RealGM 2023 Top 100 Project - #15 (Oscar Robertson)

[Joao Saraiva]

I planned to vote but I'm still not on the list. Can i still make it?

[Doctor MJ]

I planned to vote but I'm still not on the list. Can i still make it?

My apologies I’ve lost track of you. Go ahead and vote will add you to the list when I get a chance.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Clyde Frazier]

By saying 'he dominated his era' so we have to rate him higher, even if I agree that modern player X would spank him if we teleported him to his era', you are basically punishing guys for being born too late. In a way it's more inexplicable to me than the old timer fans who think players back then could actually hang today. Like, it's clearly wrong IMO, but at least it's logically consistence. That's what's so baffling about the position of voters like Colbini.

What year do you stop dinging guys for what you consider lesser competition?

[Colbinii]

By saying 'he dominated his era' so we have to rate him higher, even if I agree that modern player X would spank him if we teleported him to his era', you are basically punishing guys for being born too late. In a way it's more inexplicable to me than the old timer fans who think players back then could actually hang today. Like, it's clearly wrong IMO, but at least it's logically consistence. That's what's so baffling about the position of voters like Colbini.

What year do you stop dinging guys for what you consider lesser competition?

2022 and below.

[Doctor MJ]

Imagine that humans only grew a 2nd hand in 1957. Would people here still argue the GOAT one handed player was the 15th best player of all-time? We have a hall of fame to recognise that stuff. This list is about how good you were at basketball.

Okay, this is sort of hyperbole is not helpful and the whole conversation is getting useless to read.
Let me hammer in 3 things here:

1. You are not in a position to say what this project is about. I am, and I've already explained this a number of times. I'm pretty confident that everyone who has read my instructions understands what the boundaries of the criteria are at this point, but anyone who wants to ask me questions can do so if they do so respectfully.

2. Realistically, the thing driving this particular conflict in the project isn't going to naturally peak until after Mikan is voted in, and while that could be soon, it might take a while. So long as Mikan is a candidate we should theoretically be having debate about him...but I'm not sure if any further productive debate is possible. People seem like they've made up their mind and are just getting more frustrated with every interaction. I'd thus recommend for everyone who has already made up their mind to limit their discussion on the matter to either a) their own voting post, or b) responses to earnest queries from other people.

3. A project like this requires an agree-to-disagree mentality beyond a certain point. While it's fun for us to look at the lists that get created, and analyze how perception is changing over time, there's nothing about a group project like this that necessarily creates a more correct list than what one person can do on their own. As I've already shared, I've been through all this many times before, and so I've got "my list" which, while it may change over the course of the project, I'll by definition prefer to whatever this list ends up showing us...but I don't emphasize my own list as much as I emphasize this group's list. Why? Because I think the focused discussion of basketball is what builds community and allows future newbies to learn from, and also that having groups of people focusing on discussions of basketball history is what keeps that history alive.

This then to say that it's up to each person to decide whether they see value in a project like this. If you believe you're right and everyone else is wrong and hopeless, it probably makes sense to publish your own lists somewhere where it might reach as big of an audience as possible. Not telling people that they should do that rather than being here - because I believe there's something great about this communal process where we learn from others who know things we don't and come to understand different perspective - but just saying, there's a reason why a group project like this just isn't everybody's jam.

Doc

[Clyde Frazier]

Vote 1 - Oscar Robertson
Vote 2 - Dirk Nowitzki
Nominate - Julius Erving

Oscar was very clearly one of the most fundamentally sound players of all time. His combination of size, strength, ball control and court vision really hadn't been seen before, although west was certainly right there talent-wise.

In 4 of oscar's first 6 playoff appearances, he was eliminated by the eventual NBA champs (celtics in 63, 64, 66 and sixers in 67). There's no real indication that he struggled mightily in the playoffs. I think losing to a team in the celtics that dominated the 60s and then what's considered one of the best teams of all time in the 67 sixers is telling. When he teamed up with kareem in 71, he still played an integral role in their winning the title, averaging 23.5 PPG, 5 RPG, 9.5 APG on 52% from the field and 81% from the line. 

On Oscar defending west during the 72 WCF and prior to that:

Something which would not go away by itself was Oscar Robertson, who guarded West tightly, harassing him with firm hand checks and his superior size and strength despite a deep muscle pull in his stomach which restricted his normal quickness. Since Robertson arrived in Milwaukee in 1970, West has not played well against the Bucks: last season he hit only 32% of his shots, and by the fourth game of this year's playoffs he was still under 40% for the series. In the third game West scored on nearly half his attempts, but he tried only 19 shots and generally took only wide open ones.

http://www.si.com/vault/1972/04/24/612528/bombs-away-out-west

Via The Oklahoman newspaper, Hubie Brown on when he was an assistant in MIL with Oscar and Kareem:

Aside from coming up short in the Finals, what stuck with you the most about the years you coached Kareem Abdul-Jabbar and Oscar Robertson?

I would tell teams the third thing when I would take over a job, I would come in with a list of subject and topics that I would cover, the third thing I would tell them was of being involved with Kareem, who’s going to win his third MVP in four years in the league, and then Oscar, who at that time was the greatest all-around player in the history of the game and was at the end, ‘You will practice hard hard every day. We will run an organized practice session so that you can reach your potential. We as a staff owe it to you to be totally organized on a daily basis, and to give you an advantage every night to win.’ Because I learned that from those two guys. I told them there’s no one in this room who will ever match Kareem Abdul-Jabbar or Oscar Robertson. And if you doubt that, just go to the record books and look up what they accomplished.

So I would say to them ‘You will be accountable.’ Because for two years, I never saw a high school or college team practice as hard as the Milwaukee Bucks. And the teaching by Larry Costello opened my eyes to a whole new doctorate’s degree in basketball. Because I say this all the time, when your two best players are coachable and are winners, they demand that you come prepared. And they demand that good game plan. And they demand the scouting. And being with them was enjoyable because each guy in his own way was a genius at his profession. They both knew every play and where all five guys had to be in every one of the sets that we had. And it was eye-opening.

And that loss in Game 7 was so difficult because we both won on the others court. But on the last game of the year in the regular season, we lost our excellent point guard, Lucious Allen, with an ACL. Dave Bing fell across Lucious, and Lucious came down on a uniform that they used to lay out next to the benches in the old days. And he slipped on that thing, and I’ll be dammed Dave landed right across his knee and that hurt us from winning a championship. Because Don Chaney and Jo Jo White pressed us the full time, and our backup point guards couldn’t handle the pressure. And Oscar, at his age, at that time, had to handle the ball in the last two games against that kind of pressure. And when people don’t understand what hand checking is, Don Chaney, at 6-5, had the biggest hands and could put it right on your hip and he could steer you. His hands were that big and that strong. God, you’re bringing back a lot of memories.

[70sFan]

^ 70sfan doesn’t live in America, so if some things might seem obvious living here just keep in mind he doesn’t live here so certain things might not be super apparent to him

Anyway this is a weird convo in general lol

That doesn't answer my question. What's the reason behind white Americans being less skilled than black Americans? Do you think it has anything to do with their race or something else?

Genetics. In the same way that Asian people tend to be shorter on average, African Americans tend to be extraordinarily good at running and jumping and the kind of fast twitch movements which are very helpful in basketball. There are no cultural factors keeping white people from playing football and they’re very heavily represented at many positions, but at the position most reliant on running and jumping, cornerback, not one of the NFL’s 64 starting cornerbacks has been white for the last 20 seasons. Currently, there isn’t even a white backup cornerback in the NFL. You can pretend there’s no genetic basis for certain ethnicities having strengths and weaknesses if it fits your agenda, but the data’s pretty overwhelming in the other direction.

Yeah, I thought so...

[lessthanjake]

That doesn't answer my question. What's the reason behind white Americans being less skilled than black Americans? Do you think it has anything to do with their race or something else?

Genetics. In the same way that Asian people tend to be shorter on average, African Americans tend to be extraordinarily good at running and jumping and the kind of fast twitch movements which are very helpful in basketball. There are no cultural factors keeping white people from playing football and they’re very heavily represented at many positions, but at the position most reliant on running and jumping, cornerback, not one of the NFL’s 64 starting cornerbacks has been white for the last 20 seasons. Currently, there isn’t even a white backup cornerback in the NFL. You can pretend there’s no genetic basis for certain ethnicities having strengths and weaknesses if it fits your agenda, but the data’s pretty overwhelming in the other direction.

Yeah, I thought so...

I’m by no means super well-informed on this subject matter, but I found the following pretty interesting: https://slate.com/technology/2008/12/race-genes-and-sports.html

It seems to suggest that there’s likely *both* a genetic and environmental component at play here.

[70sFan]

Only because of the years where the rules were literally broken in favor of scorers who play close to the basket. Forget modern guys, give Wilt a 6 foot key in the 60s, he might score 70 a game against the exact same competition. Russell wouldn’t have had a prayer of stopping him. From 51/52 on, Mikan wasn’t any more dominant in his time than Jokic was in his era and Jokic actually played more games than Mikan and still hasn’t been nominated yet.

Yeah and you base it all on PER numbers right?

People like to **** on PER, but one of the good things about it is that it's very easy to figure out what kind of players tend to be underrated and overrated by it. The type of players who tend to have much better impact stats than PER tend to be really elite defenders and really elite passer/playmakers. Jokic clearly fits into the second category and his lead over the rest of the league in truly advanced stats has been much better than his lead in PER. Mikan was an unremarkable passer and a good, but far from elite defender. So if anyone's underrated by PER relative to their era, it's Jokic.

Are you aware that PER for the 1950s is a completely different stat than for the 2020s players? I have been trying for a few days to inform you that people use different formulas to calculate PER for different eras, but you keep ignoring it all the time.

[Joao Saraiva]

Vote Oscar Robertson
Alternate Karl Malone
Nominate Julius Erving

(can someone please clarifty? Nominate is someone I want to discuss or a 3rd vote?)

Big O has decent longevity. He had tremendous impact on offense and was an historic all arround player. I know what players do off court shouldn't matter but I'd like to say big O deserves a mention for his work outside the court too. Because of it I think he gets a big forgotten, but he certainly deserves to be in the all time 15.

Amazing efficiency, tremendous all arround play, and enough team success justify his place in this spot I think. In a vacuum I'd say he's not that far from Magic, altough different era and circumstances justify spots lower. Maybe a bit like the Duncan/KG comparison.

Hard to ignore a guard putting up almost 60ts% in the 60s while leading the league in assists and rebounding tremendously well per position.

It's time for big O to get on the list.

Sorry but not sorry to Karl Malone. Loved him as a kid/teen but he was a jerk off court. But I'll vote him as soon as Oscar goes.

[penbeast0]

...
(can someone please clarifty? Nominate is someone I want to discuss or a 3rd vote?)
...

Nominate is someone you want to discuss for one of the next spots on the list; you can't vote for a person until he has been nominated. And you can nominate 2 if you want.

[Dr Positivity]

Vote

1. Dirk Nowitzki
2. David Robinson

Nominate

1. Kevin Durant
2. Chris Paul

DIRK has a superb all around resume, longevity, quality recent ish competition, great playoff peak due to halfcourt skillset, good leader. I always thought it was impressive mid 2000s Mavs were a 60 W, finals core with the talent around him. Terry, Howard, Jerry Stack, Harris, Dampier and Diop is not a remarkable "greater than the sum of their parts" type cast like 11 Mavs or guys who's +/- impact is much greater than their numbers. That's before getting to the champion team who won title over a very talented Heat team with no true 2nd star.

[penbeast0]

By saying 'he dominated his era' so we have to rate him higher, even if I agree that modern player X would spank him if we teleported him to his era', you are basically punishing guys for being born too late. In a way it's more inexplicable to me than the old timer fans who think players back then could actually hang today. Like, it's clearly wrong IMO, but at least it's logically consistence. That's what's so baffling about the position of voters like Colbini.

What year do you stop dinging guys for what you consider lesser competition?

Interesting that you put it that way because one of the more common things is to basically give full credit to Bird, Magic, and at least the 80s part of Kareem's career while assuming everything before it was trash. Some people, don't know about any particular poster until they tell us, do just seem to draw a magic line in the sand where suddenly the NBA was a completely different league.

To me, if you did that, the three biggest lines would be (a) adoption of the shot clock in the 54-55 season, (b) 1960 or 61 when Wilt, Oscar and West had joined Russell, Baylor and Pettit and there were massive jumps in shooting efficiency, (b) 2014 or 2015 when the pace and space revolution spread from 2 or 3 teams to the whole league and everyone started spamming threes creating another jump in individual shooting efficiency. These three break points seem to be more revolutionary than the ABA/NBA merger or the introduction of the 3 point line (which didn't translate to change in style terribly quickly) which is the more common place. That might be the point at which media coverage significantly changed but not really the point at which playing style did.

[therealbig3]

I struggle with Mikan personally, I can totally see the hesitation that some voters have.

I mean, is it not reasonable to think that Mikan was the best player for a game in its infancy and that he was somewhat lucky to play in the era that he did, but that he wouldn't be close to that dominant of a player if he played against more legitimate competition that showed up just a few years later?

He played pre-shot clock era as well, which to me is essentially a different game. Two major changes in the sport that can't really be ignored: the shot clock, and the 3pt line. Before the shot clock, I don't think there's a good way to accurately compare Mikan to anyone that came after, although he was obviously dominant in his time.

IDK, personally, I wouldn't have Mikan or anyone pre shot clock in my top 100, although I can understand if some people feel differently and want to include him based on his in-era accomplishments, that's fair.

For me, this comes down to Oscar vs Dirk...and as someone that championed Kobe over Oscar mainly because there's just more data for Kobe that gives me more confidence in his actual level of goodness than with Oscar, I think Dirk should get the nod here for similar reasons. But Oscar would be an awesome choice as well, him vs West is essentially 60s Magic vs Bird.

[One_and_Done]

What year do you stop dinging guys for what you consider lesser competition?

You never stop, because we should apply context every season. I give Lebron much more credit for beating the Warriors in 2016 than say Seattle in 1979, because the league was much stronger. I'd also give it more credit than Denver's 23 title, becase the contenders in 24 were weaker even if the league as a whole was stronger. It's all about context.

[70sFan]

Genetics. In the same way that Asian people tend to be shorter on average, African Americans tend to be extraordinarily good at running and jumping and the kind of fast twitch movements which are very helpful in basketball. There are no cultural factors keeping white people from playing football and they’re very heavily represented at many positions, but at the position most reliant on running and jumping, cornerback, not one of the NFL’s 64 starting cornerbacks has been white for the last 20 seasons. Currently, there isn’t even a white backup cornerback in the NFL. You can pretend there’s no genetic basis for certain ethnicities having strengths and weaknesses if it fits your agenda, but the data’s pretty overwhelming in the other direction.

Yeah, I thought so...

I’m by no means super well-informed on this subject matter, but I found the following pretty interesting: https://slate.com/technology/2008/12/race-genes-and-sports.html

It seems to suggest that there’s likely *both* a genetic and environmental component at play here.

I am by no means an expert in genetics, so take it with a lot of distance, but this article doesn't explain the massive disproportion between black and white American players in the NBA. It only suggests that it's slightly more likely to have better genetics to play basketball, but it also states that you can't use this as the main reason to explain the situation. It also states that such genetic components are spread around populations, not around races (which sounds perfectly reasonable).

I think everybody agrees that genetics are extremely important to be good at professional sport, but we don't really have much evidences that black people are significantly more athletic than other races.

[ijspeelman]

We may be getting a little off-topic in this thread.

I think its completely valid to bring up that a large portion of the US's population was barred from playing basketball until 1950. Even once the ban lifted, racism persisted and black players trickled in slowly.

For the players that played in that era is it fair to knock them since they weren't playing against the largest population possible during this period? For me, no, but for you maybe. Its completely up to one's own volition on how they want to treat the environment around these Top 100 players. I like to try to create an even playing field so I era-adjust and ignore external factors that don't occur on the court.

I also want to comment that this isn't a list of the players that are the best of basketball. This is a list of the players that impacted their own basketball teams and their league as they played in it.

[lessthanjake]

Yeah, I thought so...

I’m by no means super well-informed on this subject matter, but I found the following pretty interesting: https://slate.com/technology/2008/12/race-genes-and-sports.html

It seems to suggest that there’s likely *both* a genetic and environmental component at play here.

I am by no means an expert in genetics, so take it with a lot of distance, but this article doesn't explain the massive disproportion between black and white American players in the NBA. It only suggests that it's slightly more likely to have better genetics to play basketball, but it also states that you can't use this as the main reason to explain the situation. It also states that such genetic components are spread around populations, not around races (which sounds perfectly reasonable).

I think everybody agrees that genetics are extremely important to be good at professional sport, but we don't really have much evidences that black people are significantly more athletic than other races.

Yeah, I think what the link is saying (and, I should caveat again that I’m no expert, so if there’s contrary info somewhere, I welcome people presenting it) is, in part, that: (1) different races do actually have different propensity to possess certain genes that correspond with having a lot of fast-twitch muscle fibers (which are crucial to generating speed and power); and (2) this different propensity is not large enough to fully explain the high percent of the NBA that is comprised of black people.

Which is to say basically that there is a genetic component here that might *partially* explain the racial makeup of the NBA, but that that genetic component doesn’t explain the entire phenomenon, so there’s also likely some environmental component (i.e. for instance, cultural differences) that goes into this as well.

To tie this back to the discussion about Mikan’s era, even without any difference in genetic propensity, the fact that black people were not able to play in the league at the time obviously weakens the league, because any group being barred would obviously lower the talent pool. The fact that the group that was not able to play in the league also happens to be a group that apparently has a greater propensity to possess certain genes associated with fast-twitch muscle fibers just magnifies that effect even more, since the barred group is one that we'd expect to possess a higher concentration of basketball talent on average than there is in the overall population.

[70sFan]

I’m by no means super well-informed on this subject matter, but I found the following pretty interesting: https://slate.com/technology/2008/12/race-genes-and-sports.html

It seems to suggest that there’s likely *both* a genetic and environmental component at play here.

I am by no means an expert in genetics, so take it with a lot of distance, but this article doesn't explain the massive disproportion between black and white American players in the NBA. It only suggests that it's slightly more likely to have better genetics to play basketball, but it also states that you can't use this as the main reason to explain the situation. It also states that such genetic components are spread around populations, not around races (which sounds perfectly reasonable).

I think everybody agrees that genetics are extremely important to be good at professional sport, but we don't really have much evidences that black people are significantly more athletic than other races.

Yeah, I think what the link is saying (and, I should caveat again that I’m no expert, so if there’s contrary info somewhere, I welcome people presenting it) is, in part, that: (1) different races do actually have different propensity to possess certain genes that correspond with having a lot of fast-twitch muscle fibers (which are crucial to generating speed and power); and (2) this different propensity is not large enough to fully explain the high percent of the NBA that is comprised of black people.

Which is to say basically that there is a genetic component here that might *partially* explain the racial makeup of the NBA, but that that genetic component doesn’t explain the entire phenomenon, so there’s also likely some environmental component (i.e. for instance, cultural differences) that goes into this as well.

To tie this back to the discussion about Mikan’s era, even without any difference in genetic propensity, the fact that black people were not able to play in the league at the time obviously weakens the league, because any group being barred would obviously lower the talent pool. The fact that the group that was not able to play in the league also happens to be a group that apparently has a greater propensity to possess certain genes associated with fast-twitch muscle fibers just magnifies that effect even more, since the barred group is one that we'd expect to possess a higher concentration of basketball talent on average than there is in the overall population.

They mentioned that populations have influences on the genetic potential, not races but I think it's not that important in overall picture. I definitely agree with the last paragraph, the league was significantly weakened by lack of black players in the early years of the league. It's obvious and I hope nobody is stubborn enough to argue otherwise.

[iggymcfrack]

Yeah and you base it all on PER numbers right?

People like to **** on PER, but one of the good things about it is that it's very easy to figure out what kind of players tend to be underrated and overrated by it. The type of players who tend to have much better impact stats than PER tend to be really elite defenders and really elite passer/playmakers. Jokic clearly fits into the second category and his lead over the rest of the league in truly advanced stats has been much better than his lead in PER. Mikan was an unremarkable passer and a good, but far from elite defender. So if anyone's underrated by PER relative to their era, it's Jokic.

Are you aware that PER for the 1950s is a completely different stat than for the 2020s players? I have been trying for a few days to inform you that people use different formulas to calculate PER for different eras, but you keep ignoring it all the time.

Do you actually have something better or is your point just to **** on any comparison anyone else makes?