If Magic was voted in, I see no reason not to vote Oscar a couple of spots next. Offensive impact is the main argument. Check this in/out data (thanks to ElGee):
Spoiler:
So basically when Oscar was off the court for the Royals (40~50 game sample), the team was worse by nearly 8 SRS points. Of course it's easier to add impact with weak supporting casts, but Oscar's production was worth literally half the team.
Then he goes to the Bucks with Kareem. Already a good team without him (Kareem is top 3 ever, you know), post-prime Oscar ('72) bumps a title contender (+7 SRS) to GOAT status (+12 SRS).
That's way bigger offensive impact than Kobe ever had. And considering RAPM data shows Kobe as a neutral defender (at best), I have to vote Oscar. Especially when recent ORtg/DRtg data by Fplii and Lorak shows him as an impactful defender (I have concerns about the sample size, but...).
(I'm aware there isn't full RAPM data for the '01 and '02 seasons, arguably Kobe's best seasons in that end. Still, the eyetest shows him as a very capable man defender -when focused-, but a below average team defender. In fact, Lakers' defenses were usually better with Kobe out (I can post the defensive in/out numbers tomorrow if needed). You sure can't convince me Kobe is a really impactful wing defender, and I consider Oscar the better offensive player: better scoring efficiency, better playmaking, at worst similar athleticism).
If you like scoring numbers, Oscar is roughly +7 TS% above league average for his career. Best mark between the all-time great volume scorers (sans Barkley). +8.5 TS% between '63 and '67.
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.
therealbig3 wrote:I do want to ask...Westbrook, Rondo, and Kidd are brought up as examples of PGs that Kobe played great defense on, and I can't help but notice that all of those guys are not so great outside shooters.
I'm asking because I don't remember these series as well, but was he defending Chris Paul, Deron Williams, and Steve Nash (guys with elite outside shots who were also great floor generals) when they played the Lakers, because those guys have had some really great performances against the Lakers, and I was wondering if Kobe was ever used to slow them down? How did he do?
I know MistyMountain mentioned Paul in 2011, and that Kobe was better than the other defenders, but Paul was still doing his thing, basically. What about Deron from 08-10? What about Nash in 06, 07, and 10?
Well you missed on one thing those guards had in common; speed. For my point I was referencing the more recent years for Kobe.
The one thing that torched the Lakers from '08 and onwards was speed. So somebody like Deron, Fisher shockingly actually played well against and it wasn't necessary for Kobe to guard him. Now I can't remember off hand if Kobe did guard Nash in any of the series they matched up with them, I don't seem to remember him doing so. If I was to offer an explanation for the '06 & '07 series, one would be that Bryant had to exert a good amount of energy on offense in those series, but secondly and more importantly the gameplan for the Lakers in that series was to control the tempo on the offensive end. Their philosophy in that series was to run a calculated offense that bog down the Suns offense. So it wasn't necessarily about slowing down a single player as much as it was bogging down their offense. In 2010, I don't really remember, maybe someone else can step in.
I also would't undersell his efforts against Paul, Paul got his numbers (just not the absurd numbers earlier in the series) but it went a long way towards stifling the rest of their offense. I'd write more but I'm supposed to kinda be working.
Jim Naismith wrote:I used the example because acrossthecourt used the phrase a team that had been to the finals multiple times before him with a lot of the same people as a way to downplay Moses' accomplishment.
Karl Malone was the only other remaining candidate that I could think of who joined such a team. The 2004 Lakers' failure highlights the challenges of winning with a superteam. Thus Moses' achievement in 1983 was legitimately impressive.
I also indicated above that another comparison is 2011 LeBron James, another star who failed to win a championship the year he joined a superteam.
All this goes to show Moses' immediate impact.
I'm not questioning Moses Malone's impact. I don't think there's any question that Moses was the best player in the league in '83. With that said, it is valid to bring up that he joined a team that had made it to the finals the previous year and then had the 4 all-star caliber players surrounding Moses still on the team.
That is a pretty unique situation for a player of his caliber. And it is worth noting that he was the missing piece rather than the player the team built a championship team around.
The Karl Malone 2004 example is still irrelevant, though because Karl was injured. Plus, LA actually hadn't gotten to the finals the previous year and Karl was injured for the finals.
therealbig3 wrote:I do want to ask...Westbrook, Rondo, and Kidd are brought up as examples of PGs that Kobe played great defense on, and I can't help but notice that all of those guys are not so great outside shooters.
I'm asking because I don't remember these series as well, but was he defending Chris Paul, Deron Williams, and Steve Nash (guys with elite outside shots who were also great floor generals) when they played the Lakers, because those guys have had some really great performances against the Lakers, and I was wondering if Kobe was ever used to slow them down? How did he do?
I know MistyMountain mentioned Paul in 2011, and that Kobe was better than the other defenders, but Paul was still doing his thing, basically. What about Deron from 08-10? What about Nash in 06, 07, and 10?
It's a myth that Kobe was playing Westbrook often in the 2010 series. Westbrook had 13 FGA against Kobe in that series. His total in that series is 91 FGA (just 1/7 of his FGA).
Kobe also didn't shut down Kidd in 2002. Kidd's stat in that series were actually better than his regular season stats. His TS% and O rating went up in that series.
Hmm, I won't comment on Kidd since I haven't reviewed that series, but in regards to Kobe on Westbrook, I distinctly remember Bryant being placed onto him for games 5 & 6 - where he started to get his knees drained of excess fluids. I'd have to go over the tape, but I'm pretty sure he was the main defender for the final two games. And mind you from that point on, he continued to be the main defender on Westbrook in subsequent matchups.
Just to add to what I said, there are articles detailing the matchup switch.
152. Phil Jackson Took until Game 5 for him to say, "Maybe I should put Kobe (my best perimeter defender) on Russell Westbrook (the guy who's killing us) and shift Derek Fisher (who can't defend anyone) to Thabo Sefolosha (who can't score and seems mildly terrified)." Actually, he didn't say it -- Kobe told him, "I'm guarding Westbrook tonight."
Couldn't find anything detailing game 6, so I'd have to look up the game to see if he continued playing him in that game (could have sworn he did though).
I think that the mid 60's was a weak era so its shocking how mediocre Oscar's teams especially when you compare them to some of the teams that finished around Oscar's teams. A star player in the 60's should have had massive impact.
fpliii wrote:Just wondering, could Oscar guard 1-3 from what you've seen?
Definitely.
What do you think we should make of the off/def data?
I still have no idea But no matter if off/def splits are right, real overall impact should be close to the results we've got.
Who so you think are comparable defenders in today's league who are/were similar to him/West on that end?
I'm not ready to talk about West yet, because so far I haven't even finished research about Oscar, but so far my impression of him (Robertson) on defense is that he was similar to Shane Battier. Just more mobile, or generally more athletic.
Note: I derived per100 stats for Oscar by transforming his per 36 minute stats using team pace, then weighting each season by minutes played.
Both players are fairly evenly matched as rebounders. Neither player was able to win a ring as the chief guy in their prime, although Kobe managed to to it while he was Option 1a with Gasol later in his career. Oscar is the better offensive player, with better offensive efficiency, assists (in an era where assists were harder to come by) and better shooting efficiency. Kobe scores more, and projects as a better defender. Overall Oscar has the career lead in win shares, which is against the run of play given that Kobe should win any 'longevity' arguements.
This is extremely tough, because there is so little frame of reference between them. It does help that both are perimeter players, so there is at least that commonality to work with, but the leagues are so different. OK, focus. I always like to start with their boxscore numbers:
Regular season, 10 year primes per100 possessions Oscar Robertson ('61 - 70): 29.3 pts (57.2% TS), 8.5 reb, 10.3 ast (TO not recorded) Kobe Bryant (2001 - 2010): 37.5 pts (55.9% TS), 7.6 reb, 6.9 ast, 4.1 TO
Playoffs, 10 year primes per 100 possessions Oscar Robertson ('61 - 70): 29.7 pts (56.6% TS), 9.3 reb, 9.4 ast (TO not recorded) Kobe Bryant (2001 - 2010): 35.8 pts (54.8%), 7.1 reb, 6.7 ast, 4.0 TO
I have to note that Oscar's stats here are his actual numbers (since I don't have per 100 to work with), but I'm confident that he played at least a 100 possessions pace.
As I mentioned the last time, Oscar's numbers are a bit more impressive to me. Kobe scores at a bit higher volume, but Oscar is clearly better as a distributor and is more efficient. The rebounds are hard to compare without more precise pace adjustment. These numbers make sense with what I expect from them stylistically. So let's spend a bit of time there.
The Stylistics
I laid out my qualitative thoughts on Kobe and his uniqueness in the Dirk/Kobe post, so I'll spoiler it here:
Spoiler:
I think people recognize the uniqueness of Dirk, but maybe don't always see it in Kobe because he (seemingly deliberately) reminds people so much of Jordan. But ironically, despite his resemblance to his Airness, Kobe is still extremely rare. People forget that before Jordan a shooting guard that was 6-6 or 6-7 and uber athletic was extremely rare. After Jordan it became more of the goal (because everyone wanted to be the next Jordan), but for the most part these bigger 2s handled the ball more like 3s. Kobe, on the other hand, could control his dribble and direct the offense almost like a combo guard...only most combo guards are 3 or 4 inches shorter. Then, while Jordan was always a slasher first-and-foremost (and then later in his career became more of a post threat as his athleticism waned), Kobe always seemed more comfortable operating from the outside-in. He had the high-flying athleticism (and later the strength/footwork to be a great post threat on offense), but his long-range was always more natural than Jordan's and it was a larger staple of his scoring. This played a part in what has been both a boon and a bane for Kobe...he could always get a shot that he was comfortable with from the perimeter, no matter how he was defended. As such, he is one of the best difficult-shot-makers that I've ever seen. That sometimes tempts him to take a lower percentage shot when a higher percentage look (for himself or a teammate) was available, but on the flip-side it makes him a higher-than-expected percentage threat when the offense breaks down and he has to make something happen alone.
Now, to Oscar. Oscar sounds to me like an old-school mixture of Magic and LeBron. He had Magic's abilities as a floor general, but was also consistently a lead scorer on the order of LeBron. Outside of Magic, he's also the biggest ATG point guard that I can think of at the moment at a stocky 6-5. This speaks to the likelihood that Oscar would be able to play at a high level in any era. Oscar was very physical for a guard, and his rebounding ability is a huge plus from the backcourt. Even accounting for pace, Robertson was still one of the best rebounders in his league. He had a great mid-range jumper, and even led the league in free throw percentage a couple of times. In a time when the game was concentrated in the paint where giants ruled, Oscar and West were seemingly the first to demonstrate that perimeter players could dominate the game with high-efficiency offense. Doc MJ has spoken of Oscar and West "getting it" before other perimeter players did, much like Russell "got it" as far as defense and teamwork goes. Oscar seemed to be a bit of a basketball genius, able to see the game in ways that others couldn't. Of course, the flip side of that genius is that he didn't seem to have patience with those that couldn't reach his level of perfection...and whether that's a good thing or a bad thing is hard to say. But what can be said is that Oscar executed individually at the highest levels, and the rankings of his offenses would suggest that the team was following his lead at that end of the court.
Impact:
This is what makes this comparison so difficult. We can qualitatively say that both Oscar and Kobe had a LOT of impact. We can say that both were among the best offensive guards that ever lived. But how do we quantify just how good each were, so that we could compare them to each other.
According to RAPM, Kobe measures out as arguably the biggest impact guards of the last 15 years. On Doc MJ's spreadsheet (normalized PI RAPM 1998 - 2012), the only guards with slightly higher 5-year peaks in RAPM were Manu, Wade and Nash. However, Manu played fewer minutes in a smaller role, Wade flashed to greatness but had a relatively hort, injury-filled prime, and Nash may have (extremely slightly) higher scores while in Phoenix, but he never showed that same level of impact elsewhere which gives Kobe a big consistency/longevity edge on him as well. So all told, Kobe certainly looks like the highest impact guard in the NBA.
We know that Oscar led the best offenses of his time year-after-year. And as in-and-out data attests to, his team fell off a cliff whenever he missed time. Penbeast asked whether Oscar maximized his team's potential, and that's hard to say...but if the team was the best at your specialty (offense) when you played for essentially a decade, and any time you miss time the team stinks, it's hard for me to argue that you didn't max things out.
Comparing the two is going to take some degree of extrapolation. There's no way around it. So to get them on a similar scale, let me try to project Oscar's impact into the present by finding players with whom he shares commonalities. And if I look at that RAPM list, the three perimeter players that most resemble aspects of Oscar all measure out extremely well.
Jason Kidd comes in 12th on the best 5-year peaks of RAPM in the spreadsheet. He was a big point guard like Oscar, and had a mix of distributing skill and crashing the boards that may have resembled Oscar. But he was never the scorer that Oscar was.
Steve Nash comes in 8th on the 5-year peak list, all of which came from his time in Phoenix. While there, he showed Oscar's knack for leading transcendant team offenses and mixing scoring with distribution (though never to the extent that Oscar did) to lead the way. Of course, Nash is one of the better perimeter scorers in the league and we don't know that Oscar would have played very similarly stylistically.
LeBron's scoring/assist ratio is skewed a bit more towards scoring than Oscar's was, but I think their output is most similar. Of course, he's right there at the top of the RAPM (and ORAPM) lists.
When I look at how Oscar played the game, at how huge his impact seemed to be in his own time, and how his free throw drawing style and distribution abilities should have been even more potent in the present day hands-off NBA I have trouble envisioning Oscar's impact not being right there at the top of the list in this generation as well.
Bottom line:
After working through this, I'm leaning Oscar. But I'm not ready to make a final conclusion, because I"m hoping to read more in depth comparisons of the two. We've seen a lot about Oscar or Kobe in a vacuum, we've seen some Oscar/West comparisons and a LOT of Kobe/Karl Malone talk this thread. But I'd love to see folks break down how their strengths and weaknesses compared with each other, so I'll hold out and see if anyone comes in and changes my mind.
drza wrote:I started working on a big Robinson vs. Karl Malone post last night (similar in style to the Kobe/Dirk one I posted) but life interfered and I didn't get to finish. Now I'm at work and can't continue it yet. And by the time I get to it, likely this thread will be right on the verge of starting the run-off (which looks to be between Kobe and Oscar). So I may table that post, and instead look more at the two guards when I post again.
That said, as part of that Robinson post I was tackling the exact thing you pointed out. You ever start writing, then really look at the data and realize your initial point in writing might be wrong? That's what's happening here with me. I started off covering the massive gulf between Malone's longevity (14 prime years, 20 overall) and Robinson's (6 prime years with 1 injured at the end, then several more "sidekick years"). But the more I looked into Robinson's "sidekick" years, the better those years started looking. I'm starting to be reasonably convinced that Robinson's longevity is very comparable to Bird's. And Bird is already in, so from here I'll have to really weigh out just how good I think Robinson actually was at his best.
Thanks for the response. Really looking forward to it, and there's absolutely no hurry. Even if Robinson should be in the conversation and possibly a candidate now, it would be great to have a few threads during which he's the focus (I feel KG was selected too late as well, but there were so many great posts in the later threads that we wouldn't have had if he was voted in earlier).
I really need to look into his injury closely.
lorak wrote:
fpliii wrote:Just wondering, could Oscar guard 1-3 from what you've seen?
Definitely.
What do you think we should make of the off/def data?
I still have no idea But no matter if off/def splits are right, real overall impact should be close to the results we've got.
Who so you think are comparable defenders in today's league who are/were similar to him/West on that end?
I'm not ready to talk about West yet, because so far I haven't even finished research about Oscar, but so far my impression of him (Robertson) on defense is that he was similar to Shane Battier. Just more mobile, or generally more athletic.
Thanks for the breakdown. I trust our estimates for the most part, I think it's just possible that the Royals team fell apart (the West numbers make more sense aside from 71), because of how the team was constructed.
I did PM the spreadsheet to acrossthecourt since he said he wanted to take a look at the data earlier in the thread, maybe he has a recommendation for improving our estimates.
Now that's the difference between first and last place.
I think that the mid 60's was a weak era so its shocking how mediocre Oscar's teams especially when you compare them to some of the teams that finished around Oscar's teams. A star player in the 60's should have had massive impact.
You may want to bold your vote, it could get missed otherwise. Good points though.
drza wrote:I have to note that Oscar's stats here are his actual numbers (since I don't have per 100 to work with), but I'm confident that he played at least a 100 possessions pace.
As I mentioned the last time, Oscar's numbers are a bit more impressive to me.
They are more impressive because they are played at a higher pace, but that's not a fair comparison between Kobe and Oscar, since Kobe's per100 stats actually are what they purport to be, while Oscar's are more like 'Per120poss'. Here's my transformation of their stats:
drza wrote:I always like to start with their boxscore numbers:
Regular season, 10 year primes per100 possessions Oscar Robertson ('61 - 70): 29.3 pts (57.2% TS), 8.5 reb, 10.3 ast (TO not recorded) perGame Oscar Robertson ('61 - 70): 26.9 pts (57.2% TS), 7.8 reb, 9.5 ast (TO not recorded) Kobe Bryant (2001 - 2010): 37.5 pts (55.9% TS), 7.6 reb, 6.9 ast, 4.1 TO
Playoffs, 10 year primes per 100 possessions Oscar Robertson ('61 - 70): 29.7 pts (56.6% TS), 9.3 reb, 9.4 ast (TO not recorded) perGame Oscar Robertson ('61 - 70): 25.7 pts (56.6% TS), 8.0 reb, 8.2 ast (TO not recorded) Kobe Bryant (2001 - 2010): 35.8 pts (54.8%), 7.1 reb, 6.7 ast, 4.0 TO
That makes Oscar look considerably more comparable to Kobe.
imho, Kobe's had his negatives/criticisms (of which there undoubtedly are a several) overstated within this thread (and the last one); while at times his positives/accomplishments have been glossed over or even written off due to circumstance or exaggerated narrative. ShaqAttack (and one or two others) have been pretty active in this thread trying to balance out or correct a lot of the hyperbolic rhetoric.
Over his best 5-year stretch ('06-'10), Kobe averaged 29.8 ppg on .565 TS%.
Even with a more simple/easy criteria of anything >27 ppg on even .550 TS% or better for even a FOUR-year stretch (much less five).........in the last 25 years (where similar-ish pace existed) the only other guys to manage that: Michael Jordan Dwyane Wade Lebron James Karl Malone Kevin Durant Shaquille O'Neal
....three of those guys are already voted in, and Kobe's got the longevity argument over two of the three other guys.
Almost as impressive as noting the guys who DO qualify for the above criteria is making note of the guys who in one way or another DON'T: Charles Barkley, Hakeem Olajuwon, David Robinson, Ray Allen, Tracy McGrady, Dirk Nowitzki, Carmelo Anthony, and Allen Iverson.
And Kobe's got half dozen or so other near or similar quality scoring seasons, as well. I don't think it can be reasonably denied that he's one of the greatest volume scorers of the modern era. His numbers don't tend to dip in the playoffs as much as the average player does. It's been well-established within this thread and the last that vs Karl Malone (the one guy who 1) qualifies for the above criteria, 2) has a longevity case over Kobe, and 3) hasn't been voted in yet), whether you're comparing peak vs. peak, narrow prime vs. narrow prime, extended prime vs. extended prime, anything near-prime vs. near-prime, or career wholes.......Kobe has the higher playoff ppg AND higher playoff TS%.
And over that same 5-year span Kobe also had a 24.3% AST%, and despite that and the scoring load, his TOV% was only 10.4% despite a big 33.7% usage. He was the best player on a team that made it to the finals THREE consecutive years in a super-tough Western Conference, winning it twice (getting FMVP both times).
His ORtg over that span was 114, with a 106 DRtg (which is actually a little better than the 107.2 league avg DRtg over that time-period). As measured by RAPM, he did have a positive defensive impact in '08; in '07, '09, and '10 it was minimally negative (fwiw, Chris Paul has had a couple similarly negative defensive years as measured by RAPM). The only year that was a "significantly negative" defensively was '06, which is pretty understandable given the volume of minutes he had to play (41.0 mpg) while carrying the offense (usage was 38.7%)......and despite that his defensive RAPM wasn't as bad as Steve Nash's usually was, for example. In '07 his DRAPM was minimally negative, despite playing 40+ mpg with 33.6% usage.
So my run-off vote goes to: Kobe Bryant.
Oscar's got a terribly strong resume, too. And tbh, if we were comparing careers of equal length (Oscar's career vs. Kobe's first 14 seasons), I'd pick Oscar. But '11-'13 are significant enough years, imo, that I have to give Kobe the slight edge.
"The fact that a proposition is absurd has never hindered those who wish to believe it." -Edward Rutherfurd "Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities." - Voltaire
colts18 wrote:I would love to see this list of multiple titles that Kobe allegedly cost his titles due to his issues. Point to me the 2-4 titles that Kobe lost his team?
The only one you can blame on Kobe is the 2004 finals because of his aversion to passing in that series. Other than that, I don't see a title that Kobe clearly cost his team. He might have cost his team in 98 because of his terrible play but it had nothing to do with his negative intangibles.
How about the titles the Lakers could have won, but for Shaq being traded? The Heat won in 2006, and were an injury away from making the finals in 05. Perhaps with a few smart role player additions the Lakers win those years. We never got to find out because Kobe wasn't happy just winning, he wanted to win as "the man". This is pretty well documented on page 1.
As for the run-off, I'm not thrilled about either candidate being voted in here, and will need some time to read through the evidence for each before deciding.
When I wrote my post on page 1 it wasn't my intent to wait for the runoff, but I've been busy and to be honest I find choosing here very tough. We're down to a runoff though now, so here we go:
Here's my perspective:
In the regular season, Kobe's played 45k minutes while Oscar played 43k. This is not a significant difference. If you want to give Kobe a longevity edge based on playoff minutes that's your prerogative, but I have a tendency to look at longevity more along the lines of "can you argue it's pretty much a tie?", and here you definitely can.
Now: Oscar came into the league a superstar. He's been the most dominant college player ever, and he came right in and averaged roughly 30/10/10. Talking about pace is appropriate but by any reasonable standard, Oscar came in a star.
Kobe didn't. That's not something I would "blame" Kobe for, but just in putting more context to the longevity question, Oscar doesn't have those younger years that Kobe has. Those years would count for Kobe in some sort of longevity, but as mentioned, overall minutes-wise it's hard to seriously knock Oscar for that, and of the minutes they did have in the NBA, Oscar is the one who starts in a dead sprint.
Oscar's last few year are pretty remarkable. Just at a time when you'd wonder if he'd end up trying and failing to do his old thing, he goes to Milwaukee and plays fantastic pass-first point guard which he appears to have huge impact as he goes toward his mid-30s.
I think that for many, the comparison should hinge on how they see Kobe in the later years. If you see him as someone continuing to do roughly his superstar alpha thing at least through age 34, I certainly understand voting for him not only here, but earlier.
As noted, this isn't how I see his impact. I see him as a guy who has defined himself in a role that is incredibly unforgiving. You start slipping even a little bit when you insist on such dominant primacy, the lift you give the team drops off rapidly. We first saw this in 2011, and at the time I wasn't sure if that was just him coasting in the regular season, but when the team didn't jump in the playoffs and future years got worse, I had to look at that as a legit drop. 2012 was more along these lines.
2013 is of course the weird one, because those with more faith in Kobe, and maybe more importantly more faith in heroes, saw it as a return to form. Individual stat-wise, that makes sense, however this was a team with upgraded talent that many expected to challenge for the title. The disappointment was epic, and it was certainly not caused by the team just falling off without Kobe. Taken over the season, the team in general was just mediocre, and while as often is the case it looked like Kobe was doing it all himself at times, the reality was that we were seeing poor fit, or at least poor execution and thus negative synergy when all the talent was on the floor.
And then of course there's the lost 2014 season.
One can talk about this 4-year stretch and point to reasons why you think it was bad luck, and that Kobe could have been having huge impact the whole time, but obviously I'm not convinced. Yeah there's bad luck clearly, but it's not the whole story.
Bottom line to me is that you reach a point where you either become more focused on helping your team exploit the talent of your supporting cast, or your impact falls off pretty significantly. Kobe is far from alone in struggling with seeing this, or struggling to make the transition...but that's why Oscar stands out so much. He made the transition with extreme grace.
On luck again: One can point out that perhaps Oscar wouldn't have smelled quite like a rose had he stayed in Cincy. That's true. Make of it what you will. On a certain level though I just don't feel comfortable making comparisons based on "Well if the situations had been different, X might have (or not have) transitioned to a lower primacy, and thus his actual impact in that time would have changed." I like to consider possibilities, but when we speak of differences in efficacy being dependent on attitude, I don't feel comfortable projecting different attitudes on to players.
Doctor MJ wrote: On luck again: One can point out that perhaps Oscar wouldn't have smelled quite like a rose had he stayed in Cincy. That's true. Make of it what you will. On a certain level though I just don't feel comfortable making comparisons based on "Well if the situations had been different, X might have (or not have) transitioned to a lower primacy, and thus his actual impact in that time would have changed." I like to consider possibilities, but when we speak of differences in efficacy being dependent on attitude, I don't feel comfortable projecting different attitudes on to players.
Great post.
I agree that people could argue that if Oscar didn't go to Milwaukee he wouldn't be in the discussion. I see it like this: with the lack of knowledge on Oscar (and other players in his era), he really needed his milwaukee stint to validate everything that he did do to that point. It showed he wasn't a good player on a bad team inflating his stats. He demonstrated his leadership abilities and his desire to win rather than pad his own stats.
But the same situational impact 'what if' could be said of Kobe. Let's say Shaq is never a Laker and Kobe only wins his two titles near the end of his career. I believe his reputation of a me-first, high volume scorer only looking to improve his own legacy would be multiplied and would hurt his overall legacy.
I see it as both guys have proven they can carry bad teams. Both guys can win with the right team. But Kobe does it in high volume scoring and Oscar plays a more well-rounded game, with better efficiency.
I don't think I have to state my vote again so I won't as to not confuse any of the tallying.
Okay Brand, Michael Jackson didn't come over to my house to use the bathroom. But his sister did.
Baller2014 wrote: How about the titles the Lakers could have won, but for Shaq being traded? The Heat won in 2006, and were an injury away from making the finals in 05. Perhaps with a few smart role player additions the Lakers win those years. We never got to find out because Kobe wasn't happy just winning, he wanted to win as "the man". This is pretty well documented on page 1.
How many times do people have to tell you before you get it. Shaq was traded because of money issues, not Kobe. Shaq even said it himself.
"O'Neal speaks of Kupchak in only six pages of the 281-page "Shaq Uncut: My Story," co-written by Jackie MacMullan, slated for a Nov. 15 release. But that's enough prose to label Kupchak as the main culprit behind Shaq's hasty departure from the Lakers.
According to the book, Kupchak promised to grant Shaq a contract extension following the 2003-04 season and not to discuss their contract negotiations publicly. Once the 2003-04 season ended, however, O'Neal was disturbed by an apparent interview in which Kupchak revealed the Lakers' plan to hold onto Bryant while keeping their options open with O'Neal.
" Charles Barkley – I got a question for you [to Shaq]. Do you wish you and Kobe woulda handled ya’ll relationship differently and if so how many championships do you think ya’ll woulda won.
Shaq - We didn’t have a bad relationship cause we won 3 out of 4 championships. That’s not a bad relationship at all. Second of all, it was a money situation. I was getting older, they wanted me to take less money, I wasn’t gonna do that. So they traded me to Miami. The way it turned out was the way it was supposed to turn out.
Shaq - I was making 30 [million dollars] at the time but they wanted me to go to 20 [million dollars] and I wasn’t gonna do that…A lot of people ask me that Chuck. I’m gonna go with 5 or 6 [total titles]."
The Lakers didn't want to pay him $30 million/year and they were justified because Shaq was getting lazy at that time and didn't have many prime years left.
I've been watching film of Oscar and things that jump out at me: he's very strong, great post game, very good mid-range and Pnr, gifted passer.
He seems to be a good defensive player, always back in transition, uses his strength to hand check offensive players (which everyone would do back then) and has good size and wingspan for the point guard postion.
He seems like a below the rim player and his ball handling isn't advanced (again that was the style back then), but he always goes for high percentage shots and plays (for the 60s with no three point line this is very smart imo).
I don't think his defense is better than Kobe's to be honest, although a better passer, I'd say his rebound advantage would decrease with taller, bigger, faster guards in Kobe's era. Magic is 6'9 and would rebound like that in any era imo, but Oscar is 6'5. And although big and good for the postion, I think those rebouding stats would go down somewhat in this era.
Oscar never had to develop a three point shot and I think he would be a good one looking at his ability. I think Kobe is more skilled as a scorer and more athletic. I don't know how strong Oscar was or if he was one of the first to lift weights, but Kobe was very strong too I believe.
Oscar seems ahead of his time, like Wilt and Russell. But I think with better competition with modern NBA guards, he'd still be great but not at that level of dominance imo. This includes his team impact being reduced today, but his assists likely being slightly less due to pace but still excellent because they would be easier to get now.
I don't know if he'd have the same strength advantage to be able to bully modern NBA guards in the post as much. Likely they would put bigger SG/SF defensive specialists against him, as he's not extremely fast (by modern standards) or plays above the rim from what I've seen.
I just think Kobe is more skilled and played better competition right now. Oscar would benefit from modern rules, but I think he isn't as dominant with modern players.
Still weighing this out, but I sense a similar to Wilt or Bill Russell raw stats, in era dominance overrating with Oscar a little bit. (a smaller amount though to be sure). Again I haven't voted yet, but leaning towards Kobe.
I think that the mid 60's was a weak era so its shocking how mediocre Oscar's teams especially when you compare them to some of the teams that finished around Oscar's teams. A star player in the 60's should have had massive impact.
Oscar's team finished with a 688 win percentage, the best non Celtic record between 60 and 66
But no matter if off/def splits are right, real overall impact should be close to the results we've got.
