #60
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    20,904
    vCash
    1000
    Quote Originally Posted by mightybosstone View Post
    But Chris Paul isn't spoken in the same conversation as top 10 all-time is Oscar? Why? Because he never put up freakish numbers like Robertson. And I think Paul could go down as one of the five greatest point guards to ever play the game.

    And I'm not making excuses for their accomplishments, simply putting them in context. Numbers without context are pointless just like titles and career accomplishments are pointless without averages and stats. At nowhere in any of my posts am I saying that Oscar wasn't one of the greatest players in NBA history. He most certainly cracks my top 15. I'd put him in the same category right now as Lebron, Moses and West in that 11-14 range.

    Since you put him at 11, you clearly agree with me. For example, compare his numbers to Hakeem or Kobe or Timmy. Clearly those numbers are better, and yet you put him behind those players. Why? Because you subconsciously were using context. Otherwise, Oscar would easily be a top 10 player and you could make a case for top five.

    Anybody who says they aren't discounting Oscar because of his era and lack of titles are kidding themselves. Because if you weren't, you would have him much higher on your lists...
    Fair enough. We seem to been in the same range the whole time. I also think Chris Paul's biggest hindrance is that he still doesn't have that MVP or title credential. There's a reason why every player that we've mentioned in this discussion has a championship. Hell, if Stockton and Malone had beaten Jordan in 97/98 imagine the historical ramifications of that. Suddenly, Malone has a legit argument for passing Hakeem and it's a whole new ball game.

    Rings matter. MVPs matter. Oscar has both and anyone who says he's overrated needs to learn their history.

Page 4 of 10 FirstFirst ... 23456 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •