mailmp wrote:Doctor MJ wrote:I think we've seen indicators that West was an exceptionally capable passer as well. That '67-68 vBK offense was Princetonian. It involved motion and read & react thinking, and when West played, it was the greatest offense in the history of the game to that point.
... narrowly edging Wilt’s 76ers from the year prior (and
they won a title), but I did not see people championing Wilt as a top of the line passer for that. And then Kareem led a top offence the second he arrived in the league, and further blowing away everyone with a
new “best ever” offence when Oscar arrived (who again had led the league’s top offence basically every year since his arrival except for the three just mentioned...), but I saw plenty criticising
his impact. West and this historic 1968 offence is starting to border on 2009 Brandon Roy levels of parody.
I have to say up front that your way of phrasing stuff is getting me close to the point of not talking to you any more. Your tone once again has a taunting flavor that is irritating. You want to come here and have thoughtful conversation with us? Please be polite. I'm not perfect at this either, and that is why I have to consider ceasing a conversation.
The fact that West's team's offense only slightly surpassed the existing best offense of all time which was also not run by Oscar is not much of an argument against West.
The other component that needs to remembered is that West missed a chunk of the season and that the team's ORtg in West's games are a lot higher. West was the central piece in what was clearly the best offense to that point in league history, and that offense was based on read & react play which to my mind is generally the ultimate test on how well you can think on the court.
Keep in mind though that I'm not trying to use this to say West > Oscar on this front, I'm just saying that if there's any notion that West didn't show himself to be extraordinarily capable as a passer beyond the vast majority of volume scorers, there's clear evidence suggesting otherwise.
To the notion of it being only one season, with regards to career achievement I get that, but if we're talking about skills and capacity, it doesn't matter what fraction of a player's career he did something if we have evidence to suggest he was capable of doing it in general.
mailmp wrote:I'm fine with people saying slightly so, but the gap isn't likely to be massive+, and when you add that West was likely a better scorer and a considerably stronger defender, to me West has the overall edge whenever I compare Oscar & West's games.
This reflects a trend I have seen develop where people functionally pretend that passing just stops mattering at a certain level. Oscar/Magic and West/Bird were both good, therefore, the gap is not that large, so then when you look at one scoring at more volume and playing better defence, oh, I guess that outweighs the one skill of passing!
But that is not actually how it goes. The reason Magic is better than Bird is because yes his passing is that additive. Nash is better than Paul at his peak despite dramatically weaker defence and lower scoring volume because yes his passing is that additive. I acknowledge the peak between Oscar and West is close, and if someone gives the narrowest of peak edges overall to West then so be it... but Oscar’s passing really was that additive, and 1968 can only carry this argument of West as a top tier passer so far. Basketball is not just about ticking off skill boxes.
I don't consider "additive" to be a meaningful descriptor here, just personally. To me great passing should be in effect multiplicative (or choose whatever non-linear function you prefer). You're trying to unlock opportunities for your team based on what you see in any given moment, and when you have multiple guys on your team who can do this, it presents a more qualitative increase in what's possible for your team.
I think it does have to be noted that the offenses that Oscar led were literally ineffective compared to those that would come later. He deserves plenty of credit for being the most effective offensive player in the game for first half decade or so of his career, but this was a time ripe for further revolution. It should not be suggested that Oscar was doing everything definitively in the best possible way, only that he had first rate passing abilities, both in vision and execution.
In the end, I'm hard pressed not to say something similar about West.
mailmp wrote:I can still see an argument for Oscar over West based on his early advantage in impact, and I recognize that he also has a small longevity edge, but when West put it all together, I think he was better, and he was still a top tier MVP candidate like this after Oscar's sun was clearly in the process of setting.
I think the gap between 1961-65 Oscar and West is dramatically larger than the gap between 1966-70 Oscar and West (especially considering the 1967 postseason injury) — and then I do not see West’s 1972-74 West having much of an edge over 1971-74 Oscar at all because, again, guess who was there the whole time (but even if you just get rid of Oscar’s worst year of those four, I still do not think West is really topping him by much).
I think it's completely find to say that '61-65 makes the difference for you in this comparison.
What I'm saying is that given what each guy eventually proved, I think West was the superior all-around player.
A tennis analogy comes to mind:
I think most people are familiar with Chris Evert vs Martina Navratilova.
Most people simply assume Navratilova deserves to be ranked higher and don't realize that if we look only at singles accomplishments, Evert really had the more decorated career.
But both players kept getting better over the course of their run, and eventually Navratilova's super body surpassed Evert's superior mind. At their best, Navratilova was clearly better, and that's why people rarely make the case for Evert any more.
I'm using more Navratilova-esque thought rather than more Evert-esque thought when I'm evaluating these two.
