Higher on your All Time List: Jerry West, Oscar Robertson, Jokic

Moderators: Clyde Frazier, Doctor MJ, trex_8063, penbeast0, PaulieWal

Which of these 3 are higher on your all time list?

Oscar Robertson
19
41%
Jerry West
18
39%
Nikola Jokic
9
20%
 
Total votes: 46

User avatar
Jaivl
Head Coach
Posts: 7,041
And1: 6,700
Joined: Jan 28, 2014
Location: A Coruña, Spain
Contact:
   

Re: Higher on your All Time List: Jerry West, Oscar Robertson, Jokic 

Post#21 » by Jaivl » Tue Jul 11, 2023 1:13 pm

DQuinn1575 wrote:
Jaivl wrote:Careers:

1) Oscar 2) West 3) Jokic

Peaks:

1) Jokic 2A) West 2B) Oscar


3 year peak - True Shooting Add / Assists

Oscar 1,093.4 2,487
West 1,029.4 1,247
Jokic 797.6 1,861


Oscar's combinated of TS+ and assists is pretty much unequalled, and this is for a team B-Ref shows as number 1 in offensive efficiency all 3 years.

Ok, now add the playoffs, adjust for pace and count offensive rebounds. Let's see the numbers then.
This place is a cesspool of mindless ineptitude, mental decrepitude, and intellectual lassitude. I refuse to be sucked any deeper into this whirlpool of groupthink sewage. My opinions have been expressed. I'm going to go take a shower.
ShaqAttac
Rookie
Posts: 1,189
And1: 370
Joined: Oct 18, 2022

Re: Higher on your All Time List: Jerry West, Oscar Robertson, Jokic 

Post#22 » by ShaqAttac » Wed Jul 12, 2023 7:11 pm

Jaivl wrote:
iggymcfrack wrote:
Oscar played on some bad teams, sure. I said I've recently gained a new respect for him. The WOWY stuff was incredible. But that doesn't put him ahead of someone who's taken a middling cast to the mountaintop and won at least 1 playoff series in 2 years where he had probably worse supporting casts than Oscar had in Cincinnati. And West had plenty of great opportunities to win championships on very good Lakers teams, he just couldn't get it done. My general point is that I think on average, 8 years of Jokic is going to net you more championships than 14 years of West or Oscar. In fact, given the number of teams in the league in the '60s and early '70s, one championship is below average for a random player in the league at that time. Like if you were a 12th man who played at replacement level and signed a one year contract with a completely random team every year, you'd expect to win >1 championship on average from 1961-1974. So, the championships added case favors Jokic even more with all three having one ring.

Going full "West could not get it done" from a handful of data points, half of which are basically coin-toss, one-posession Finals losses is not intellectually honest.

Like if you were a 12th man who played at replacement level and signed a one year contract with a completely random team every year, you'd expect to win >1 championship on average from 1961-1974.

Yes, one would expect that, averaging every possible random situation. The context of the league we actually saw was not random, though. If you're so keen on using CORP, you cannot really take one iteration of one of multiple different situations and act like it's the only possible reality.

You could take Russell's success at face value (making him an easy GOAT by CORP) I guess, but I think that luck being generally in his favor is the way more possible explanation. He sure doesn't look multiple standard deviations above the other superstars on film. Best player in the league dropped into a good team AND excellent management AND massively exceeded expectations and only then you get 11 rings.

"luck" isnt an argument. idk why u act like it proves anything sayin "it was just one itreration"

Return to Player Comparisons


cron