PDA

View Full Version : Why is Oscar Robinson so underrated?



realsportsfan1
10-29-2012, 12:54 AM
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?

Hawkeye15
10-29-2012, 12:55 AM
pace and role maybe..

b@llhog24
10-29-2012, 12:56 AM
I love the Big O but he's overrated. He literally wouldn't average those numbers in todays Nba.

LoveMeOrHateMe
10-29-2012, 12:57 AM
Titles he only won 1-2? If he would've won 4-5+ he would possibly be regarded as a top 5 player same reason why Karl Malone isn't regarded as the best pf and a top 10 player ever

LoveMeOrHateMe
10-29-2012, 12:57 AM
I love the Big O but he's overrated. He literally wouldn't average those numbers in todays Nba.

So you must think bill Russell is overrated as well right?

Hawkeye15
10-29-2012, 12:59 AM
So you must think bill Russell is overrated as well right?

yes he is.

Raps18-19 Champ
10-29-2012, 12:59 AM
So you must think bill Russell is overrated as well right?

For sure he's overrated. You can argue Bill shouldn't even be in the top 10.

Raps18-19 Champ
10-29-2012, 01:00 AM
Most players who played in 1960's and earlier don't get as much respect in general. I agree with the idea though.

realsportsfan1
10-29-2012, 01:05 AM
I agree

realsportsfan1
10-29-2012, 01:05 AM
For sure he's overrated. You can argue Bill shouldn't even be in the top 10.

I agree
:clap:

Hawkeye15
10-29-2012, 01:07 AM
titles are overrated why attempting to rank individuals.

JNA17
10-29-2012, 01:09 AM
Big O is one of only players from the 60s that I think would still maintain their greatness even in today's NBA. Wilt is also one of them. These guys weren't stiffs at all.

Guys like Bill Russell, Bob Cousy, etc. Not so much. Bill Russell for example would just end up being a good defending PF. Otherwise, that's pretty much it.

So to answer your question, yes Big O is underrated especially when people think Bill Russell>Big O when IMO, Bill Russell shouldn't even be regarded as a top ten player of all time.

BlueJayFanDan
10-29-2012, 01:12 AM
Who on earth is Oscar Robinson and why has no one noticed how much of a failure this thread title is? :laugh:

Raps18-19 Champ
10-29-2012, 01:12 AM
Big O is one of only players from the 60s that I think would still maintain their greatness even in today's NBA. Wilt is also one of them. These guys weren't stiffs at all.

Guys like Bill Russell, Bob Cousy, etc. Not so much. Bill Russell for example would just end up being a good defending PF. Otherwise, that's pretty much it.

So to answer your question, yes Big O is underrated especially when people think Bill Russell>Big O when IMO, Bill Russell shouldn't even be regarded as a top ten player of all time.

I think he'd still be really good, but I don't think he'd be as great as he is regarded now.

JNA17
10-29-2012, 01:17 AM
I think he'd still be really good, but I don't think he'd be as great as he is regarded now.

I don't think he would be able to average a triple double today for sure :laugh: . But the guy was ahead of his time in terms of athleticism, same thing with Wilt.

While I don't believe he would maintain those same numbers, I think he would still be able to hold his own as one of the greats in today's league.

mightybosstone
10-29-2012, 01:17 AM
I actually think Bill Russell is seriously underrated and Oscar Robertson (not Robinson like the OP wrote) is fairly overrated. Why? Because Russell was the greatest defensive player of his era, he dominated Wilt on a regular basis en route to 11 championships and his teammates loved playing with him (hell, he coached the team his final year!).

Oscar, on the other hand, was not particularly well liked by this teammates, and even though he put up crazy stats and played with great players (young Kareem in Milwaukee, Jerry Lucas and Jack Twyman in Cincinatti), the dude only won one ring. Why? I don't think he was the kind of guy who made his teammates better, but would rather throw you under the bus when things turned to ****.

Another reason I wouldn't put him higher is similar to why I won't put Wilt higher despite freakish numbers. They were both insane athletes that were a good 5-10 years ahead of their time in terms of size and athleticism for their positions. Oscar was a lightning quick 6' 5" PG playing in an era of short, slow 5'10" white dudes playing the position. If Oscar had come 10 years later, his numbers would be nothing by comparison.

Would Russell's numbers take a bit of a hit? Perhaps. But I think overall the results would be about the same and his defense and rebounding would still have been among the best of the 70s or early 80s.

Hawkeye15
10-29-2012, 01:22 AM
I actually think Bill Russell is seriously underrated and Oscar Robertson (not Robinson like the OP wrote) is fairly overrated. Why? Because Russell was the greatest defensive player of his era, he dominated Wilt on a regular basis en route to 11 championships and his teammates loved playing with him (hell, he coached the team his final year!).

Oscar, on the other hand, was not particularly well liked by this teammates, and even though he put up crazy stats and played with great players (young Kareem in Milwaukee, Jerry Lucas and Jack Twyman in Cincinatti), the dude only won one ring. Why? I don't think he was the kind of guy who made his teammates better, but would rather throw you under the bus when things turned to ****.

Another reason I wouldn't put him higher is similar to why I won't put Wilt higher despite freakish numbers. They were both insane athletes that were a good 5-10 years ahead of their time in terms of size and athleticism for their positions. Oscar was a lightning quick 6' 5" PG playing in an era of short, slow 5'10" white dudes playing the position. If Oscar had come 10 years later, his numbers would be nothing by comparison.

Would Russell's numbers take a bit of a hit? Perhaps. But I think overall the results would be about the same and his defense and rebounding would still have been among the best of the 70s or early 80s.

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.

LoveMeOrHateMe
10-29-2012, 01:23 AM
For sure he's overrated. You can argue Bill shouldn't even be in the top 10.

And I agree but championships have him top 5 player ever smh I certaintly wouldn't rank him in my top 10

He's probably the only player that I think is overrated because of rings his stats just aren't eye popping and especially in that era... Everyone else in the top 10 was pretty good on defense but offensively and play making wise everyone in the top 10> Russell

mightybosstone
10-29-2012, 01:26 AM
Big O is one of only players from the 60s that I think would still maintain their greatness even in today's NBA. Wilt is also one of them. These guys weren't stiffs at all.

Guys like Bill Russell, Bob Cousy, etc. Not so much. Bill Russell for example would just end up being a good defending PF. Otherwise, that's pretty much it.

So to answer your question, yes Big O is underrated especially when people think Bill Russell>Big O when IMO, Bill Russell shouldn't even be regarded as a top ten player of all time.

I seriously disagree with this assessment. If you put Wilt in today's NBA, I think he'd be a stiff compared to today's athletes and their speed. He couldn't just physically dominant today's big men like he did in the 60s and 70s.

And would Russell be an all-time great if you transported him to today's game? Probably not. I see him as a slightly less athletic Ben Wallace, but with a more offensive minded game and Steve Nash's will to win. He'd probably be a 15-10-2 guy, but a 15-10-2 guy you wouldn't want to **** with and you'd love to have on your team.

I would make the argument that guys like Wilt and Oscar were so great historically BECAUSE they were able to dominate inferior athletes of their time. But if you transported them into another era, they wouldn't have nearly the same impact.

Give me Russell or Jerry West any day over Wilt or Oscar.

thrice4
10-29-2012, 01:31 AM
All these underrated and overrated threads..... Who underrates him?

JNA17
10-29-2012, 01:45 AM
I seriously disagree with this assessment. If you put Wilt in today's NBA, I think he'd be a stiff compared to today's athletes and their speed. He couldn't just physically dominant today's big men like he did in the 60s and 70s.

And would Russell be an all-time great if you transported him to today's game? Probably not. I see him as a slightly less athletic Ben Wallace, but with a more offensive minded game and Steve Nash's will to win. He'd probably be a 15-10-2 guy, but a 15-10-2 guy you wouldn't want to **** with and you'd love to have on your team.

I would make the argument that guys like Wilt and Oscar were so great historically BECAUSE they were able to dominate inferior athletes of their time. But if you transported them into another era, they wouldn't have nearly the same impact.

Give me Russell or Jerry West any day over Wilt or Oscar.

I respectfully disagree.

Wilt benched pressed over 500 pounds during his time. Can you imagine that kind of strength in today's NBA where not many if ANY are that strong? Wilt was also a great track and field runner and was incredibly athletic given his size. It wasn't just his height that put him over the top. And that's not even counting what kind of training methods he would do in today's world.

Oscar Robinson was the most physical guard of his time and had the quickness and speed to boot. Just like Wilt at his position, Big O dominated with his sheer athleticism. That's not even covering the skills he had at his position to boot. Big O would EASILY be able to hold his own in today's NBA.

Jerry West I think as well would be really good for today's NBA but not because of his physical, but because of his dominate skill set. He was great because of him being probably the greatest pull up jump shooter ever. His skill set would still make him great today.

As for Russell, I like the comparison for a Ben Wallace lite. Although Ben Wallace also played center in today's NBA and was EXTREMELY physical and athletic. Bill Russell was 6-9 and 215 pounds. Ben Wallace was 6-9 and 245 pounds. Huge difference in weight and mass. While IQ wise, Bill would be great still, but I really doubt he would be able to hold his own simply due to how weak he would be trying to guard against bigger guys.

DODGERS&LAKERS
10-29-2012, 01:48 AM
I seriously disagree with this assessment. If you put Wilt in today's NBA, I think he'd be a stiff compared to today's athletes and their speed. He couldn't just physically dominant today's big men like he did in the 60s and 70s.

And would Russell be an all-time great if you transported him to today's game? Probably not. I see him as a slightly less athletic Ben Wallace, but with a more offensive minded game and Steve Nash's will to win. He'd probably be a 15-10-2 guy, but a 15-10-2 guy you wouldn't want to **** with and you'd love to have on your team.

I would make the argument that guys like Wilt and Oscar were so great historically BECAUSE they were able to dominate inferior athletes of their time. But if you transported them into another era, they wouldn't have nearly the same impact.

Give me Russell or Jerry West any day over Wilt or Oscar.

You can't just take a player from the past and put him in today's game without context. If that player from the past was able to train with today's equipment, supplements, trainers, doctors, and all the other advancements of today they would likely be as strong and fast as today's players.

If Kobe played in the 60's he would be retired by now. He said he was nearly bone on bone two years ago. Because of medical advancements he is still productive after all these years. I wish we could see what Wilt could do with today's advancements.

Same if we took a player from today and put him in the past. He would be working with free weights and without the proper nutrition regiment that has been discovered over time. Lebron and Dwight would not be the physical freaks that they are most likely.

DODGERS&LAKERS
10-29-2012, 01:52 AM
I respectfully disagree.

Wilt benched pressed over 500 pounds during his time. Can you imagine that kind of strength in today's NBA where not many if ANY are that strong? Wilt was also a great track and field runner and was incredibly athletic given his size. It wasn't just his height that put him over the top. And that's not even counting what kind of training methods he would do in today's world.

Oscar Robinson was the most physical guard of his time and had the quickness and speed to boot. Just like Wilt at his position, Big O dominated with his sheer athleticism. That's not even covering the skills he had at his position to boot. Big O would EASILY be able to hold his own in today's NBA.

Jerry West I think as well would be really good for today's NBA but not because of his physical, but because of his dominate skill set. He was great because of him being probably the greatest pull up jump shooter ever. His skill set would still make him great today.

As for Russell, I like the comparison for a Ben Wallace lite. Although Ben Wallace also played center in today's NBA and was EXTREMELY physical and athletic. Bill Russell was 6-9 and 215 pounds. Ben Wallace was 6-9 and 245 pounds. Huge difference in weight and mass. While IQ wise, Bill would be great still, but I really doubt he would be able to hold his own simply due to how weak he would be trying to guard against bigger guys.

We have to remember that the older players were measured without shoes. Russell today would be listed 6'11. His weight was what he was out of college. I'm sure he added more mass as he got older

jerellh528
10-29-2012, 01:59 AM
he is pretty underrated.
http://forums.prosportsdaily.com/showthread.php?t=768888

JNA17
10-29-2012, 02:01 AM
he is pretty underrated.
http://forums.prosportsdaily.com/showthread.php?t=768888

Oh god that thread. Good thing this site is small compared to others and this is just a minority. :facepalm:

Andrew32
10-29-2012, 02:09 AM
I agree.

He is one of the greatest offensive players in the history of the league imo and he was also a great defender.

He was incredibly skilled.
Offensively he had an elite jumper and he was great at slashing and taking players off the dribble.
He was also an excellent floor leader and passer/creator.

He was a thick/muscled 6,5 and extremely athletic.

From the 60's he is probably the #1 player in terms of ability to transition to this new era.
Not only does he have the size and athleticism but he also has the skillset and mindset.

A guy like Wilt had the athleticism but not the skill or proper mindset.
Oscar had both.

Even adjusting for pace I think he'd be putting up something like 25 / 5 / 7-8apg on 58+%TS in this new era.
I think that is a low estimate also.

Kind of like a Mini-Lebron but in more of a PG role (less ppg/more apg).

Steelers23_06
10-29-2012, 02:28 AM
i think the main reason he doesnt get recognition is because he only has 1 ring. it would be like durant winning only 1 ring. he would be rmembered but not as much as kobe or lebron (if he wins more). and for you fool saying bill s overrated you dont know basketball. and im not going to waste my energy explaining his greatness to you. i honestly feel bad for you as a basketball fan if you think bill is overrated

Aust
10-29-2012, 04:29 AM
I love the Big O but he's overrated. He literally wouldn't average those numbers in todays Nba.

Wilt wouldn't either but he continues to be overrated :shrug:

b@llhog24
10-29-2012, 06:47 AM
So you must think bill Russell is overrated as well right?

Horribly.

Citanoxeno
10-29-2012, 07:04 AM
The media is the only reason. The media was not as big then as it is now. Also how many people here are old enough to say who is overrated or underrated when most here didn't live back then to judge?

Raidaz4Life
10-29-2012, 08:22 AM
O-Rob is one of the most overrated players ever.

kingmatsundin
10-29-2012, 08:45 AM
It's Oscar ROBERTSON not Oscar Robinson....

Raidaz4Life
10-29-2012, 09:06 AM
Maybe he was suggesting that a duo of Oscar Robertson and David Robinson is underrated?

JasonJohnHorn
10-29-2012, 09:09 AM
People generally give him a lot of credit, especially guys who played with him. He was recognized as one of the best defenders of his generation, and also one of the best scorers and all-around players. Russell, Wilt and Kareem all said he was the best player they ever played with/against. And believe it or not, the league was VERY competative back then. There were fewer teams which meant there was a lot of talent on the teams that were there, and it wasn't like today where you have a bunch of games again teams like Charlotte, every game you were playing great teams.

The thing about the Big O is that he played PG, SG and SF, so people don't always now which position to rank him at. Generally he seen as the second best PG behind Magic, but there are people who put him at number one.

Some people might go on about how he only has one ring, but let us be honest, he was playing at a time when the Celtics and Lakers were just dominating the rest of the league. It was like trying to win a title in the 90's against the Bulls.


And a lot of young people discredit the stats of players from the 60's and 70's, in part because there were more possessions, and in part (and I don't agree) because they say the league was weaker then.

the biggest obstacle Oscar would have today is his size, because he would be able to play SF at his size the way he could then, even in J-Kidd and Rondo we see guys whose 6'3 can pull down 10 boards... it's just a question of can he do it every night?

mightybosstone
10-29-2012, 09:42 AM
I respectfully disagree.

Wilt benched pressed over 500 pounds during his time. Can you imagine that kind of strength in today's NBA where not many if ANY are that strong? Wilt was also a great track and field runner and was incredibly athletic given his size. It wasn't just his height that put him over the top. And that's not even counting what kind of training methods he would do in today's world.
Being strong and fast isn't enough to dominate in today's NBA. Javale McGee is a physical specimen, strong and fast and crazy athletic, for example. You have to be skilled in today's NBA to be effective, and I don't think Wilt's game would necessarily stand up to the test of time.


Oscar Robinson was the most physical guard of his time and had the quickness and speed to boot. Just like Wilt at his position, Big O dominated with his sheer athleticism. That's not even covering the skills he had at his position to boot. Big O would EASILY be able to hold his own in today's NBA.
You just made my point for me. He dominated because he was big and quick and physical. A 6' 5" PG 10 years later would not have touched a triple double. Hell, there's a reason why his numbers started taking a dive in his mid 20s. It's because more and more black athletes were coming into the sport and he wasn't able to completely dominate people like he did from 61-65. (And again, it's Robertson, not Robinson.)

mightybosstone
10-29-2012, 09:49 AM
Some people might go on about how he only has one ring, but let us be honest, he was playing at a time when the Celtics and Lakers were just dominating the rest of the league. It was like trying to win a title in the 90's against the Bulls.
You can make that argument early in his career (although he did play with great players in Cincinatti), but in the last four or five years, he had Kareem to play with and only earned one title. To me, that's inexcusable. That would be like if Kobe and Shaq had only won one title.


And a lot of young people discredit the stats of players from the 60's and 70's, in part because there were more possessions, and in part (and I don't agree) because they say the league was weaker then.
The league wasn't weaker in terms of talent distribution, but it was weaker in terms of athletes. In the early 60s especially, the lack of black players was a serious advantage to guys like Wilt and Oscar. There's a reason why Oscar's numbers took a dive after 65, and that's because of the influx of more black athletes to the sport.


the biggest obstacle Oscar would have today is his size, because he would be able to play SF at his size the way he could then, even in J-Kidd and Rondo we see guys whose 6'3 can pull down 10 boards... it's just a question of can he do it every night?
No way would he get 10 rebounds a game in today's NBA. Fewer possessions, taller players, stronger big men and more floor spacing with the 3-point shot would all contribute to this. He'd be lucky to average 6 boards a game in today's NBA.

Im_in_Mia_bish
10-29-2012, 09:55 AM
lol the comments on here are so funny.

OF COURSE ROBERTSON is overrated. Did anyone else in his era average a triple double during the regular season? nope. so the notion of "he wouldnt produce the same stats in todays NBA" is simple irresponsible and lazy.

As for the "he was big and phycial," that is as silly as saying LeBron's game is all athleticism, but disregard the fact that Josh Smith, Javale Mcgee, etc are nowhere near as dominant as lebron is.

The point is during big o's era, he was a dominant force, and people dont give him the credit that is due, and i am talking about the general public/media.

his teammates and peers during that era give him a lot of respect, however i feel the masses dont. clearly its an era thing, so not too worried about that.

mightybosstone
10-29-2012, 10:11 AM
OF COURSE ROBERTSON is overrated. Did anyone else in his era average a triple double during the regular season? nope. so the notion of "he wouldnt produce the same stats in todays NBA" is simple irresponsible and lazy.
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.


As for the "he was big and phycial," that is as silly as saying LeBron's game is all athleticism, but disregard the fact that Josh Smith, Javale Mcgee, etc are nowhere near as dominant as lebron is.
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.


his teammates and peers during that era give him a lot of respect, however i feel the masses dont. clearly its an era thing, so not too worried about that.
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.

KnicksorBust
10-29-2012, 10:15 AM
Maybe he was suggesting that a duo of Oscar Robertson and David Robinson is underrated?

:laugh:


You can make that argument early in his career (although he did play with great players in Cincinatti), but in the last four or five years, he had Kareem to play with and only earned one title. To me, that's inexcusable. That would be like if Kobe and Shaq had only won one title.


The league wasn't weaker in terms of talent distribution, but it was weaker in terms of athletes. In the early 60s especially, the lack of black players was a serious advantage to guys like Wilt and Oscar. There's a reason why Wilt's numbers took a dive after 65, and that's because of the influx of more black athletes to the sport.


No way would he get 10 rebounds a game in today's NBA. Fewer possessions, taller players, stronger big men and more floor spacing with the 3-point shot would all contribute to this. He'd be lucky to average 6 boards a game in today's NBA.


Wilt's numbers took a "dip" because he became obsessed with leading the league in assists and he wanted to win a championship. Not because more black players suddenly showed up. :rolleyes:

KnicksorBust
10-29-2012, 10:19 AM
In regards to the question, the Big O is underrated for the simple reason that he dominated the league a good 20-30 years than most of PSD was born. He and Wilt are arguably the only two players from that generation that wouldn't see a BIG drop in production if they are transported into the modern game yet people are too busy making up excuses to detract from the success of generations past.

"Stats from that era are inflated."
"Competition was weaker."
"There were no athletes."
"Players were smaller."

It's a joke. Everyone in the 60s was playing the same competition and he dominated. That's enough for me. Comparing across eras gets messy. Keep the players in the context of their peers and work from there. The Big O is a top 10 player of all-time.

mightybosstone
10-29-2012, 10:29 AM
Wilt's numbers took a "dip" because he became obsessed with leading the league in assists and he wanted to win a championship. Not because more black players suddenly showed up. :rolleyes:
That's actually a typo. I meant to say Oscar's numbers, not Wilt's. But the sheer fact that Wilt wanted to lead the league in assists shows you the guy's mentality and how huge his ego was. I'd take Russell over Wilt 9 times out of 10.


In regards to the question, the Big O is underrated for the simple reason that he dominated the league a good 20-30 years than most of PSD was born. He and Wilt are arguably the only two players from that generation that wouldn't see a BIG drop in production if they are transported into the modern game yet people are too busy making up excuses to detract from the success of generations past.
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.


It's a joke. Everyone in the 60s was playing the same competition and he dominated. That's enough for me. Comparing across eras gets messy. Keep the players in the context of their peers and work from there. The Big O is a top 10 player of all-time.
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.

And if you think Oscar is a top 10 player, which of the following players would you knock off the list to include him:
1. Michael Jordan
2. Kareem Abdul-Jabbar
3. Magic Johnson
4. Larry Bird
5. Bill Russell
6. Wilt Chamberlain
7. Tim Duncan
8. Hakeem Olajuwon
9. Shaquille O'Neal
10. Kobe Bryant

Swashcuff
10-29-2012, 10:35 AM
I'm in agreement with MBT it relation to Russell here on PSD. He's extremely underrated. Elsewhere though he's extremely overrated.

As for Oscar he's overrated by those who don't know how to put his career into perspective. I have him as a top 15 player all time which is right about where the masses do as well.

Swashcuff
10-29-2012, 10:42 AM
I actually think Bill Russell is seriously underrated and Oscar Robertson (not Robinson like the OP wrote) is fairly overrated. Why? Because Russell was the greatest defensive player of his era, he dominated Wilt on a regular basis en route to 11 championships and his teammates loved playing with him (hell, he coached the team his final year!).

Completely false. Wilt averaged 28 and 28 against him. That's not domination.


Oscar, on the other hand, was not particularly well liked by this teammates, and even though he put up crazy stats and played with great players (young Kareem in Milwaukee, Jerry Lucas and Jack Twyman in Cincinatti), the dude only won one ring. Why? I don't think he was the kind of guy who made his teammates better, but would rather throw you under the bus when things turned to ****.

I saw you speaking of context. Well let's put Oscar's career into context as well why don't we. Let's look at when the support came, what Lucass and Twyman did without Oscar who they played against.


Another reason I wouldn't put him higher is similar to why I won't put Wilt higher despite freakish numbers. They were both insane athletes that were a good 5-10 years ahead of their time in terms of size and athleticism for their positions. Oscar was a lightning quick 6' 5" PG playing in an era of short, slow 5'10" white dudes playing the position. If Oscar had come 10 years later, his numbers would be nothing by comparison.

:confused:

Well IMO if they played in another time they'd still be "ahead" of their time. They weren't insane athletes by chance they worked harder than damn near anyone in those days to get where they were at. Who is to say that had they played 10-15 years later they would not have done the same.

Sly Guy
10-29-2012, 10:45 AM
cuz no one on these boards was old enough to ever see him play?

KnicksorBust
10-29-2012, 10:49 AM
That's actually a typo. I meant to say Oscar's numbers, not Wilt's. But the sheer fact that Wilt wanted to lead the league in assists shows you the guy's mentality and how huge his ego was. I'd take Russell over Wilt 9 times out of 10.

I'd take Russell's career over Wilt's but give me Wilt the player. I read a great quote that said Wilt could have been Russell but Russell never would have been Wilt.


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.

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.


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.

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.


And if you think Oscar is a top 10 player, which of the following players would you knock off the list to include him:
1. Michael Jordan
2. Kareem Abdul-Jabbar
3. Magic Johnson
4. Larry Bird
5. Bill Russell
6. Wilt Chamberlain
7. Tim Duncan
8. Hakeem Olajuwon
9. Shaquille O'Neal
10. Kobe Bryant

Meh. Fine he's 11th.
1. Jordan
2. Kareem
3. Magic
4. Kobe
5. Russell
6. Bird
7. Duncan
8. Wilt
9. Shaq
10. Hakeem
11. Oscar

JordansBulls
10-29-2012, 10:52 AM
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.

Im_in_Mia_bish
10-29-2012, 10:53 AM
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.


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



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.

Swashcuff
10-29-2012, 10:53 AM
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.

Swashcuff
10-29-2012, 10:57 AM
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.

mightybosstone
10-29-2012, 11:00 AM
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.

thawv
10-29-2012, 11:03 AM
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.

mightybosstone
10-29-2012, 11:04 AM
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.

:facepalm: 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.

KnicksorBust
10-29-2012, 11:08 AM
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?


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.


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.

bagwell368
10-29-2012, 11:10 AM
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.

Swashcuff
10-29-2012, 11:10 AM
:facepalm: 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 (http://forums.prosportsdaily.com/showpost.php?p=24058279&postcount=97) 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.

bagwell368
10-29-2012, 11:15 AM
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.

mightybosstone
10-29-2012, 11:20 AM
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...

KnicksorBust
10-29-2012, 11:21 AM
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.

mightybosstone
10-29-2012, 11:23 AM
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.

KnicksorBust
10-29-2012, 11:25 AM
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.

KnicksorBust
10-29-2012, 11:26 AM
Swash, where do you rank Oscar?

Im_in_Mia_bish
10-29-2012, 11:26 AM
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...

i agree. but the reasoning behind yours was a little off, but im glad hes in your top 15, because he is in majority of ppl's top 15.

mightybosstone
10-29-2012, 11:32 AM
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.

They do matter and Oscar was undoubtedly a top 5 player for a decade. That, his stats and his ring are the reason he's a top 15 player all-time without a doubt in my mind. However, the fact that he only won one title in a league with so few teams and he played with so much talent really hurts him. It's easy to say "Oscar won a ring, so he's safe in that category." But he played with freaking Kareem for like four or five years in the 70s as the Lakers and Celtics were aging, yet won only one title in that time span. That has to account for something.

If Oscar does everything exactly the same, but he and Kareem win 3-4 titles together or if he had won a title in Cincinatti, he would have cracked my top 10 list. On the flip side, had he not won that title, he might fall out of the top 15 into the Barkley, Malone, Robinson category.

KnicksorBust
10-29-2012, 11:54 AM
Well great now we basically agree so now I can go back to thinking about how I'm bout to lose power and get hit by a Hurricane. We just HAD to compromise and have a honest, intellectual and respectful discussion? Thanks a lot MBT.

Andrew32
10-29-2012, 11:59 AM
Well great now we basically agree so now I can go back to thinking about how I'm bout to lose power and get hit by a Hurricane. We just HAD to compromise and have a honest, intellectual and respectful discussion? Thanks a lot MBT.

Where you live at?
I'm in Manhattan and we still good except I think the water is turned off.

KnicksorBust
10-29-2012, 12:00 PM
Central Jersey.

mightybosstone
10-29-2012, 12:00 PM
Well great now we basically agree so now I can go back to thinking about how I'm bout to lose power and get hit by a Hurricane. We just HAD to compromise and have a honest, intellectual and respectful discussion? Thanks a lot MBT.

I know. Sorry, dude. Next time I promise to curse a lot more, use way more caps lock and exclamation points and try to throw in a few offensive racial slurs if I can.

bagwell368
10-29-2012, 01:09 PM
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.

Sure. Both arguments are valid. I was responding to a poster that said Russell was overrated. I believe he was, I also believe his achievements are very impressive. Quality of competition also matters, and in the 60's you had a dozen terrific players but the average player and 12th men were laughable compared to even 1985. Just like 1952 was laughable compared to 1967.

Chronz
10-29-2012, 01:23 PM
Quality of competition also matters, and in the 60's you had a dozen terrific players but the average player and 12th men were laughable compared to even 1985. Just like 1952 was laughable compared to 1967.
Not quite, the changes in the game and its participants were much more drastic in 52 till then. I get what your trying to get across but cmon, thats giant reach.

Chronz
10-29-2012, 01:31 PM
Being strong and fast isn't enough to dominate in today's NBA. Javale McGee is a physical specimen, strong and fast and crazy athletic, for example. You have to be skilled in today's NBA to be effective, and I don't think Wilt's game would necessarily stand up to the test of time.
Javale gets pushed off the blocks by diminutive PG's, in this comparison that makes quite abit of difference. Besides, McGee is actually pretty productive if inconsistent. Where he struggles is from a 1 on 1 defensive standpoint and an inability to pass and beat doubles. Despite this McGee posts quasi-AllStar caliber numbers, now imagine a defensive beast and brilliant passer in his place. Wilt translates across the eras far easier than Russel so if you think not much changes for him, then the same must hold true for the man that actually faced the bridge that connects the 3pt era and the older era - Kareem.

Raps18-19 Champ
10-29-2012, 08:18 PM
Here's how I would view it if Bill Russell, Wilt Chamberlain and Oscar Robertson played in the last 2 decades.

Bill Russell = More disciplined Dennis Rodman
Wilt Chamberlain = Better Dwight Howard
Robertson = Not a clue. Maybe a better scoring prime Grant Hill?

Andrew32
10-29-2012, 08:42 PM
Wilt Chamberlain = Better Dwight Howard

Don't wanna disrespect Wilt but that might actually be a legit comparison.

He'd probably be an even better rebounder/defender assuming he accepted that role and didn't try to be a volume scorer.

I don't think Wilt had enough skill with his back to the basket to be an effective volume scorer in todays league.

Hawkeye15
10-29-2012, 08:45 PM
What about against me?
:)

By ThaRegul8r

I don't buy your arguments anymore, and I hope you don't take offense to that. You have conditions that are inconsistent at best.

AsfanSince99
10-29-2012, 08:47 PM
I love the Big O but he's overrated. He literally wouldn't average those numbers in todays Nba.

So? Wilt wouldn't avg 50 pts and 25 rebs p/gm either in today's NBA, but he wasn't forgotten as being a great player for his time.

Chronz
10-29-2012, 08:48 PM
Wilt would be a cross between Shaq and D-Rob with Bill Waltons passing.

Hawkeye15
10-29-2012, 08:51 PM
So? Wilt wouldn't avg 50 pts and 25 rebs p/gm either in today's NBA, but he wasn't forgotten as being a great player for his time.

Wilt would never average that in today's NBA.

Raps18-19 Champ
10-29-2012, 08:52 PM
Don't wanna disrespect Wilt but that might actually be a legit comparison.

He'd probably be an even better rebounder/defender assuming he accepted that role and didn't try to be a volume scorer.

I don't think Wilt had enough skill with his back to the basket to be an effective volume scorer in todays league.

When I said better Dwight Howard, I meant it in a way where he's have the same impact on defense the way Dwight does. He'd probably average more rebounds than Howard as well.

On offense is where they seperate. Wilt, in this era, would still probably be able to get nearly 30 PPG, so his offensive arsenal would be much better that Howard's would ever be. Wilt would also be a better passer than Dwight.

Swashcuff
10-29-2012, 08:53 PM
Swash, where do you rank Oscar?

Around about where you do as well. IMO he can be argued between 12-15 there about.

Raps18-19 Champ
10-29-2012, 08:53 PM
So? Wilt wouldn't avg 50 pts and 25 rebs p/gm either in today's NBA, but he wasn't forgotten as being a great player for his time.

Wilt would be posting like 25 and 15 in today's era. Not the 50 and 25 we are accustom to know him by but still amazing in its own right.

Raidaz4Life
10-29-2012, 08:54 PM
Why do people even compare Oscar to PG's? he was more of a combo guard than anything so comparing him to Chris Paul and Deron Williams isn't exactly conventional.


I'd consider him a much more efficient Russell Westbrook. Which doesn't warrant top 10 of all time imo.

Hawkeye15
10-29-2012, 08:54 PM
Around about where you do as well. IMO he can be argued between 12-15 there about.

please tell me you have him above Erving...

Chronz
10-29-2012, 08:57 PM
Wilt would never average that in today's NBA.

thats his point

Hawkeye15
10-29-2012, 08:59 PM
thats his point

yeaaaaaaaaaaaah, read it wrong...

Andrew32
10-29-2012, 09:06 PM
Wilt would be a cross between Shaq and D-Rob with Bill Waltons passing.
Why do you rate Wilt so highly as a passer?

Outside of 67-68 where he focused on garnering assists and wasn't relied upon as much to volume score his passing numbers are fairly pedestrian.

From 60-65 he had an AST% of 11.5%
From 69-73 he had an AST% of 10.7%

So... really he seems like an unimpressive passer/creator for most of his career except for two outlier years where he focused on getting assists and wasn't relied upon to score that much.

Not saying he wasn't a decent passer but I certainly wouldn't rank him above someone like Shaq in that regard.

HoodedSB
10-29-2012, 09:12 PM
Who on earth is Oscar Robinson and why has no one noticed how much of a failure this thread title is? :laugh:
:cricket:


I'm not much of a basketball fan, but c'mon. That is a name you should know.


edit: oh I see now, he put robinson, not robertson.

dtmagnet
10-29-2012, 09:17 PM
Because most fans never actually saw him play?

Chronz
10-29-2012, 09:18 PM
Why do you rate Wilt so highly as a passer?

Outside of 67-68 where he focused on garnering assists and wasn't relied upon as much to volume score his passing numbers are fairly pedestrian.

From 60-65 he had an AST% of 11.5%
From 69-73 he had an AST% of 10.7%

So... really he seems like an unimpressive passer/creator for most of his career except for two outlier years where he focused on getting assists and wasn't relied upon to score that much.

Not saying he wasn't a decent passer but I certainly wouldn't rank him above someone like Shaq in that regard.
You gotta think of those numbers for an era where assists were awarded less generously and for a guy whos playing 45-48 MPG in a fast pace system that some of those years where he wasn't getting much touches. I bet his assist ratios were incredible those years.

Swashcuff
10-29-2012, 09:22 PM
Here's how I would view it if Bill Russell, Wilt Chamberlain and Oscar Robertson played in the last 2 decades.

Bill Russell = More disciplined Dennis Rodman
Wilt Chamberlain = Better Dwight Howard
Robertson = Not a clue. Maybe a better scoring prime Grant Hill?

I hope you're kidding right now.

Bill Russell affect the game in more ways without the basketball ball than any other player in the history of the game. His DEFENSE (every single possible reasonable thinkable aspect of D you'd expect from your C) would win him more DPOY than he could put on his mantle, his leadership would be unparalleled, his IQ, outlet passing etc etc. He is wayyyyyy more than just a more disciplined Dennis Rodman.

Wilt is a wayyy better Dwight Howard with better passing/D and offensive game.

Andrew32
10-29-2012, 09:24 PM
You gotta think of those numbers for an era where assists were awarded less generously and for a guy whos playing 45-48 MPG in a fast pace system that some of those years where he wasn't getting much touches. I bet his assist ratios were incredible those years.

Fair enough.
That is a logical rebuttal.

I personally don't rate him that highly as a passer but I can't immediately think of a way to refute that argument.

Swashcuff
10-29-2012, 09:29 PM
please tell me you have him above Erving...

Yea he is

Longhornfan1234
10-29-2012, 10:12 PM
Lacks team sucess. His team weren't even contenders before Kareem. LOL @ one 50 win season. He won 1 championship as a second banana. He's not underrated at all.

1 MJ

2. Wilt
3. Kareem
4. Magic
5. Russell
6. Bird
7. Shaq
8. Kobe
9. Hakeem
10. Duncan
11. Moses
12. West
13. Oscar


10-15 is where he belongs.

Verbal Christ
10-29-2012, 10:21 PM
Oscar ROBERTSON was the only player to average a triple double for a season. How can you find room to hate on that and boast about "today's game" but what can you expect from those who can't even differentiate a last name.

mightybosstone
10-29-2012, 10:28 PM
Lacks team sucess. His team weren't even contenders before Kareem. LOL @ one 50 win season. He won 1 championship as a second banana. He's not underrated at all.

1 MJ

2. Wilt
3. Kareem
4. Magic
5. Russell
6. Bird
7. Shaq
8. Kobe
9. Hakeem
10. Duncan
11. Moses
12. West
13. Oscar


10-15 is where he belongs.
Wilt is about four spots too high and Kobe is two spots two high, but other than that, I like that list quite a bit.

PJAF
10-29-2012, 10:37 PM
No way is the big O overrated. If anything he is underrated. He is by far the greatest and top 5 of all time. Most fans today are too young to remember the Big O but I was a Cincinnati Royals fan back in the day and then a Milwaukee Bucks fan when Kareem was Lew Alcindor. Oscar gave up much of his game and played point guard on that championship Bucks team.

JordansBulls
10-29-2012, 10:39 PM
I don't buy your arguments anymore, and I hope you don't take offense to that. You have conditions that are inconsistent at best.

I think it is because there is absolutely no rebuttal for them.

JordansBulls
10-29-2012, 10:41 PM
Oscar was rated 11th on PSD

http://forums.prosportsdaily.com/showthread.php?t=635088

Andrew32
10-29-2012, 10:45 PM
Lacks team sucess. His team weren't even contenders before Kareem. LOL @ one 50 win season. He won 1 championship as a second banana. He's not underrated at all.

Yeah but are you familiar with his individual performances...?
It isn't like he was playing poorly in defeat.

Some of his playoff performances are pretty amazing and info I got while working on a POY project on another forum led me to believe that most of the time when his teams failed in the playoffs it was due to factors outside of his control and he "generally" got the most out of what he was given.

This is a team game and no matter how great an individual is the better team will always win.

Hawkeye15
10-29-2012, 10:48 PM
I think it is because there is absolutely no rebuttal for them.

not at all, only in your mind and set criteria. I have figured you out. You discard anyone who may potentially have a case for catching MJ, and pump up the ones who are done and have no chance.

b@llhog24
10-29-2012, 11:06 PM
For sure he's overrated. You can argue Bill shouldn't even be in the top 10.

I agree.


Who on earth is Oscar Robinson and why has no one noticed how much of a failure this thread title is? :laugh:

It really bothered you that much?


I don't buy your arguments anymore, and I hope you don't take offense to that. You have conditions that are inconsistent at best.

:pray: Finally! I have long given up on trying to understand JB.


So? Wilt wouldn't avg 50 pts and 25 rebs p/gm either in today's NBA, but he wasn't forgotten as being a great player for his time.

Nope.

Bos_Sports4Life
10-29-2012, 11:12 PM
Ok, I compare players to what they did against there era of competition..

With that said, I'd have Oscar in the 11th-13th range.

In no order (Russell/MJ/Bird/Magic/Kobe/Hakeem/Shaq/Duncan/Kareem/Wilt) would be my top 10.

Noticed 1 thing though, Russell appears to be very underrated. IMO he's a top 2 player in the history of the NBA.

Only 2 players never lost with HCA. Russell/MJ imo are mentally tough/Great work ethic/Made players around them better and were both obsessed with winning. Both also raised there game in clutch moments almost every time.

MJ/Russell have a combined 17 titles and 10 League MVP's.

mightybosstone
10-29-2012, 11:12 PM
I agree.

I'm sorry, but I cannot possibly understand anyone who doesn't put Bill Russell in the top 10. If you put Oscar and Wilt in the top 10 or even just Wilt, then Russell HAS to be there. The dude was by far the best player on a team that won 11 freaking titles in the same era as Wilt. How can Wilt possibly be in the top 10 and Russell not when Russell regularly and publicly humiliated Wilt on the biggest stage possible?

whitesoxfan83
10-29-2012, 11:13 PM
Who on earth is Oscar Robinson and why has no one noticed how much of a failure this thread title is? :laugh:

Hilarious that it took 13posts for someone to say this...

The NBA Forum is too funny.

He was so underrated because the people pointing out how underrated he was/is can't even spell his name.

Now that's underrated.

alexander_37
10-29-2012, 11:16 PM
Because 60% of people on PSD are 12 or have the mindset of a 12 year old.

alexander_37
10-29-2012, 11:17 PM
Lacks team sucess. His team weren't even contenders before Kareem. LOL @ one 50 win season. He won 1 championship as a second banana. He's not underrated at all.

1 MJ

2. Wilt
3. Kareem
4. Magic
5. Russell
6. Bird
7. Shaq
8. Kobe
9. Hakeem
10. Duncan
11. Moses
12. West
13. Oscar


10-15 is where he belongs.

:laugh:

Swashcuff
10-29-2012, 11:36 PM
Ok, I compare players to what they did against there era of competition..

With that said, I'd have Oscar in the 11th-13th range.

In no order (Russell/MJ/Bird/Magic/Kobe/Hakeem/Shaq/Duncan/Kareem/Wilt) would be my top 10.

Noticed 1 thing though, Russell appears to be very underrated. IMO he's a top 2 player in the history of the NBA.

Only 2 players never lost with HCA. Russell/MJ imo are mentally tough/Great work ethic/Made players around them better and were both obsessed with winning. Both also raised there game in clutch moments almost every time.

MJ/Russell have a combined 17 titles and 10 League MVP's.

Sell me on something.

How did Russell make those around him better? I am not saying he doesn't I'd just like to hear you POV on it.

b@llhog24
10-29-2012, 11:38 PM
I'm sorry, but I cannot possibly understand anyone who doesn't put Bill Russell in the top 10. If you put Oscar and Wilt in the top 10 or even just Wilt, then Russell HAS to be there.

Oscar isn't in my top 10. I believe Russell skill-set wouldn't translate as well as Wilts does. Regardless Wilt individually dominated his era in ways Russell could only dream off. Too one dimensional for my taste.


The dude was by far the best player on a team that won 11 freaking titles in the same era as Wilt. How can Wilt possibly be in the top 10 and Russell not when Russell regularly and publicly humiliated Wilt on the biggest stage possible?

Humiliated? I wouldn't call it that. Russell's teams won because Red knew how to manage player minutes (which was a foreign concept back then), he played with multiple HOFs, there was no player movement back then.

mightybosstone
10-29-2012, 11:54 PM
Oscar isn't in my top 10. I believe Russell skill-set wouldn't translate as well as Wilts does. Regardless Wilt individually dominated his era in ways Russell could only dream off. Too one dimensional for my taste.
I'm sorry to say this, but to some extent, **** the "translation" argument. You have to provide context to some level, but the translation argument is horrible in a lot of aspects. If you literally had a time machine, went back in time and grabbed Wilt and Russell and then brought them to today's NBA, NEITHER guy's numbers or impact would be the same. It's a completely different style of play played with superior athletes that they wouldn't be able to handle.

You know what WOULD translate, though? Russell's smothering defense, crisp pacing, high basketball IQ and will to win. And if you had two rosters of equal talent in today's NBA and placed the two guys on either teams to face each other, you know whose team would win in a seven game series? Russell's. And that's why it's ridiculous to put Wilt in the top 10 and not Russell.

History's just not fair to Russell when you think about it. Imagine today's NBA. Suppose Kobe and Lebron faced each other seven times in the playoffs over a decade with both guys being the alpha dogs and Kobe beat Lebron six of those seven times. SIX OF SEVEN!!! Now imagine that in their careers, Kobe had 11 rings and Lebron had two. ELEVEN TO TWO!!!!!

What do you think NBA analysts, fans and the media would say about Kobe and Lebron, regardless of who put up bigger stats? They would say that Lebron was the inferior player. It wouldn't matter that he had the two rings and all the stats. People would only remember him getting destroyed in the postseason. Period.

Yet people don't look at the Wilt, Russell argument that way. And it's complete ********.

b@llhog24
10-30-2012, 12:07 AM
I'm sorry to say this, but to some extent, **** the "translation" argument. You have to provide context to some level, but the translation argument is horrible in a lot of aspects. If you literally had a time machine, went back in time and grabbed Wilt and Russell and then brought them to today's NBA, NEITHER guy's numbers or impact would be the same. It's a completely different style of play played with superior athletes that they wouldn't be able to handle.

I'm not talking translation as in carrying all the athletes who played in the 60s to this era. Just Wilt and Russell. Wilt was the superior individual player/athlete then and he would be today.


You know what WOULD translate, though? Russell's smothering defense, crisp pacing, high basketball IQ and will to win.

I probably underrate him to be honest, but let me pass a question unto you. Even if he was afforded all the advances in medical science, coaching, training, nutrition, etc. Where would he rank today as a player? Transcendence means something to me. I try to rank players based on their given level of individual dominance in their era. But being able to "successfully" transcend eras is a plus to me.


And if you had two rosters of equal talent in today's NBA and placed the two guys on either teams to face each other, you know whose team would win in a seven game series? Russell's. And that's why it's ridiculous to put Wilt in the top 10 and not Russell.

I respectfully disagree. The whole "will to win" argument honestly rubs me the wrong way sorry. It's fairly subjective. To continue, let's break down the individual skillets that each player has:

Both are plus rebounders
Good/Great passing big Men.
Ace defenders with Russel having the edge on Wilt in this one.
Offensively however it's not close, Wilt's was ability to anchor an offense is a trait Russel simply does not posses. So to me he brings your team closer to a contention than a player like Russell would.



History's just not fair to Russell when you think about it. Imagine today's NBA. Suppose Kobe and Lebron faced each other seven times in the playoffs over a decade with both guys being the alpha dogs and Kobe beat Lebron six of those seven times. SIX OF SEVEN!!! Now imagine that in their careers, Kobe had 11 rings and Lebron had two. ELEVEN TO TWO!!!!!

What do you think NBA analysts, fans and the media would say about Kobe and Lebron, regardless of who put up bigger stats? They would say that Lebron was the inferior player. It wouldn't matter that he had the two rings and all the stats. People would only remember him getting destroyed in the postseason. Period.

Yet people don't look at the Wilt, Russell argument that way. And it's complete ********.

Don't mean Jack squat to me. LeBron is the better player regardless of how many rings Kobe has.

mightybosstone
10-30-2012, 12:19 AM
I probably underrate him to be honest, but let me pass a question unto you. Even if he was afforded all the advances in medical science, coaching, training, nutrition, etc. Where would he rank today as a player? Transcendence means something to me. I try to rank players based on their given level of individual dominance in their era. But being able to "successfully" transcend eras is a plus to me.
But transcendence is 100 percent subjective. There's no way to prove that Wilt would be more successful in today's NBA than Russell. You're basing your argument off of a complete hypothetical and I'm basing mine on fact.


I respectfully disagree. The whole "will to win" argument honestly rubs me the wrong way sorry. It's fairly subjective.
Normally I would agree with you, but Russell beat Wilt's teams six of seven times in the postseason and won 11 rings to Wilt's two, which completely validates my point. If Wilt gave a **** about winning titles or team accomplishments, his team would have won more titles.


Both are plus rebounders
Good/Great passing big Men.
Ace defenders with Russel having the edge on Wilt in this one.
Offensively however it's not close, Wilt's was ability to anchor an offense is a trait Russel simply does not posses. So to me he brings your team closer to a contention than a player like Russell would.
You know what a better comparison would be than the Kobe/Lebron comparison? David Robinson and Hakeem Olajuwon. Hakeem was one of the craftiest offensive players in history and one of the greatest defensive players ever. However, Robinson's numbers eclipse Hakeem's and it's no secret that he was the better offensive player.

But Hakeem won two titles as the alpha dog and Robinson won none. And when Robinson earned his only MVP trophy, Hakeem went into his house and absolutely crushed him, reminding everyone that he was the superior basketball player.

That's why the "Who is the better offensive player" argument is totally ******** and you can't simply ignore head-to-head matchups.


Don't mean Jack squat to me. LeBron is the better player regardless of how many rings Kobe has.
I think you're missing the point. I also think Lebron is the better basketball player. But forget the names for a second. If I said "Player X has superior stats to Player Y, but Player Y matches up with Player X and beats his team six of seven times in the playoffs and wins 11 titles to only two for Player X and more MVPs," then who was the better player?

To me, it's Player Y.

b@llhog24
10-30-2012, 12:41 AM
But transcendence is 100 percent subjective. There's no way to prove that Wilt would be more successful in today's NBA than Russell. You're basing your argument off of a complete hypothetical and I'm basing mine on fact.

True but like you said this isn't an exact science comparing players who played in different eras. Basically we are all making a subjective read on these players based on stats, articles, hear say, and the limited amount of footage that we have to work with based on the fact that most of us sans Bagwell and probably llemon haven't seen them play live. I don't act as if my opinion is absolute, anybody is free to disagree with it to be honest, but I do find it to be fairly logical. Also still waiting on you to answer the whole "where would he rank in todays Nba."


Normally I would agree with you, but Russell beat Wilt's teams six of seven times in the postseason and won 11 rings to Wilt's two, which completely validates my point. If Wilt gave a **** about winning titles or team accomplishments, his team would have won more titles.

You think Wilt didn't want to win titles? By all accounts I've read he was a fierce competitor maybe not the same type of beast that Russell was in that aspect (throwing up before games, playing mind-tricks with himself) but he was a competitor nonetheless. Kareem never struck me as a guy who wanted to win as badly as Kobe or Bird but I certainly don't penalize him for it.


You know what a better comparison would be than the Kobe/Lebron comparison? David Robinson and Hakeem Olajuwon. Hakeem was one of the craftiest offensive players in history and one of the greatest defensive players ever. However, Robinson's numbers eclipse Hakeem's and it's no secret that he was the better offensive player.

But Hakeem won two titles as the alpha dog and Robinson won none. And when Robinson earned his only MVP trophy, Hakeem went into his house and absolutely crushed him, reminding everyone that he was the superior basketball player.

The gap talent wise between Hakeem and Robinson isn't as apparent to me as the one between Bill and Wilt. I have Hakeem ranked around 5 whereas Robinson makes my top 10. My rankings aren't career based btw. It's who I feel is the better player.


That's why the "Who is the better offensive player" argument is totally ******** and you can't simply ignore head-to-head matchups.

I don't know any curse words that long.


I think you're missing the point. I also think Lebron is the better basketball player. But forget the names for a second. If I said "Player X has superior stats to Player Y, but Player Y matches up with Player X and beats his team six of seven times in the playoffs and wins 11 titles to only two for Player X and more MVPs," then who was the better player?

I'd say Play Y had the better team.


To me, it's Player Y.

You're entitled to believe whatever you want to man.

Bos_Sports4Life
10-30-2012, 01:27 AM
Sell me on something.

How did Russell make those around him better? I am not saying he doesn't I'd just like to hear you POV on it.

Few ways, these are the biggest 2 imo.

#1- His overall defense.

Much like how KG/TD make players play better defense/Look a bit better than they really are on the defensive end, Russell obviously did that and on a much larger scale.

His Help defense was also legendary, The Quickness of a guard and the blocking ability of a C.

#2- His overall leadership/Intensity. I saw first hand how KG could change a whole team culture almost overnight. Russell I'm sure did the same.


Few other reasons

* While he had a bad shooting touch, His passing was Very good.

* 6 of the 12 title teams were either last or 2nd to last in FG%, They relied on volume scoring a lot and who gave those teams the opportunity to win with volume scoring being an option? Russell

Blocked shots, Stealing/Risk taking in general became much easier with Russell im Sure forcing even more turnovers.

People that don't have him in the top 5 make me shake my head

KB-Pau-DH2012
10-30-2012, 01:40 AM
Who is Oscar Robinson?


Anyways, the fact that he doesn't get much recognition is because his only title came thanks due to the dominance of a guy by the name of Lew Alcindor in just his 2nd season in the league. You know, the guy who was League MVP as a rookie the yr before?

Andrew32
10-30-2012, 01:48 AM
Who is Oscar Robinson?


Anyways, the fact that he doesn't get much recognition is because his only title came thanks due to the dominance of a guy by the name of Lew Alcindor in just his 2nd season in the league. You know, the guy who was League MVP as a rookie the yr before?

Oscar was the clear cut leader of that team and the orchestrator of the offense.

Please don't underestimate his value to that team.

That team was not deep at all it was just a tremendous two man punch.

While Oscar didn't win without Kareem Kareem never won without Oscar or Magic.

Bos_Sports4Life
10-30-2012, 01:54 AM
I respectfully disagree. The whole "will to win" argument honestly rubs me the wrong way sorry. It's fairly subjective.


Subjective? I dissagree..

Wilt was obsessed with stats, He himself admited he wasn't as obsessed with winning as Russell. He was also a me first guy, Focused on HIM...Not the Team.


Heres a few of MANY quotes proving this..


"I don't want to rap Wilt because I believe only Russell was better, and i really respect what Wilt did. But I have to say he wouldn't adjust to you, You had to adjust to him"- Jerry West

"Wilt was too consumed with records: being the first to lead the league in assists, or to set a record for field goal %. He'd accomplish one goal, than go on to another. Russell only asked one question: 'What can I do to make us win?"- Jerry Lucas

Wilt Chamberlain (in.Wilt): “To Bill [Russell] every game一every championship game一was a challenge, a test to his manhood. He took the game so seriously that he threw up in the locker room before almost every game. But I tend to look at basketball as a game, not a life or death struggle. I don’t need scoring titles or championships to prove that I’m a man. There are too many other beautiful things in life一food, cars,girls, friends, the beach, freedom一to get that emotionally wrapped up in basketball. I think Bill knew I felt that way, and l think he both envied and resented my attitude. On the one hand, I think he wished he could learn to take things easier, too; on the other hand, I think he mayhave felt that with my natural ability and willingness to work hard, my teams could have won an NBA championship every year if l was as totally com-mitted to victory as he was. . .. I wish I had won all those championships,but I really think I grew more as a man in defeat than Russell did in vic-tory.”


Offensively however it's not close, Wilt's was ability to anchor an offense is a trait Russel simply does not posses. So to me he brings your team closer to a contention than a player like Russell would.



The fact remains however, Wilt's teams had more success when Wilt played a Russell type Role.


In raw talent/Stength? Wilt has Russell beat. But Russells smarts/Will to win ect made him the better player imo.

KB-Pau-DH2012
10-30-2012, 01:57 AM
Oscar was the clear cut leader of that team and the orchestrator of the offense.

Please don't underestimate his value to that team.

That team was not deep at all it was just a tremendous two man punch.

While Oscar didn't win without Kareem Kareem never won without Oscar or Magic.

I'll give him credit as he won the chip in his first yr in Milwaukee, but his assist numbers to a young and dominant Kareem were actually the lowest of his career as he was declining.

8.2
7.7
7.5

Chronz
10-30-2012, 02:24 AM
Sell me on something.

How did Russell make those around him better? I am not saying he doesn't I'd just like to hear you POV on it.

Do you think he did?

Longhornfan1234
10-30-2012, 10:31 AM
:laugh:

:confused:

Gram
10-30-2012, 10:33 AM
Is it Robinson? I've been calling him Robertson for 20 years.

Swashcuff
10-30-2012, 10:34 AM
Do you think he did?

Defensively? Yes. I also think he was a good leader and a motivator (from what I have read and heard others who played with/against him say) so in those regards yes. I'm not too certain of how he impacted them on the offensive end however.

dh144498
10-30-2012, 10:36 AM
have people actually watched Russell, Wilt and Oscar play? Seems to me they are just looking up stats on basketballreference.

Swashcuff
10-30-2012, 10:47 AM
have people actually watched Russell, Wilt and Oscar play? Seems to me they are just looking up stats on basketballreference.

Actually no many of us have watched film (I did a ****load during the lockout), read, listened and research the players in every possible. Some of us are well learned and are open to learning even more.

b@llhog24
10-30-2012, 12:21 PM
Actually no many of us have watched film (I did a ****load during the lockout), read, listened and research the players in every possible. Some of us are well learned and are open to learning even more.

I swear the whole "were you alive to appreciate them play" argument irritates the living **** out of me. It's almost like saying you don't know whether or not Abraham Lincoln wasn't a good president because you weren't alive during the Civil War.

Swashcuff
10-30-2012, 12:45 PM
I swear the whole "were you alive to appreciate them play" argument irritates the living **** out of me. It's almost like saying you don't know whether or not Abraham Lincoln wasn't a good president because you weren't alive during the Civil War.

What absolutely infuriates me about the whole old enough to watch thing is that age does not equal knowledge. There is a guy in the LeBron thread who has claimed to be watching the game for 30 years now and said LeBron is the least talented star player he has ever seen and that Bron has no jumper and a horrible post game. Now tell me does his age make him a better judge of talent than me? I'm turn 23 tomorrow and I would never speak such bull**** since I actually took the time to understand the game and its players as best as I can. I'm not the only one who's like that however. There are many others who are more knowledgeable than I am and younger than I am who know what they are looking at. That guy does NOT.

dh144498
10-30-2012, 12:49 PM
I swear the whole "were you alive to appreciate them play" argument irritates the living **** out of me. It's almost like saying you don't know whether or not Abraham Lincoln wasn't a good president because you weren't alive during the Civil War.


The whole "alive to see them play" are aimed towards the people who claim that people like Wilt, russell, or Big O would completely get destroyed in today's league. How would you possibly know that unless you actually saw them play? That whole adjusted for pace crap is also only claimed by 1 dimensional thinkers. You don't just compare 2 sets of stats by adjusting for pace across eras then summarize who was a better player.

btw your Lincoln analogy is terrible. You don't have to have lived in the 1800s to know that Lincoln singlehandedly saved the United States. That's history, it's a fact. But if you say, "if Lincoln was a president in the 2000s, then he'd be a great/terrible president," is more analogous towards what people on here are talking about.

dh144498
10-30-2012, 12:55 PM
What absolutely infuriates me about the whole old enough to watch thing is that age does not equal knowledge. There is a guy in the LeBron thread who has claimed to be watching the game for 30 years now and said LeBron is the least talented star player he has ever seen and that Bron has no jumper and a horrible post game. Now tell me does his age make him a better judge of talent than me? I'm turn 23 tomorrow and I would never speak such bull**** since I actually took the time to understand the game and its players as best as I can. I'm not the only one who's like that however. There are many others who are more knowledgeable than I am and younger than I am who know what they are looking at. That guy does NOT.

that's much different than judging a player from just watching a few clips and looking at stats. That's his opinion, and i don't personally agree with him as well, but it is what it is. But at least he has watched players like Jordan, Magic, Kareem and Bird to form his opinion.

I just think the best way to judge/compare players (especially across eras) is to actually watch them for alot of their careers. That is why I never get into serious conversations about players prior to the 80's. Only way I can discuss is to google stuff about it, hoping it's true, but in reality I have no thoughts of my own in the matter and that's just regurgitating what other people wrote. That's just a waste of time and redundancy.

Swashcuff
10-30-2012, 01:04 PM
that's much different than judging a player from just watching a few clips and looking at stats. That's his opinion, and i don't personally agree with him as well, but it is what it is. But at least he has watched players like Jordan, Magic, Kareem and Bird to form his opinion.

You can take the politically correct way of someone having their opinion I'll be real and call bull**** when I see it. His opinion is biased and holds no water since its clear that he has no logical way of assessing the player (s) without letting his ignorance shine through.

I don't just watch clips. I watch the entire games that were available. JB posted links they were/are all over youtube their are many channels that you'd see entire games form the 70s and 80s. I've researched the actual paper written articles that were uploaded to the internet with post game reports. Guess what I read some of those reports. I read biographies, seeked the opinion of those older than I am who actually know how to assess players (like Chronzm Hawkeye15 and Bagwell) and continued to soak in as much knowledge about the topics as I possibly can.

I am not the only one to do this though. Many of us have done the very same.


I just think the best way to judge/compare players (especially across eras) is to actually watch them for alot of their careers. That is why I never get into serious conversations about players prior to the 80's.

I'm sure if you do enough research you'd actually be able to accurately compare players across various eras accurately enough not to sound like a complete ignoramus (like the dude in the other thread). All you need to do is be as rational, logical and knowledgeable as possible on the topic. It becomes MUCH easier then.


Only way I can discuss is to google stuff about it, hoping it's true, but in reality I have no thoughts of my own in the matter and that's just regurgitating what other people wrote. That's just a waste of time and redundancy.

So you're trying to tell me facts can't change your mind? Quotes from coaches, other players, the player themselves, analysts, post game reports, columns etc can't change your mind? :speechless:

Swashcuff
10-30-2012, 01:07 PM
The whole "alive to see them play" are aimed towards the people who claim that people like Wilt, russell, or Big O would completely get destroyed in today's league. How would you possibly know that unless you actually saw them play? That whole adjusted for pace crap is also only claimed by 1 dimensional thinkers. You don't just compare 2 sets of stats by adjusting for pace across eras then summarize who was a better player.

btw your Lincoln analogy is terrible. You don't have to have lived in the 1800s to know that Lincoln singlehandedly saved the United States. That's history, it's a fact. But if you say, "if Lincoln was a president in the 2000s, then he'd be a great/terrible president," is more analogous towards what people on here are talking about.

Okay Bagwell saw them play, he saw them play more than anyone else on this forum posting right now, however he also uses pace in his arguments is he a one dimensional thinker?

You really miss the point and you're seeing one demensional if you think that those who use pace (Hawkeye15, Chronz, myself, KoB, MBT etc) don't apply context.

dh144498
10-30-2012, 01:17 PM
Okay Bagwell saw them play, he saw them play more than anyone else on this forum posting right now, however he also uses pace in his arguments is he a one dimensional thinker?

You really miss the point and you're seeing one demensional if you think that those who use pace (Hawkeye15, Chronz, myself, KoB, MBT etc) don't apply context.

I didn't clearify when I mentioned that whole 1 dimensional thinking part. I was referring to the ones who say something like: "Oscar might have avged triple doubles for entires season, but if you adjust for pace, he's more like a 20-6-6 type of player in today's league. So Lebron is clearly a much better player than him because 28-8-7 > 20-6-6."
I was referring to these people whose only way of comparison is by stats alone and think adjusting pace across eras is clearly a great way of comparing past and present players as well.

dh144498
10-30-2012, 01:32 PM
You can take the politically correct way of someone having their opinion I'll be real and call bull**** when I see it. His opinion is biased and holds no water since its clear that he has no logical way of assessing the player (s) without letting his ignorance shine through.

I don't just watch clips. I watch the entire games that were available. JB posted links they were/are all over youtube their are many channels that you'd see entire games form the 70s and 80s. I've researched the actual paper written articles that were uploaded to the internet with post game reports. Guess what I read some of those reports. I read biographies, seeked the opinion of those older than I am who actually know how to assess players (like Chronzm Hawkeye15 and Bagwell) and continued to soak in as much knowledge about the topics as I possibly can.
I am not the only one to do this though. Many of us have done the very same.


I wasn't trying to dispute anything about that. I was just saying he at least has some sort of knowledge about past players to form his own thoughts, however blasphemous.


I'm sure if you do enough research you'd actually be able to accurately compare players across various eras accurately enough not to sound like a complete ignoramus (like the dude in the other thread). All you need to do is be as rational, logical and knowledgeable as possible on the topic. It becomes MUCH easier then.

Of course. But stats are just stats, they don't tell the whole story. I'm not saying you can't form a rough estimate of how good a player is by merely looking at snippets of research. But you can't deny that the BEST way to judge a player is to actually watch him on the court.



So you're trying to tell me facts can't change your mind? Quotes from coaches, other players, the player themselves, analysts, post game reports, columns etc can't change your mind? :speechless:

No, but it's all within context like you mentioned. Those quotes are just other people's eye accounts/opinions as well so you can't be too gullible.

Swashcuff
10-30-2012, 01:37 PM
I didn't clearify when I mentioned that whole 1 dimensional thinking part. I was referring to the ones who say something like: "Oscar might have avged triple doubles for entires season, but if you adjust for pace, he's more like a 20-6-6 type of player in today's league. So Lebron is clearly a much better player than him because 28-8-7 > 20-6-6."
I was referring to these people whose only way of comparison is by stats alone and think adjusting pace across eras is clearly a great way of comparing past and present players as well.

I can speak for myself and I'm sure Hawk has no problem with me speaking for him that we sure as hell don't subscribe to that belief.

Stinkyoutsider
10-30-2012, 02:08 PM
The passage of time. That's why he's underrated. I mean, all of the greatest players back in the day aren't looked at as being as good then as they are today. Older people have just as much respect for big O that we have for a guy like Lebron and other multidimensional players.

I think in about 15 or 20 years, we'll all be older and the new generation of fans will look at Durant, Rose, and other superstars that we have now and underrate them.

Swashcuff
10-30-2012, 02:09 PM
I wasn't trying to dispute anything about that. I was just saying he at least has some sort of knowledge about past players to form his own thoughts, however blasphemous.

And his thoughts could be wrong. When I was younger and first started watching Allen Iverson I thought he was a great defensive player because of his stealing the basketball and tried to model my game after it. When I started played basketball at a level higher than at our local park I got benched because I wasn't playing the type of D the coach wanted me to play. I then realized that A.I. wasn't as good defensively as I thought he was. Stealing the basketball is only one part of D.

Moral of the story is your viewpoint generally changes as you get older (in most cases wiser). If it doesn't then you really didn't learn jack ****.



Of course. But stats are just stats, they don't tell the whole story. I'm not saying you can't form a rough estimate of how good a player is by merely looking at snippets of research. But you can't deny that the BEST way to judge a player is to actually watch him on the court.

There isn't a person who would ever be able to judge every player then.


No, but it's all within context like you mentioned. Those quotes are just other people's eye accounts/opinions as well so you can't be too gullible.

If I read a report of the breakdown and analysis of exactly how a quarter, half, game, series went down you're trying to tell me that I am being gullible? I think we're all just wasting our time posting on this forum because we're all being gullible.

Your eyes are more correct than mine you know and mine aren't more correct that yours we see things differently. What you need to understand it really matters not if you saw the players play or not its what you saw and what will determine what you saw is your knowledge and understanding of the game and even so you're still going to be biased.

Our eyes are biased we all have different viewpoints and it doesn't make us more correct than someone who didn't see. Seeing the game and knowing the game are two totally different things.

Lakers + Giants
10-30-2012, 02:17 PM
Can a mod please change Robinson to Robertson. Seriously, what a fail.

KNICKS R BACK
10-30-2012, 02:24 PM
hes not underrated at all, you are just like 12 years old

BKdoubleStacker
10-30-2012, 02:29 PM
I respectfully disagree.

Wilt benched pressed over 500 pounds during his time. Can you imagine that kind of strength in today's NBA where not many if ANY are that strong? Wilt was also a great track and field runner and was incredibly athletic given his size. It wasn't just his height that put him over the top. And that's not even counting what kind of training methods he would do in today's world.

Oscar Robinson was the most physical guard of his time and had the quickness and speed to boot. Just like Wilt at his position, Big O dominated with his sheer athleticism. That's not even covering the skills he had at his position to boot. Big O would EASILY be able to hold his own in today's NBA.

Jerry West I think as well would be really good for today's NBA but not because of his physical, but because of his dominate skill set. He was great because of him being probably the greatest pull up jump shooter ever. His skill set would still make him great today.

As for Russell, I like the comparison for a Ben Wallace lite. Although Ben Wallace also played center in today's NBA and was EXTREMELY physical and athletic. Bill Russell was 6-9 and 215 pounds. Ben Wallace was 6-9 and 245 pounds. Huge difference in weight and mass. While IQ wise, Bill would be great still, but I really doubt he would be able to hold his own simply due to how weak he would be trying to guard against bigger guys.

he did not bench press 500 lbs

dh144498
10-30-2012, 02:39 PM
he did not bench press 500 lbs

he also banged 20k women.

Chronz
10-30-2012, 02:45 PM
he did not bench press 500 lbs

He was benching 465 in 1997

Chronz
10-30-2012, 02:46 PM
he also banged 20k women.

That was to sell books, a claim he would later regret and isnt verified by multiple eye witnesses.

b@llhog24
10-30-2012, 04:00 PM
The whole "alive to see them play" are aimed towards the people who claim that people like Wilt, russell, or Big O would completely get destroyed in today's league. How would you possibly know that unless you actually saw them play?

So we're not allowed to have an opinion on a player if we've never seen him play LIVE?


That whole adjusted for pace crap is also only claimed by 1 dimensional thinkers. You don't just compare 2 sets of stats by adjusting for pace across eras then summarize who was a better player.

If we never adjusted for pace, Wilt would be the undisputed GOAT.


btw your Lincoln analogy is terrible.

You got the point didn't you?


You don't have to have lived in the 1800s to know that Lincoln singlehandedly saved the United States. That's history, it's a fact.

Who said I'm not using facts when I'm making my judgement on past players?


But if you say, "if Lincoln was a president in the 2000s, then he'd be a great/terrible president," is more analogous towards what people on here are talking about.

Maybe, but like I said you got the point.

JordansBulls
10-30-2012, 05:46 PM
Can a mod please change Robinson to Robertson. Seriously, what a fail.

:clap:

dh144498
10-30-2012, 06:06 PM
That was to sell books, a claim he would later regret and isnt verified by multiple eye witnesses.

lolololol

Chronz
10-30-2012, 06:16 PM
lolololol
The dude guesstimated by watching how many women went into Wilt's hotel 1 night and did some poor math to come up with that figure. The least he couldve done was make a peep hole to confirm insertion.