Along with Wilt, maybe the most underrated and disrespected player in the history of the game...

[Stan]

You’re just being unrealistic with your expectations. How much love do you expect a guy from 60 years ago with one MVP & one championship as 2nd option to get from fans today?

[lobosloboslobos]

i'm not someone who looks down on how the game was played or the players who played it before but it seems to me the case for players from the 60s/70s being able to just walk in and play/dominate today's game is a lot stronger with bigs (Russell, Wilt, Kareem) than it is with guards, mostly due to the extremely different way that guards play today with the vastly trickier and more skilled dribbling (yes rules changes i know) as well as all the outside shooting prowess. not saying Big O couldn't have adapted pretty quick but it's hard to see him walking into a playoff game today and not looking enormously out of place. whereas i could see a great big walking in and having a huge instant impact.

[countryboy667]

i'm not someone who looks down on how the game was played or the players who played it before but it seems to me the case for players from the 60s/70s being able to just walk in and play/dominate today's game is a lot stronger with bigs (Russell, Wilt, Kareem) than it is with guards, mostly due to the extremely different way that guards play today with the vastly trickier and more skilled dribbling (yes rules changes i know) as well as all the outside shooting prowess. not saying Big O couldn't have adapted pretty quick but it's hard to see him walking into a playoff game today and not looking enormously out of place. whereas i could see a great big walking in and having a huge instant impact.

I think smarter players from that era whatever their position would be the ones to have the most immediate impact, and that includes guys like Russell, Wilt, West, Bradley, Lucas, and yes, Oscar. Watching Oscar play was like watching a very good chess player at work.

There is probably no bigger fan of Nate Thurmond than me (he played his college ball at Bowling Green State University, only a little more than half an hours drive from where I live and went to grad school) but Nate had to have a LOT of help to get through college at Bowling Green State University where he co-starred with Howie "Butch" Komives (who also went on to play in the NBA) and Wavey Junior. There were rumors that to keep him eligible, extraordinary measures had to be taken. Not that he was stupid, but because he was a black man in the 1960s, he likely got a subpar education in the Akron Schools (Central Hower) like all too many black kids back then. At Akron Central Hower, he was teammates with another NBA HOFER, Gus Johnson.

As others have noted, Oscar was a very cerebral player. I think a prime Oscar Robertson would have minimal problems adapting to the current game. I think any of the ones I listed above would adjust quickly as well.

To do Nate Thurmond justice, he might take a bit longer to adjust, but once he did he would be a nightmare come to life for today's best bigs. For one thing, in a much smaller league back then, he saw top-flight competition at the five that today's best bigs see much less often in the course of a season. How often does Embiid face Jokic? By comparison, Nate might see Wilt one night, two nights later see Russell, have an "easier" night against Zelmo Beaty, then later that week face off against Bob Pettit or Wesley Unseld or Walt Bellamy. That might be a bit of an exaggeration, but not by much.

[kcktiny]

For one thing, in a much smaller league back then, he saw top-flight competition at the five that today's best bigs see much less often in the course of a season. How often does Embiid face Jokic? By comparison, Nate might see Wilt one night, two nights later see Russell, have an "easier" night against Zelmo Beaty, then later that week face off against Bob Pettit or Wesley Unseld or Walt Bellamy. That might be a bit of an exaggeration, but not by much.

This is spot on, and what many who claim that the Cs of yesteryear would not thrive today completely miss.

In the decade of the 1960s (1959-60 to 1968-69), just 6 Cs played 45% of the total C minutes played - Chamberlain, Russell, Bellamy, Beaty, Willis Reed, and Nate Thurmond. So they were playing against each other a lot.

Heck - just Chamberlain and Russell combined to play 19% (almost 1/5) of the total minutes played by Cs that decade.

For comparison, in the 1990s (1989-90 to 1998-99) Olajuwon, Ewing, David Robinson, Mutombo, Shaq, and Alonzo Mourning combined to play just 13%-14% of the total minutes played by Cs.

[Slax]

I know this thread is about Oscar, but I really can't get past the thread title calling Wilt tied at #1 for most underrated and disrespected player in the history of the game

[Owly]

For one thing, in a much smaller league back then, he saw top-flight competition at the five that today's best bigs see much less often in the course of a season. How often does Embiid face Jokic? By comparison, Nate might see Wilt one night, two nights later see Russell, have an "easier" night against Zelmo Beaty, then later that week face off against Bob Pettit or Wesley Unseld or Walt Bellamy. That might be a bit of an exaggeration, but not by much.

This is spot on, and what many who claim that the Cs of yesteryear would not thrive today completely miss.

In the decade of the 1960s (1959-60 to 1968-69), just 6 Cs played 45% of the total C minutes played - Chamberlain, Russell, Bellamy, Beaty, Willis Reed, and Nate Thurmond. So they were playing against each other a lot.

Heck - just Chamberlain and Russell combined to play 19% (almost 1/5) of the total minutes played by Cs that decade.

For comparison, in the 1990s (1989-90 to 1998-99) Olajuwon, Ewing, David Robinson, Mutombo, Shaq, and Alonzo Mourning combined to play just 13%-14% of the total minutes played by Cs.

Are you counting all Willis's minutes. Because if so you're accounting for "the total C minutes played" with a player playing quite a lot of power forward (year 2 until Bellamy leaves). This is also and issue with Thurmond playing with Wilt, though for a shorter period.

In the 8-9 team league era (and of course you couldn't play yourself) obviously teams saw a lot more of one another. But if your accounting for "center minutes" it would have to be filled only by player minutes at the center position.

[kcktiny]

No.

I simply designated a player at a particular position to get an estimate. So for example the total C minutes per game for the decade of the 1960s comes out to only about 46.5 min/g. For PFs about 47 min/g. For SFs about 49.5 min/g.

If you know the minutes each player played at specific positions I would like to see your minutes estimates. Could then factor that in.

[tsherkin]

What else is there to say about Oscar? He was a great player. He suffers from the fact that over the decades since his retirement, there are other great players who have achieved more than he did in his career, so he is necessarily falling behind on lists and such.

He was a forerunner for bigger ballhandlers (6'5 was pretty big for a ball-handler back then, much like Jordan was big for a shooting guard in college). He was a statistical monster, and snuck in a rare MVP around the big dogs of his era, which was impressive. He had a diverse, well-rounded and fundamentally-sound skillset. He was great. But you can't stack that up against what others have done and have him come ahead when he doesn't have the hardware to do so against other guys who were/are equally impressive statistically, you know?

Dude was clearly awesome, but nothing's forever, and he's been retired for about half a century. It isn't surprising that the game has produced players who've outdone him. It'll happen to almost everyone eventually. Hell, even Kareem's scoring record is being threatened right now, you know?

[ty 4191]

For one thing, in a much smaller league back then, he saw top-flight competition at the five that today's best bigs see much less often in the course of a season. How often does Embiid face Jokic? By comparison, Nate might see Wilt one night, two nights later see Russell, have an "easier" night against Zelmo Beaty, then later that week face off against Bob Pettit or Wesley Unseld or Walt Bellamy. That might be a bit of an exaggeration, but not by much.

This is spot on, and what many who claim that the Cs of yesteryear would not thrive today completely miss.

In the decade of the 1960s (1959-60 to 1968-69), just 6 Cs played 45% of the total C minutes played - Chamberlain, Russell, Bellamy, Beaty, Willis Reed, and Nate Thurmond. So they were playing against each other a lot.

Heck - just Chamberlain and Russell combined to play 19% (almost 1/5) of the total minutes played by Cs that decade.

For comparison, in the 1990s (1989-90 to 1998-99) Olajuwon, Ewing, David Robinson, Mutombo, Shaq, and Alonzo Mourning combined to play just 13%-14% of the total minutes played by Cs.

This is entirely true and seemingly always overlooked. Just a few examples:

--Wilt played 828 of his 1205 games against HOF Centers (68.7%).

--Russell played 727 of 1128 games against HOF Centers (64.5%).

--KAJ played 659 of 1797 games against HOF Centers (36.7%).

--Shaq played 223 of 1423 games against HOF Centers (15.6%).

[countryboy667]

What else is there to say about Oscar? He was a great player. He suffers from the fact that over the decades since his retirement, there are other great players who have achieved more than he did in his career, so he is necessarily falling behind on lists and such.

He was a forerunner for bigger ballhandlers (6'5 was pretty big for a ball-handler back then, much like Jordan was big for a shooting guard in college). He was a statistical monster, and snuck in a rare MVP around the big dogs of his era, which was impressive. He had a diverse, well-rounded and fundamentally-sound skillset. He was great. But you can't stack that up against what others have done and have him come ahead when he doesn't have the hardware to do so against other guys who were/are equally impressive statistically, you know?

Dude was clearly awesome, but nothing's forever, and he's been retired for about half a century. It isn't surprising that the game has produced players who've outdone him. It'll happen to almost everyone eventually. Hell, even Kareem's scoring record is being threatened right now, you know?

Basketball is a TEAM game. In measuring the greatness of a player, hardware earned is only one measure of how good a player is. Based strictly on hardware, Kurt Rambis is a better player than Oscar was. Would Jordan be considered a lesser player if he had played with much less talented teammates and won fewer rings? Oscar was shackled with relatively mediocre teammates at Cincinnati, and even a very good one, probably the best he ever teamed with as a Royal (HOFer Jerry Lucas) was undersized for his best position. When Oscar had better teammates (Kareem) he was a key component in winning a title, as Kareem himself has said. Kareem is a thoughtful guy not given to making extreme statements, but he said this:

https://nesn.com/2013/10/kareem-abdul-jabbar-says-oscar-robertson-was-better-than-lebron-james-and-michael-jordan/

I stand by what I said. Oscar doesn't get nearly the respect he deserves from today's fans. Bring him in his prime to today's game and give him a little time to adjust, he'd be easily the premiere PG in the league. No-one in the game today has "outdone" him. When they've won more than Oscar, that's mostly because they've just benefited from better teammates, much looser rules and subsequent toleration of poorer fundamentals, and modern training and medicine.

[tsherkin]

Basketball is a TEAM game. In measuring the greatness of a player, hardware earned is only one measure of how good a player is. Based strictly on hardware, Kurt Rambis is a better player than Oscar was. Would Jordan be considered a lesser player if he had played with much less talented teammates and won fewer rings? Oscar was shackled with relatively mediocre teammates at Cincinnati, and even a very good one, probably the best he ever teamed with as a Royal (HOFer Jerry Lucas) was undersized for his best position. When Oscar had better teammates (Kareem) he was a key component in winning a title, as Kareem himself has said. Kareem is a thoughtful guy not given to making extreme statements, but he said this:

https://nesn.com/2013/10/kareem-abdul-jabbar-says-oscar-robertson-was-better-than-lebron-james-and-michael-jordan/

I stand by what I said. Oscar doesn't get nearly the respect he deserves from today's fans. Bring him in his prime to today's game and give him a little time to adjust, he'd be easily the premiere PG in the league. No-one in the game today has "outdone" him. When they've won more than Oscar, that's mostly because they've just benefited from better teammates, much looser rules and subsequent toleration of poorer fundamentals, and modern training and medicine.

I think you missed my point, so I'm not entirely clear why you quoted me. I respect Oscar a lot, but he doesn't have enough individual OR team accolades to really run with with the top dogs in terms of all-time comparison. Which shouldn't be a surprise, because after enough decades, everyone eventually falls from their pedestal as their achievements are surpassed. In-era, Oscar was clearly one of the very best players in the game, and the legacy of what he achieved last a long, long time. I grew into the game with The Art of Basketball as a seminal text guiding my training, and how I coached a lot of other players, for example, and that's decades after he retired. He was amazing. He'd still be amazing in today's game. But there is a point where you have a bunch of guys who achieve similar statistical success where comparisons move into recognition-based stuff like personal awards and titles. That's unavoidable, because there are only so many ways to differentiate players.

Oscar would be nasty today. He'd have to evolve and be a little different than he was in his own time, of course, because the game isn't the same, but he certainly had the size and skill to hang in this era, no question. The "hurrr, TEAM" defense only goes so far, though, because at some point, you have 75 years of players who need to get separated from one another in these styles of conversations, and when someone doesn't win enough or garner enough individual recognition in his own time, they fade compared to those who did. That's just natural.