Higher on All-Time List: Oscar Robertson vs Kevin Garnett

[Proxy]

I should have known this would come from someone spouting off some plus/minus derivative as being the gospel.

Such an immature response, most of that post was on film observations of his game but you choose to just focus on those specfic supporting points for whatever reason. Should I have just touted box score statline averages and narratives alone like you to make an argument?

[ceoofkobefans]

What kind of analysis shows that Oscar isn't among the greatest offensive players ever?

Even if he’s among the greatest OFFENSIVE Players that doesn’t make him a GOAT tier player lmao

By my criteria it doesn't, some have other thoughts about that though. I mean, you have Kobe Bryant very high on your all-time list (just short of the GOAT tier) and I have my doubts if Kobe was better defensively than Oscar at all.

I have Oscar a tier below Kobe offensively and Kobe clears defensively while having a lot more longevity than Oscar which makes a big difference when comparing 5-9 vs 13-20

[ceoofkobefans]

What kind of analysis shows that Oscar isn't among the greatest offensive players ever?

Btw I never said he wasn’t I think he’s the 9th or 10th best offensive player ever personally I was talking about overall all time
Great

[ceoofkobefans]

WOWY/WOWYR is what-ever, it depends how much stock any given person puts into it for basketball analysis. With that said, there's a clear picture being painted Oscar is a hyper-impactful player with how the Royals progressed right from his drafting and even with the offensive slant they used, a lot points to him being the catalyst of the system.

When it comes to production, Oscar's consistency (not true "goodness") might be better than most of the 8 guys you mentioned, and there's a solid argument to be had 1963/64 Oscar is a top 7? or so offensive peak ever - if not slightly higher. I think adjusting longevity for era, this could give him arguably a top 5 offensive career all-time. Defensively, he's marginal and treading around slight positive to neutral to slight negative through his career (once again, rltv to era). In my view, all of these considerations give him a sure-fire T15 career. Maybe in my later day down-time, I'll look into KG somewhat more

I agree he’s hyper impactful. Any mvp caliber guy is. The royals are an offensively slanted team that center around a heliocentric star and don’t have a second ball handler / initiator since they are building around Oscar so WOWY data I think is gonna give him a boost and playing on the most offensively slanted team before the 3pt line was introduced is definitely gonna help out your box score numbers (especially rTS). I think his scoring is like fringe t20ish and his playmaking is fringe t10ish at his peak and he’s not very scalable it seems on the limited film. This adds up to being a t10 offensive player but I like MJ Magic Jordan LeBron Kobe Nash Shaq and bird over him (possibly Jokic as well) which is 9-10. If we add in longevity ig he can go over bird (maybe Shaq or Nash but prolly not) so 6-8 offensive career while going between slight - and slight + on Defense in his career. I think he’s a fringe t20 peak prolly t15 longevity add that together you get anywhere from 13-20 (I like 14-16 more)

KG I got as high as 8 as low as 14 peak wise (I like 12-13 as a peaks spot) and as high as 4 as low as prolly 7th longevity wise add that together you get as high as prolly 8th all time as low as maybe 13th or 14th all time (I like 10-12)

[70sFan]

What kind of analysis shows that Oscar isn't among the greatest offensive players ever?

Btw I never said he wasn’t I think he’s the 9th or 10th best offensive player ever personally I was talking about overall all time
Great

Except you did:

Oscar is no where near the best offensive player ever

How can I interpet this quote any different?

[70sFan]

I have Oscar a tier below Kobe offensively

What criteria puts Kobe a tier ahead of Oscar offensively?

and Kobe clears defensively

After all these years, now we know that Kobe's defense on a grand scale (not talking about defensive peak, but overall) doesn't move the needle. He had some strength and could rack up his intensity in the playoffs, but overall Bryant's defense was only a slight positive in his average prime season. Better at his peak, but his defensive peak was brief.

We don't know a lot about Oscar's defense in the early 1960s, but in games we have from later games he looks quite good, especially in Milwaukee. I'd say he was a solid positive in Milwaukee games I have seen (outside of 1974).

while having a lot more longevity than Oscar which makes a big difference when comparing 5-9 vs 13-20

A lot more longevity is a huge overstatement...

Number of games:

Kobe: 1346
Oscar: 1040

Yoh may think that 300 games difference is huge, but keep in mind how Kobe racked up these 300 games. He played 150 games in his first two seasons when he wasn't even a started and then he also played 107 games in his last three seasons when he was completely washed up. Now the numbers goes from 1346 to 1089, which is basically the same number of games as Oscar.

If we focus on the relevant part of their careers, then the gap isn't massive by any means. Kobe's whole relevant career happened in 1999-13 period, that gives us 15 seasons. Oscar's relevant career was finished after 1973, he was no longer a good player on all-time scale in his last season - that gives him 13 seasons. Yes, 2 seasons are important but it's not some kind of gigantic difference.

You basically have to be really high on seasons like 1999 or 2012 to say that Kobe has huge longevity advantage over Oscar. Their true prime was the same length - 1961-71 vs 2000-10.

[ceoofkobefans]

What kind of analysis shows that Oscar isn't among the greatest offensive players ever?

Btw I never said he wasn’t I think he’s the 9th or 10th best offensive player ever personally I was talking about overall all time
Great

Except you did:

Oscar is no where near the best offensive player ever

How can I interpet this quote any different?

9-10 isn’t anywhere near the best offensive player ever but it’s still one of the best offensive players ever

I never said he isn’t *one of* the best offensive players ever

[kcktiny]

you'd understand that he played devil's advocate and he actually showed that all these lazy arguments are highly unlikely to be true.

Highly unlikely? Like no joke. How about inane? One of the greatest passers in league history was merely a good distributor? One of the greatest players of all-time just didn't have that killer instinct?

Nonsense. It's one thing to state an opinion. But it's another to state it as if it was a fact when you (1) have never watched the guy play, (2) ignore his overly impressive statistics, and (3) ignore his accolades like his all-NBA nominations, his MVP, and his MVP votes received voted on by those who saw him play at that time.

Why do you need an analysis of VORP or Win Shares of Helio-whatever to substantiate his career? He was an outstanding scorer, an outstanding shooter, and an outstanding passer for his era. There was no one even remotely comparable (Jerry West was as close as you could get at the time).

He was easily arguably the best guard the league had seen until Jordan came along. For those that did not actually see him play, what is it about his statistics and accolades that do not show that?

Defensively, he's marginal and treading around slight positive to neutral to slight negative through his career

Where is this coming from? Is this coming from someone who watched him play his whole career? In his decade with the Royals the Cs were 6-8 Wayne Embry, 6-10 Connie Dierking, and 6-11 Walt Wesley. The PFs were 6-8 Jerry Lucas and 6-7 Happy Hairston. Not exactly Russell, Chamberlain, Thurmond, or Gus Johnson-like defenders. Yet how does that make Robertson just an average defender?

I know that Bryant got a lot of all-defensive votes, but it's not an argument for him being better than Oscar, at least not for me.

I absolutely agree.

that's why I am not sure if there is a significant gap in his and Bryant's defense

Again, I agree. Bryant was a great defender, and while I do not feel Robertson was anywhere near the great defender West or Bryant was, he was clearly a better than average to good defender, and far from being just average or worse than average.

I don't look at all-defensive votes.

Prior to about a decade ago, NBA coaches are the ones who voted for the all-defensive teams. And I for one greatly value the opinions of the men who game planned against these players and saw them play first hand and up close on a daily basis.

Rodman? Rodman? You're really telling on yourself thinking he was remotely in KG's league defensively.

Garnett was named all-defensive 1st team 9 times, Rodman 7 times. But up through the age of 34 Rodman was not named all-defensive 1st team just twice, Garnett 7 times. As mentioned above, NBA coaches voted for them, who game planned against both players and watched them play more than you or I. I'd trust their opinions long before yours or any plus/minus calculated derivative.

I like how up above someone slams Robertson's greatness and defense because his team didn't win much or in his opinion was not a good defensive team. Well Rodman won 5 titles and Garnett just 1, plus Rodman played on more great defensive teams than did Garnett. Does that make Rodman the better defender?

he was so focused on getting rebounds that he didn't have much impact at all. KG had absolutely elite DPOY-level impact across 2 different teams where he was an absolute game-changer. He and Dwight played in the same era and KG had 6 seasons where his DRAPM was better than Dwight's best.

Again - another opinion not based on watching both players but on a plus/minus derivative revered as gospel, as if plus/minus is not the least bit flawed.

yet guys like Rodman, McHale, and Hayes have legit arguments over KG according to you

Correct.

McHale was not quite the great defender Garnett was but was still an excellent defender. Yet McHale was much more efficient on offense over his career than was Garnett.

Rodman was every bit the defender Garnett was, in my opinion was the better defender, and was DPOY twice to Garnett once despite being in the league quite a few seasons less, and played on better defensive teams.

I would like to see whatever multi-year cherrypicked sample of box stats or media accolades that point to those 3 being better.

Open your eyes. Played on more better defensive teams, statistically. More DPOY awards. HOF because of his defense. That cherry-picked enough for you?

Such an immature response

Yes, I see you are a plus/minus advocate that can't handle it's inaccuracy being questioned..

most of that post was on film observations of his game

Where was this mentioned?

Should I have just touted box score statline averages and narratives alone like you to make an argument?

Much better than professing a flawed plus/minus derivative as being meaningful.

After all these years, now we know that Kobe's defense on a grand scale (not talking about defensive peak, but overall) doesn't move the needle. He had some strength and could rack up his intensity in the playoffs, but overall Bryant's defense was only a slight positive in his average prime season. Better at his peak, but his defensive peak was brief.

You say this based on what evidence? And who is we? You say this as if it was factual.

NBA coaches seem to think otherwise. They voted Bryant all-defensive 1st team 9 times, including 6 years in a row (2005-06 to 2010-11). You ignore the coaches opinions and also ignore the statistical evidence that the Lakers were a very good team defensively the 9 years Bryant was named all-defensive 1st team.

[Jaivl]

Good fair comp, similar kind of context. I do have KG clearly higher, although that's mainly due to outlier longevity and era-based limitations on Oscar's offensive impact.

When it comes to comparisons this close, it makes sense to look at the other stuff. KG was by all accounts a good teammate who made guys better (at least defensively)

As long as you're not european...

Oscar mattered more in his era than KG mattered in his era.

Oscar was more influential to the next generation of players-

Heavily disagree - KG is the prototype of the modern big.

[SinceGatlingWasARookie]

Even if he’s among the greatest OFFENSIVE Players that doesn’t make him a GOAT tier player lmao

By my criteria it doesn't, some have other thoughts about that though. I mean, you have Kobe Bryant very high on your all-time list (just short of the GOAT tier) and I have my doubts if Kobe was better defensively than Oscar at all.

I have Oscar a tier below Kobe offensively and Kobe clears defensively while having a lot more longevity than Oscar which makes a big difference when comparing 5-9 vs 13-20

Oscar was more better than the guards of his era than Kobe was better than the guards of his era.

If Inserted into the current NBA Kobe woukd be better than Oscar.

[Gooner]

I always say that if you want to compare players like this and rank them like tennis players, then there needs to be a criteria. Where are the ranking points?

[Gooner]

Take it you're a young guy.

Yea I’m 18 but I don’t see why that should matter. I’ve still analyzed as much Oscar film as we have and I’ve done plenty of statistical analysis on him so I don’t see why my age should invalidate me from this conversation

Your view on this topic shows you don't know much about Oscar. He was touted buy some as the GOAT in the late 80s.

Many people of older generation think that Oscar Robertson is the GOAT. Obviuosly we are in 2023 and it's not cool to say that anymore.

[ty 4191]

I voted Oscar here, but it's damned close. Two of the highest impact players in NBA history.

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1kYakZal1TvJWkYoGGxjbDDpURoYjBOrLRDaPUJKfECs/edit#gid=595319739

Oscar led ALL players in BPM, VORP from 1961-1970.

Some other food for thought:

--Royals record without Oscar (61'-70': Includes Playoffs): 12-42 (.222)

--Timberwolves record without KG (96'-07': Includes Playoffs): 4-21 (.160)

[migya]

Yea I’m 18 but I don’t see why that should matter. I’ve still analyzed as much Oscar film as we have and I’ve done plenty of statistical analysis on him so I don’t see why my age should invalidate me from this conversation

Your view on this topic shows you don't know much about Oscar. He was touted buy some as the GOAT in the late 80s.

Many people of older generation think that Oscar Robertson is the GOAT. Obviuosly we are in 2023 and it's not cool to say that anymore.

That's true but it's relevant the perception many had of him.

[tsherkin]

Many people of older generation think that Oscar Robertson is the GOAT. Obviuosly we are in 2023 and it's not cool to say that anymore.

There isn't a really defensible position to argue that Robertson is the GOAT at this stage of the game, of course. Even then, his argument was offense-only, which brings up many of the same issues we see with someone like Magic (or even someone like Nash in non-GOAT comparisons with someone like Kobe). And certainly 50 years hence, any argument he used to have is gone, despite his evident merit and impact.

It's not that it isn't "cool" to talk about Oscar, it's just that his case has been passed by after decades and decades of subsequent play. Which is natural, since that much elapsed time just affords opportunities for other talent to emerge. He was certainly one of the three or four best players in the 60s, though. He's also the only guy besides Russell or Wilt to win between 60 and 68 (Unseld sneaking in his MVP in 69), which is a reasonably impressive accolade.