The Greatness of Oscar Robertson (an open letter to ISH members)

[BoutPractice]

It's an interesting thought, but there are also those who argue that accomplishments are the only tangible evidence of ability, the rest being a matter of subjectivity and aesthetics. The problem with separating ability from accomplishments is that it allows you to make just about any claim, such as the claim that few players have ever been better than TMac.

[LikeABosh]

Oscar Robertson top ten greatest players? Maybe. But top ten best players, hell no. There ia a difference. He was great for his era, but basketball was still developing back then and the pace was ridiculously fast

[Owl]

I guess this is the best and simple way to say it:

"Asking which player is better (comparing their primes) and which player is greater (comparing their careers) are 2 different questions. Most people fail to make that distinction. One may have accomplished more, while the other may have actually been a better basketball player." - Gifted Mind

Still seems ambiguous.

First half of answer suggests it is about prime versus full career. Second suggests "achievements" (team success? big stage?) is one thing (greatness presumably) and performance level is another.

Is "comparing their careers" shorthand for career "achievements"?

And if so isn't achievements (and thus "greatness") less relevent because dependent largely on context? Or am I still getting the wrong end of the stick?

[Miller for 3]

I will edit my article to be less critical of Jerry Lucas. He was a very talented shooter (for a big man) and rebounder, but he was a poor defender and, ultimately, not as talented as a sidekick compared to some others. For example, Jerry West had Elgin Baylor, Russell had Sam Jones, etc.

My point was as follows: Robertson's circumstances were less fortunate than other superstars of the time.

Elgin Baylor was a pretty awful player, basically a glorified Iverson in terms of impact. Having Lucas was better. Oscar's Royals were consistently better than West's Lakers up until Wilt arrived, especially factoring in the injuries they dealt with.

Other than Wilt, Oscar had the best supporting cast of anyone during the early to late 60s. Russell was carrying scrubs to NCAA/Olympic/NBA titles. Cincinnati immediately won back to back NCAA championships after Oscar graduated. He put up gaudy box score stats that impress casual fans, but if you watch the games, he was a low impact player who made talented players turn into scrubs because of his ball dominance.

[Owl]

Elgin Baylor was a pretty awful player, basically a glorified Iverson in terms of impact. Having Lucas was better. Oscar's Royals were consistently better than West's Lakers up until Wilt arrived, especially factoring in the injuries they dealt with.

Other than Wilt, Oscar had the best supporting cast of anyone during the early to late 60s. Russell was carrying scrubs to NCAA/Olympic/NBA titles. Cincinnati immediately won back to back NCAA championships after Oscar graduated. He put up gaudy box score stats that impress casual fans, but if you watch the games, he was a low impact player who made talented players turn into scrubs because of his ball dominance.

Baylor improved team win% by 19.5% in rookie year and took the Lakers to the finals that year (admittedly in a small league, weaker conference). 2nd in PER to Petitt, 3rd in MVP voting to Pettit and Russell.

Clearly he was "pretty awful".

Edited to remove typo.

[WillC]

It's an interesting thought, but there are also those who argue that accomplishments are the only tangible evidence of ability, the rest being a matter of subjectivity and aesthetics. The problem with separating ability from accomplishments is that it allows you to make just about any claim, such as the claim that few players have ever been better than TMac.

Thanks for posting.

Team success is a tangible measure of the greatness of a team. Not a tangible measure of individual ability.

Statistics are the best measure of a player's individual talent, although not perfect since they appear within the context of a team sport.

And, as I wrote in my article, Oscar Robertson was statistically out of this world. Not just the 'triple-double' (an arbitrary statistic if ever there was one), but the level of dominance he demonstrated compared to his peers.

As for Tracy McGrady, I firmly believe that he was every bit as good as Kobe Bryant at his peak. Replace Kobe with TMac on those Lakers teams and he'd probably have himself three championship rings. However, Kobe had greater longevity than TMac, perhaps a criticism of McGrady's work ethic and injury-proneness as much as anything.

TMac was certainly one of the most talented players ever. Nowhere near as dominant as Oscar Robertson though.

[WillC]

Oscar Robertson top ten greatest players? Maybe. But top ten best players, hell no. There ia a difference. He was great for his era, but basketball was still developing back then and the pace was ridiculously fast

Did you read the article? If the pace was such a huge advantage, how come nobody averaged anywhere near as many assists as Oscar Robertson? How come nobody else at his position grabbed anywhere near as many rebounds? Let alone doing so while belonging in the top 3 scorers in the league.

[Legends66NBA7]

Still seems ambiguous.

First half of answer suggests it is about prime versus full career. Second suggests "achievements" (team success? big stage?) is one thing (greatness presumably) and performance level is another.

Is "comparing their careers" shorthand for career "achievements"?

And if so isn't achievements (and thus "greatness") less relevent because dependent largely on context? Or am I still getting the wrong end of the stick?

The thread title states "The Greatness of Oscar Robertson". Being a better player than most means a lot, but I feel the terms of something great, it means more about a career (which I include achievements, individual and team), legacy (defining moments perhaps ?), etc...

Going with the title, I would think it's suggesting about how great his career/legacy is, not how he played the game. If this was about players, it should be talked about who is better and at what aspects. How players changed and impacted the rules of the league, how influential they were to the future generation of star players. Sometimes, these thing require preference too.

I'll try to further explain if you don't follow... For an example sake, Charles Barkley vs Karl Malone. Both are ranked pretty closely to each other in most arbitrary lists. I've seen many here who watched both play in context that Barkley was regarded as better during their prime/peak, but because Malone played longer and accumulated more all-time total, achievements, etc... he's regarded greater. In sake of preference, some would pick Barkley because he's more talented, can produce better... while some would pick Malone because he's more loyal, harder worker, and therefore will play longer. Is that a good example for better vs greater ?

In terms of Oscar's greatness, like I mentioned, there's not much difference to what he achieved aside if we take success into account. In terms of someone like Jerry West (who played in the same years as Oscar) would probably looked at as greater, since he played in so many finals, production wise isn't so different, and he's the NBA logo... one could always take that into his favor that he was much more influential or "greatness".

[WillC]

Still seems ambiguous.

First half of answer suggests it is about prime versus full career. Second suggests "achievements" (team success? big stage?) is one thing (greatness presumably) and performance level is another.

Is "comparing their careers" shorthand for career "achievements"?

And if so isn't achievements (and thus "greatness") less relevent because dependent largely on context? Or am I still getting the wrong end of the stick?

You're not alone. Legends66NBA7's quote about 'best' and 'greatness' was rather confused.

[WillC]

Elgin Baylor was a pretty awful player, basically a glorified Iverson in terms of impact. Having Lucas was better. Oscar's Royals were consistently better than West's Lakers up until Wilt arrived, especially factoring in the injuries they dealt with.

So Baylor was 'pretty awful' despite being an elite scorer, rebounder and passer? Interesting. Would love to see a 'great player' if that's the case.

[WillC]

Going with the title, I would think it's suggesting about how great his career/legacy is, not how he played the game. If this was about players, it should be talked about who is better and at what aspects. How players changed and impacted the rules of the league, how influential they were to the future generation of star players. Sometimes, these thing require preference too.

No, I very much meant in terms of how good he was as a player. Whatever you want to call it. I call that 'greatness'.

If we're discussing 'impact on the game', then that's a different thing entirely. We could have a long discussion about Hank Luisetti, Dutch Dehnert, Joe Fulks and others, if you like.

But I'm talking about how good Oscar was; how dominant he was as a player.

[BoutPractice]

Yeah, maybe we should be clearer in what we mean by "achievement" first. I count statistics as part of the tangible achievements, which in this particular discussion tremendously help Oscar's cause.

They also help TMac's, but not as much due to the the fact that he only has really 2 special years (you can argue as much as 3 or 4, but that's it), the rest being standard "star swingman" caliber. In addition, there is reason to believe that TMac's "underachieving" was more than partially his own fault. Still, TMac may not be the best example, you're right.

My larger point - and this is something I really believe in, one of the few things I can say with close to absolute certainty about this sport - is that taste is ultimately the main driver of player rankings. When you're saying "I think this player is one of the greatest players to ever play" what you're really saying is always, to some degree, "I like the way he plays". I identify with his achievements, how he carries himself on the court, his competitiveness, his killer instinct/unselfishness, whatever it is - it starts at an emotional level. We all do it, whether or not we realize it.

[Legends66NBA7]

No, I very much meant in terms of how good he was as a player. Whatever you want to call it. I call that 'greatness'.

If we're discussing 'impact on the game', then that's a different thing entirely. We could have a long discussion about Hank Luisetti, Dutch Dehnert, Joe Fulks and others, if you like.

But I'm talking about how good Oscar was; how dominant he was as a player.

Alright, no problem. I understand what your saying.

[senelcoolidge]

I wish the NBA would use the rules of the 60's. Less room to stat pad. Less room to violate obvious basketball rules like traveling for example. It would be fun.

[Miller for 3]

So Baylor was 'pretty awful' despite being an elite scorer, rebounder and passer? Interesting. Would love to see a 'great player' if that's the case.

Lol. He had a career TS% of 49.4. Monta Ellis would be proud. As soon as he retired the Lakers won 33 games because they lost a massive liability. He was a solid player in the 60s because most of his compeition were guys like Bill Sharman, janitors by day, chain smoking white 5-10 guards in the NBA at night. Shawn Marion and Stacy Augmon would have been better in the 60s. Sorry.