Page 5 of 5 FirstFirst ... 2345
Results 61 to 69 of 69
  1. #61
    Lol RRR3's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    47,959

    Default Re: Oscar Robertson should be a lock in the top ten

    Quote Originally Posted by Sarcastic
    Imagine is we used team success in other sports to rank players, the way we do in basketball.

    Ted Williams = unclutch scrub
    Dan Marino = empty stats
    Mark Messier would likely be considered better than Gretsky
    baseball fans aren't retards

  2. #62
    National High School Star
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    2,017

    Default Re: Oscar Robertson should be a lock in the top ten

    Quote Originally Posted by Sarcastic
    Imagine is we used team success in other sports to rank players, the way we do in basketball.

    Ted Williams = unclutch scrub
    Dan Marino = empty stats
    An oft-used but flawed example. People who use this generally haven't actually thought about it.

    Baseball players have considerably less control over the outcome of a game that a basketball player does. Position players only come to bat 3-4 times a game, which is about once every three innings. Pitchers are more involved in what's going on, but only pitch every five games, and still need their batters to score runs for him.

    Football is far too specialized. You have completely different teams for the offensive and defensive sides of the ball.

    So why would they be held to the same standards as basketball players when they have less impact on a game than a basketball superstar does? It's obvious that people aren't actually thinking about it with they say things.

  3. #63
    7-time NBA All-Star KG215's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    12,276

    Default Re: Oscar Robertson should be a lock in the top ten

    Quote Originally Posted by Sarcastic
    Imagine is we used team success in other sports to rank players, the way we do in basketball.

    Ted Williams = unclutch scrub
    Dan Marino = empty stats
    Mark Messier would likely be considered better than Gretsky
    To me baseball is more of an individual sport in a team setting. Outside of pitchers, not one player can consistently have a significant impact on the majority of the games he plays. Hitting a baseball is the hardest thing to do in sports, so a hitter isn't going to go 3/4 or 4/4 every other game and they have virtually zero impact on what the person hitting in front of and behind them do when they bat. Pitchers have the most significant impact on a game in my opinion, but they only play one out of every five games, and relievers who play two out of every for or five games usually only pitch an inning or two. I mean even when a pitcher pitches a perfect or near perfect game, a player only gets to bat three out of a team total of 27 times. That's just a little more than 10% of the game they can have a direct impact on while their team is at-bat. It's even less when you factor in the number of chances a player gets to make an out for their team while in the field.

    Not that baseball isn't a team sport, I just think it's the least "team oriented" sport out of the big three American sports. For whatever reasons, baseball has always been a statistic driven game when it comes to discussing and ranking players. A player could have 10-12 prime seasons of .350/.400/.600, 45 HR, 125 RBI, 20 SB and never win a thing because the rest of the lineup isn't pulling their weight; and there's no possible way he can have any consistently significant impact on how often the players batting in front and behind him reach base.

    Football is, in many regards, more of a team sport than even basketball. I've heard and read very convincing arguments for both. I've got a dad and several friends who are or were basketball coaches, and an uncle and some other friends who are or were football coaches. They've all made very good arguments as to why their sport is the "ultimate team sport." However, outside of QB's, I'm not sure any individual player can have a significant impact on the complete game because no one plays both offense and defense. Yes, for stretches a QB or RB on offense, or a linebacker or lineman on defense, can almost carry a team to a string of wins, but no one player on the football is able to consistently impact an entire game. This is why I can buy into the argument football is the ultimate team sport because, a QB/RB/WR can put up big numbers and get their team in the endzone 5 or 6 times a game, but they are still very reliant on their defense getting stops.

    Basketball players, on the other hand, have the ability to make just as much impact on defense as they do on offense. All five players have to play offense and defense and, the vast majority of the time, it isn't going to be individual offense or defense that wins games and championships in basketball. Of course basketball is also the sport one individual can have the greatest impact on a team and the success their team has over the course of a season; I guess that would also help the argument that basketball is less of a team sport than football.

    All of this, of course, is highly subjective and everyone may think otherwise. It really just depends
    Last edited by KG215; 08-01-2012 at 06:54 PM.

  4. #64
    Local High School Star
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    1,146

    Default Re: Oscar Robertson should be a lock in the top ten

    Quote Originally Posted by 1987_Lakers
    The Big-O never won ANYTHING until Kareem showed up.

    And bringing up stats in this thread is pointless. A prime Oscar Robertson would average AT MOST 6 rpg in today's league and I doubt he reaches double digit assists because you have to be a great ball handler to average 10 apg in today's league, and Oscar Robertson wasn't a great ball handler.
    And bill russell would avg about 16 and 12 in this age. He would also be closer to 1 championship then he would be to 11, since no team has a starting lineup of hall of famers and there are now 30 teams in the league.

  5. #65
    NBA lottery pick jongib369's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Chicago
    Posts
    5,205

    Default Re: Oscar Robertson should be a lock in the top ten

    I respect your opinion but I cant see kevin love out rebounding Russell...how many BPG do you think he would get?

    Plus, imagine if he was on Miami

  6. #66
    7-time NBA All-Star KG215's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    12,276

    Default Re: Oscar Robertson should be a lock in the top ten

    Quote Originally Posted by INDI
    And bill russell would avg about 16 and 12 in this age. He would also be closer to 1 championship then he would be to 11, since no team has a starting lineup of hall of famers and there are now 30 teams in the league.
    And you base this on, what?

  7. #67
    Local High School Star
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    1,146

    Default Re: Oscar Robertson should be a lock in the top ten

    Quote Originally Posted by KG215
    And you base this on, what?
    That is in response to the previous post saying that oscar would only average around 6 Rebs. There is no way to know anything for a fact but we can take educated guesses based off of what you know. We know he was great but that the celtics had the ability to stack all the talent so as great as bill was, it was the dominance of the celts organization that got the 11 rings, of course he was a big part though. We also know that he was a good scorer not great and that was during a time where a 7 footer could truly dominate due to lack of brawn. We know that he was a great rebounder and defender so though he wouldn't be grabbing 20 boards, he would still be great in this area


    Basically transfer his skill set to this day n time he is similar to a Dwight Howard. Of course no one knows for a fact but taking educated guesses you would come to a similar conclusion

  8. #68
    NBA Legend CavaliersFTW's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Ohio
    Posts
    16,655

    Default Re: Oscar Robertson should be a lock in the top ten

    Quote Originally Posted by INDI
    That is in response to the previous post saying that oscar would only average around 6 Rebs. There is no way to know anything for a fact but we can take educated guesses based off of what you know. We know he was great but that the celtics had the ability to stack all the talent so as great as bill was, it was the dominance of the celts organization that got the 11 rings, of course he was a big part though. We also know that he was a good scorer not great and that was during a time where a 7 footer could truly dominate due to lack of brawn. We know that he was a great rebounder and defender so though he wouldn't be grabbing 20 boards, he would still be great in this area


    Basically transfer his skill set to this day n time he is similar to a Dwight Howard. Of course no one knows for a fact but taking educated guesses you would come to a similar conclusion
    Tell me more about his HOF teammates, how many of them actually made all-star teams again? They got in the HOF once the HOF existed but how many of them were actually considered superior too the league's other players on other teams at the time? Is Satch Sanders and K.C. Jones really >>>>> to say, the Lakers Walt Hazzard or Rudy LaRusso?

    Can you please flush out the details of what you mean by "lack of Brawn" as well? My sources all indicate a very small league densely packed full of centers like 240lb Nate Thurmond, 265lb Walt Bellamy, 255lb Wayne Embry, 260lb Wes Unseld, 300lb Wilt Chamberlain, 245lb Willis Reed, 240lb Elvin Hayes, 245lb Bill Bridges (etc etc)... Bill seems to me, to be the odd man out, at only 228lbs.. Why was he so dominant being so thin and how in any way is his competition lacking in "Brawn"... if anyone is lacking in Brawn it's Bill not his competition...

    Also, interestingly, I've watched hours of Russell's footage, I don't really see any resemblance of his game too Dwight's... can you please explain what is "Dwight Howard"-like about his skillset? Which moves and habits do they have in common? Cause I can't recall any other than the dunk..

    Ultimately my question to you is... do you have a single clue what your talking about?
    Last edited by CavaliersFTW; 08-01-2012 at 09:59 PM.

  9. #69
    Decent playground baller
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    395

    Default Re: Oscar Robertson should be a lock in the top ten

    I agree that Oscar is underrated. As are other NBA greats that had talent to burn but failed to win or win consistently. Pistol Pete is another example. Until this year, Lebron was another, and it remains to be seen if he can continue his recent success.

    As others have noted, athletes in other sports have been plagued by this, including Marino, Ted Williams, Bobby Hull, among others.

    To avoid this, when ranking players, I've always felt I put more stock into how good that player was than in career accomplishments, while most others weigh those qualities equally or even favor accomplishments over talent and skill. Of course, the two are often intertwined.

  10. #70
    3-time NBA All-Star
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    9,904

    Default Re: Oscar Robertson should be a lock in the top ten

    Why the big deal? Look at all the players who were putting up 30-10-10 seasons in the "Oscar-era." It was common place. Which puts his feat of AVERAGING a 30-10-10 over the course of five straight seasons...COMBINED...into a better perspective. Everyone was doing it in the 60's.

    BTW, as an interesting sidenote to the "pace" arguments...

    In the 64-65 season, Oscar averaged 30.4 ppg, 9.0 rpg, 11.5 apg, and shot .480 from the floor, in an NBA that averaged 110.6 ppg on .426 shooting.

    And, how about this...

    In his 63-64 post-season, covering 10 games, Oscar averaged 29.3 ppg, 8.9 rpg, 8.4 apg...in an NBA post-season which averaged 105.8 ppg on .420 shooting (BTW, Chamberlain averaged 34.7 ppg, 25.2 rpg, and shot .543 in that same post-season, and with five games against Russell's Celtics.)

  11. #71
    Insidehoops Mafia Dictator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    2,906

    Default Re: Oscar Robertson should be a lock in the top ten

    Underrated rich man's Lebron?

  12. #72
    Local High School Star
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    1,434

    Default Re: Oscar Robertson should be a lock in the top ten

    Quote Originally Posted by CavaliersFTW
    Tell me more about his HOF teammates, how many of them actually made all-star teams again? They got in the HOF once the HOF existed but how many of them were actually considered superior too the league's other players on other teams at the time? Is Satch Sanders and K.C. Jones really >>>>> to say, the Lakers Walt Hazzard or Rudy LaRusso?

    Can you please flush out the details of what you mean by "lack of Brawn" as well? My sources all indicate a very small league densely packed full of centers like 240lb Nate Thurmond, 265lb Walt Bellamy, 255lb Wayne Embry, 260lb Wes Unseld, 300lb Wilt Chamberlain, 245lb Willis Reed, 240lb Elvin Hayes, 245lb Bill Bridges (etc etc)... Bill seems to me, to be the odd man out, at only 228lbs.. Why was he so dominant being so thin and how in any way is his competition lacking in "Brawn"... if anyone is lacking in Brawn it's Bill not his competition...

    Also, interestingly, I've watched hours of Russell's footage, I don't really see any resemblance of his game too Dwight's... can you please explain what is "Dwight Howard"-like about his skillset? Which moves and habits do they have in common? Cause I can't recall any other than the dunk..

    Ultimately my question to you is... do you have a single clue what your talking about?
    I'm assuming this is specifically a statement to/criticism of INDI otherwise I'd have some questions. Ones regarding why you've chosen to ignore the old 3 all-star per team maximum rule and why the list of centers skews heavily towards the latter half of Russell's career (particularly as some later career weights are being used such as Chamberlain and Bellamy). Not that Russell wasn't outweighed by centers in say 1962, but not a lot that could make the 240lbs+ list that you put forward (admittedly I'm not a weight/measurement collector as you are, and so could be relying on rookie weights).

    If this is a "Don't compare Russ to Dwight just because they both blocked shots and rebounded (that's what he meant by skill set), and don't talk about brawn back then unless you know what you're talking about" that's fine.

Posting Permissions

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