#20 Highest Peak of All Time (Nash '05 wins)

[lorak]

BTW, I find it interesting that Barkley was voted #3 in the 1990 RPOY, where Ewing was #4. how did RealGm's opinion change so much.

Maybe you don't learn and never change your opinion, but some people for sure learned a lot during two years and theirs opinions changed because of that.

[ardee]

To the Moses detractors, I have one thing to ask:

If you'll are THAT sure he was not crucial to the Sixers' success, why did ALL of you'll vote him as the best player of '83... Over ERVING, the guy whom all of you are propping via SRS stats (Moses was unanimous!!)?

[Doctor MJ]

Re: West

Through this project and the RPoY projects, I frankly haven't been impressed with West nor with the arguments made for him relative to the expectation that he must be voted in by now. It seems almost as if he is running as an incumbent...as though it's just self-evident that he should be considered the best. And I just don't see it. By far the most impressive evidence for him has been the in/out data that ElGee has compiled, as it indicates that clearly he had a huge impact. However, just as has been argued when looking at the +.- data, I find myself putting into context WHY was his impact so great?

And it sure seems to me, as I outlined in the Dirk vs West post a thread or two back, that the biggest reason for West's big impact was that he was a modern-day high efficiency floor spacer at a time when the league wasn't prepared for that. He was an intelligent lead guard that could run a great offensive in a system where he wasn't called upon to be the full-time ringleader, but I've seen no evidence that he could ever BE such a full-time ringleader. As such, I don't see him as the type of Magic/Oscar/Nash explosive offense types. West had a reputation for defense, but any further analysis doesn't seem to support it (the in/outs, the trend of offensive superstar wings on defense, the numbers of his star opponents in big playoff games). No, the main strength of West's impact, as far as I can tell, is his high efficiency scoring with his excellent jumper and ability to get to the rim. Which is great.

But I ask myself...why would I vote West over Nash? In '68 West's ppg average was 21.7% of the Lakers' scoring average...in 2006 Nash's ppg were a bit more than 19% of what the Suns averaged. We can't 1-to-1 relate scoring from different eras, but if Nash has shown he can score a similar slice of the pie for his team as West...and Nash has most of West's strengths as a scorer (the wet jumper and the ability to get to the rim)...and Nash has also shown the ability to scale up that scoring in the postseason when called upon...and oh, by the way, Nash is also one of the best floor generals that the game has seen...why would I prefer West to him?

I went through a similar thought process when comparing Dirk to West, and felt that Dirk came out better. I find myself leaning to a similar conclusion with TMac, though I admit to TMac hesitance that I still have to work through. Earlier, I did the same with both Oscar and Robinson. And I'm right on the verge of coming to the same conclusion with Ewing.

And here's the thing...I could be wrong. Maybe West really was that good. But those championing West aren't making the case to me that I am. Like I said, I started the previous thought process from what I consider to be the best pro-West evidence that I've seen of his impact. And obviously I incorporated what I consider to be West's strengths in as I was doing it. And yes, I know he's the Logo and a legend. So what I need from West supporters isn't doubling down on these things that I've already laid out...I don't need "yeah, but he's Jerry fricken WEST!". I needed you to tell me why a player like West at his peak would be better for my team than a big man that could anchor a historic defense and still give me an efficient upper-20s scoring as long as there is a good perimeter threat on the squad as well. I needed you to convince me why getting high-efficiency scoring/spacing from a 6-5 wing was better than getting it from a 7-0 power forward. I needed for you to convince me that West's combo of scoring and generalship was better than what I could get from TMac, who in that one magical year seemed the much more explosive scorer with excellent wing generalship of his own in a better physical package. I needed to see that, but instead I see complaints about the voting process and disbelief that other players are being voted in above West. And that just isn't doing anything to convince me.

Well, first off, I think you've been giving good thought to things, and this is no exception.

I do think part of the issue here is the amount of busy-ness of the people involved. People seem to be missing each others arguments, so maybe that's my issue here:

You're talking about West being treated like an incumbent, but from my perspective, people've already given arguments for West, and I'm trying to find responses. I do think I recall something from you back right after Oscar got voted in, but it's been a while since then. Obviously, the pro-West reasons have not changed, so I'm kind of expecting the other side of people to be justifying their choices anti-West the whole time. Y'all know he's a top contender, but it seems like he's not really on your radar. How is that happening?

Whether or not this is a reasonable expectation, it's pretty clear that it isn't happening, and it's frustrating to me. I mean, I'm supposed to keep posting the same points for West over and over again simply because others don't have it in their head?

Being practical though, people are what people are. They aren't doing this because they have a grudge against West, and to the extent it's happening because people aren't as focused as I'd like, I need to be grateful for what I can get. And I'm busy as hell, I'm outsourcing vote counts to others for the first time, and I'm sure y'all see the way I'm fluctuating in my involvement from day to day, so who am I to judge?

Okay, enough mea culpa for the moment, let me respond to what you've said here:

Re: West not up there with Magic/Oscar/Nash on offense. Agreed. He's not far off, but he's not quite up there.

Re: further analysis not supporting defensive rep. I've yet to see anything like this. People keeping asserting it, but whenever I press them for details, but I've missed anything real they've posted. Can you elaborate?

Re: West vs Nash. I'll answer this in another post since I've been asked to specifically by multiple people.

Re: You could be wrong. Yeah, and so could I. Any time I give the impression I know absolute certainties about the deep past, I'm definitely not giving an accurate impression.

What's really set off the alarm bells for me is the separation between Oscar & West. I guess I'm used to gradual change. People talk about how dramatic the opinion has shifted on Russell & Wilt on this board, but really it's only a few spots over the course of a half decade.

In this project, after seeing these two guys neck and neck for forever without any real daylight, all of a sudden we see West falling at least 6 spots below Oscar out of the blue, and as it happens, I see all sorts of criticisms of West that could be directed toward Oscar too. I like to think of changes over time in terms of the group learning more, but in this case, it just feels like a combination between a project quirk and people not applying consistent standards.

[Dr Positivity]

To the Moses detractors, I have one thing to ask:

If you'll are THAT sure he was not crucial to the Sixers' success, why did ALL of you'll vote him as the best player of '83... Over ERVING, the guy whom all of you are propping via SRS stats (Moses was unanimous!!)?

I consider Moses critical to the Sixers success. At worst he's still a top 30-35 peak player, which is still going to have a massive impact on just about any team. We're still going to be dealing with incredible players at that point like Drexler and Rick Barry and Bernard King and etc.. As I mentioned, it IS very impressive that the Sixers made a big leap in caliber of play (enough to start 57-9 and go 15-1 in the playoffs) despite losing Caldwell, Hollins, Dawkins, Mix, Bantom and replacing them with weak players. Moses' impact should not be doubted. I agree with you that the concept of Erving being more important to the 83 Sixers than Moses is flawed. In the 83 Sixers games I've seen Erving doesn't seem like the same guy as he was a few years before to me. In the same way 2012 Wade wasn't the same as the last handful of years... there was just a little less burst there IMO. Moses was MVP, Finals MVP and the dominant player on the team. Erving was a willing second banana.

The question with Moses is whether he's worth getting voted in here. The problem I have with Moses top 20 is that I see his impact as basically solely on the offensive end. He's the best garbage man ever offensively, but he's not someone with a lot of iso skill, or someone who's a good enough passer to run an offense through. He's basically a rich man's Dwight Howard offensively. I can't put him over Nash, Paul, Tmac, West, or Barkley on the offensive end at all, I simply prefer those players' offensive impact, the guards can control the game on the ball and help their teammates via passing while being more skilled scorers than Moses, and Barkley like Moses has a lot of ORBs but is a way way better scorer and passer.

[Dr Positivity]

In regards to Nash, two things make me side with 05 over 07...

- The fact that he had a huge playoffs

- I've always been extremely impressed by the Suns crazy 121.7 ORTG with him on the court that year. There are other factors like JJ being on the team and Amare being better than in 07, but nonetheless it makes me side that this was the year Nash's Nash things was in full effect

[Doctor MJ]

@Doc MJ, why West over Nash ? I'd really like to hear your thoughts on this one.

Wow, here I am, about to argue against Nash. I'm really a terrible homer.

Well, to me you can see the answer in the fact that I vote Wade ahead of Nash too. I don't do so lightly, or in a blow out, but I do, and the difference is defense.

Now, y'all have heard me to talk to no end about Nash's defense isn't that big of a deal, and it isn't. However, when I say that the defense of a guard isn't very important, that's exactly what I mean, it's not very important, but there is something there, and it is enough to move some players ahead of Nash.

I mean, by personal debate about Nash vs Wade is really more about Wade's offense not scaling the same way Nash's does than it is about whether Wade's defense can really make up the difference in a typical situation.

So now let's look at West vs Nash from a lens of Wade vs Nash:

-Still got a clear volume scorer's edge.
-Nash has much less of a shooting edge over West than Wade.
-West's more proven as someone who can really transition into more of a facilitator than Wade, so the offensive ceiling issues aren't nearly as big.
-Even if we forget how hugely respected West's defense was in the day, there's still the matter that this was an extremely shrewd player with the ability to be a thieving and blocking. That edge most definitely isn't zero.

I'm seeing on of the latent truths about the West debate right now is that people are simply distrusting what he did because it was so long ago. Putting aside the annoying fact that these issues were miraculously absent from the Oscar vote, when we look at West vs Nash, are we really saying that we think West's game just wouldn't be the same today?

Not saying I can't see the case for Nash here, but the case for West seems more clear to me.

I'll reiterate now that I'm totally fine with people siding against West '68 because of the missed games. That's clearly going to be a deal breaker for a lot of people. But I feel like there's a group of people who've basically left that as "THE" case for West rather than doing their arguments for him. Maybe that seems a weird thing to say, but I try to make cases for everybody over everybody else.

The only thing '68 West really has going for him in narrative over the other versions of himself is that he's being used better. That's a fine reason to pick '68 as the year to single out all things being equal, but I find it pedantic in the extreme if you believe that narrative are you both 1) hold the missed games against him, and 2) hold a hardline stance essentially blaming West for not being used better in other years when we see plenty of years of great team success, in/out, classic stats, and great contemporary opinion.

In short, I just think we've reached a point where if you don't have West really on your shortlist, and you're otherwise not an extreme modernist when it comes to comparing players then vs players now, I have to question whether you've done your diligence when it comes to the guy. He's falling out of whack compared to how he was seen with his contemporaries, and I'm not seing any epiphany justifying that change.

[Doctor MJ]

In regards to Nash, two things make me side with 05 over 07...

- The fact that he had a huge playoffs

- I've always been extremely impressed by the Suns crazy 121.7 ORTG with him on the court that year. There are other factors like JJ being on the team and Amare being better than in 07, but nonetheless it makes me side that this was the year Nash's Nash things was in full effect

While we're getting to Nash, I think the thing for me is really:

I think you can make a case that '05 is actually the #1 GOAT offensive season for individual players period. Best team offense, coming as a result of by far the biggest offensive turnaround in history, with Nash as the big change, with the whole thing falling apart without Nash, and with Nash stepping it up almost Magic style as needed in the playoffs.

Not saying you have to buy that as the #1 season, but the case almost makes itself. '07 is not nearly so easy.

[lorak]

The only thing '68 West really has going for him in narrative over the other versions of himself is that he's being used better.

You really think he was used better in '68 than for example in '72?! How do you explain that playmaker type player would have MORE impact when playing LESS with the ball?

I would also like to see your comment on the same thing you used against Stockton: the less West shot, the better Lakers were.

[lorak]

In this project, after seeing these two guys neck and neck for forever without any real daylight, all of a sudden we see West falling at least 6 spots below Oscar out of the blue, and as it happens, I see all sorts of criticisms of West that could be directed toward Oscar too.

Which criticism exactly? Oscar had health issues? Oscar was used wrong way? Oscar played worse against better opponents? Oscar was worse offensive player?

And 6 spots difference, while these two players "forever" were discussed together - really, who cares? Maybe people were "forever" wrong because they don't recognize how much in reality separates Oscar and West? Just like many people don't recognize that Wilt is overrated and worse than Russell or that Kobe isn't all D team level defender. (and of course playing for Lakers always helps in being overrated.)

BTW, Moses voters - why Malone over Dwight?

[Doctor MJ]

The only thing '68 West really has going for him in narrative over the other versions of himself is that he's being used better.

You really think he was used better in '68 than for example in '72?! How do you explain that playmaker type player would have MORE impact when playing LESS with the ball?

I would also like to see your comment on the same thing you used against Stockton: the less West shot, the better Lakers were.

Well I'm not going to say that West in '72 could have been used in some clearly better way than he was. That was a phenomenal team. Is it possible West should have been used like that all the time? Sure, but what I'm focusing on here is the clear improvement we saw in '68.

After that point the team had Wilt which very much changed the dynamic, and the team never really emerged as a glaring success until '72, where West actually didn't look that great in the final stretches.

Re: How can a playmaker have more impact with less time on ball? Well, what's the rest of the team doing? Understand, to me the issue with West before '68 is that I felt more could have been done with Baylor, but that the primary person to blame for that was Baylor himself (or the coaches I suppose, but when you're the one jacking up the inefficient shots, you deserve blame). The shift in '68 made better use of the talent in general, but a lot of that was because the talent on the team was presumably changing how it operated.

Realize I'm not crediting West with causing the strategic shift that made his teammates play better, but I am taking note that when the shift occurred, the results were staggering but only when West was playing. So we're seeing West in a system with significantly higher ceiling than before, and his value only appears to have gone up. This is an important thing to see for a volume scorer.

Re: Stockton. The Jazz had a rigid system that loosened up over time as Malone became more capable of being a focus in a role other than just scoring. That loosening up made the offense better. Hence people are going nuts over Stockton's assists for the wrong reason...

But none of that means there's something wrong with Stockton. I think Stockton was fantastic, and the only reason I'm known for arguing against him is because other people are out of control looking at his assisting stats. The reality that it was healthy in both Stockton's and West's case to play in a bit more fluid of a system, isn't really saying anything bad about them unless your own assessment of the player fetishizing what was done in the rigid system.

Is it impressive that Nash could be so ball dominant and so effective? Absolutely, and as you know, I champion the guy a lot and I don't assume others could do what he did. At the same time, I don't pretend others were being asked to do what he did and failed.

[Doctor MJ]

In this project, after seeing these two guys neck and neck for forever without any real daylight, all of a sudden we see West falling at least 6 spots below Oscar out of the blue, and as it happens, I see all sorts of criticisms of West that could be directed toward Oscar too.

Which criticism exactly? Oscar had health issues? Oscar was used wrong way? Oscar played worse against better opponents? Oscar was worse offensive player?

And 6 spots difference, while these two players "forever" were discussed together - really, who cares? Maybe people were "forever" wrong because they don't recognize how much in reality separates Oscar and West? Just like many people don't recognize that Wilt is overrated and worse than Russell or that Kobe isn't all D team level defender. (and of course playing for Lakers always helps in being overrated.)

BTW, Moses voters - why Malone over Dwight?

Knocking his stats by using pace?

Choosing to simply ignore parts of his historical record and assuming his mediocrity in areas not because you have contradictory evidence but because you simply "aren't convinced" it's true.

Choosing to fixate on negatives when there were obvious negatives for Oscar that hardly got discussed (his defenses were HORRIBLE).

Making statements to the effect that you're not that impressed with the era.

Re: 6 spots, maybe it was just wrong before. It certainly could be, what I'm objecting though to is the equivalent of a paradigm shift occurring without any great argumentative backing.

I get this feeling that some people are on their way to admitting, "Yeah, the reality is that were I to do it again, I would have voted Oscar lower. He just kinda slipped in there after we got done talking about the previous group of guys, but now that I've been thinking about West compared to all these other, I feel pretty similarly about Oscar."

If people go there, I'll be quick to reconcile. It means the rankings here are known to be off, but like you say, who cares? What I harp on is not the mistake, but the unacknowledged apparent inconsistency. It disturbs me when people aren't reflecting on what they're doing, and then attempt to justify this with flippant dismissals. "maybe it was wrong before"? How about explaining why it was wrong before?

If you truly think it was wrong, explain it. In the end, that's what I'm asking people to do when I talk about the inconsistencies I see, and I don't see what unreasonable about that. If it's a true shift in how people think about these two players, isn't it worth explaining?

[lorak]

Knocking his stats by using pace?

The same was done in Oscar's case. The thing is: Robertson's stats after adjusting for pace and era looks like Magic's stats. West's like Manu's. Ginobili is obviously great player, I sometimes rate him over Kobe (if I ignore minutes played), but it's still not as impressive as being on Magic's level.

Choosing to simply ignore parts of his historical record and assuming his mediocrity in areas not because you have contradictory evidence but because you simply "aren't convinced" it's true.

Choosing to fixate on negatives when there were obvious negatives for Oscar that hardly got discussed (his defenses were HORRIBLE).

That's simply not true. Robertson in worst case was 0 on defense and from game tape I saw he for sure wasn't worse defensively than West.

If you truly think it was wrong, explain it. In the end, that's what I'm asking people to do when I talk about the inconsistencies I see, and I don't see what unreasonable about that. If it's a true shift in how people think about these two players, isn't it worth explaining?

But it was explained many times: health issues, performance vs better teams, offensive brilliance (Oscar was even better shooter than West), even pace and era adjusted box score stats. Difference is big actually, more or less like between Magic and Kobe.

And I don't want to offend anyone, but I think West is generally overrated because: 1. he played for Lakers, 2. was only white superstar during era of black superstars (Russell, Oscar, Wilt, Baylor), 3. off court he was much nicer person than Oscar, Russell or Wilt, so it was easier to make him league poster boy (the Logo) 4. played in weaker conference and often advanced to the finals which were obviously the most discussed and watched games during 60s so that created his reputation as clutch player because he was often in such clutch situations (similar story with Jones or in modern era with Fisher or Kobe).

[ardee]

Knocking his stats by using pace?

The same was done in Oscar's case. The thing is: Robertson's stats after adjusting for pace and era looks like Magic's stats. West's like Manu's. Ginobili is obviously great player, I sometimes rate him over Kobe (if I ignore minutes played), but it's still not as impressive as being on Magic's level.

Choosing to simply ignore parts of his historical record and assuming his mediocrity in areas not because you have contradictory evidence but because you simply "aren't convinced" it's true.

Choosing to fixate on negatives when there were obvious negatives for Oscar that hardly got discussed (his defenses were HORRIBLE).

That's simply not true. Robertson in worst case was 0 on defense and from game tape I saw he for sure wasn't worse defensively than West.

If you truly think it was wrong, explain it. In the end, that's what I'm asking people to do when I talk about the inconsistencies I see, and I don't see what unreasonable about that. If it's a true shift in how people think about these two players, isn't it worth explaining?

But it was explained many times: health issues, performance vs better teams, offensive brilliance (Oscar was even better shooter than West), even pace and era adjusted box score stats. Difference is big actually, more or less like between Magic and Kobe.

And I don't want to offend anyone, but I think West is generally overrated because: 1. he played for Lakers, 2. was only white superstar during era of black superstars (Russell, Oscar, Wilt, Baylor), 3. off court he was much nicer person than Oscar, Russell or Wilt, so it was easier to make him league poster boy (the Logo) 4. played in weaker conference and often advanced to the finals which were obviously the most discussed and watched games during 60s so that created his reputation as clutch player because he was often in such clutch situations (similar story with Jones or in modern era with Fisher or Kobe).

I was hoping the race card wouldn't be played...

[lorak]

ardee, look at this that way: "race card" was extremely important during 60s (I think we all agree with that). Main pro West (and anti Oscar) arguments are based on media relations from the 60s (for example: West was great defender and perfect leader; Oscar was horrible defender and bad leader), when most of the media members were white. So I will not believe that don't affected how West and Oscar were perceived during 60s and so how all these newspapers and stories from the 60s looks like.
(and of course race card is only one of several arguments I used, so please, don't focus on that one.)

[bastillon]

okay so here comes the guy who runs this project and makes further complaints about something that I refered to already. what am I supposed to do ? well I'm gonna be consistent and this time I'll call you out. I couldn't care less if you're the guy who runs things, in this Oscar debate you're just another voter to me.

first of all, viewtopic.php?p=33195715#p33195715
there was a major debate around Oscar and unlike West's followers falsely assume the reasons for voting Oscar over West were MAJOR. something NOBODY responded to is Oscar's superior postseason performance over the Celtics:

BTW, West vs 1968 Celtics (-5 drtg):
31.3 PPG, 5.8 RPG, 5.7 APG, 55.9 (+6.1) TS%
So still significantly worse than Robertson 1963 vs much better defensively Celtics (-9.1 drtg): 33.4 PPG, 12.4 RPG, 8.5 APG, 58.1 TS% (+8.8)

It's like comparing LeBron (Oscar) and Kobe (West). It's no contest unless we are biased by narrative, stories, reputation, style of play.

1) that postseason performance was the main reason why people were backing Oscar. it's something West did not showcase that year. West instead beat up some terrible teams in the previous rounds inflating his total postseason stats. as I said, none of the West followers even responded to this argument and as it was the main basis of Oscar being voted in, it seems outrageous to me that you're the one saying we voted Oscar "without any great argumentative backing" or this:
I get this feeling that some people are on their way to admitting, "Yeah, the reality is that were I to do it again, I would have voted Oscar lower. He just kinda slipped in there after we got done talking about the previous group of guys, but now that I've been thinking about West compared to all these other, I feel pretty similarly about Oscar."

imagine this: we read your arguments. they were unconvincing. it has nothing to do with screwed voting system or biases. it has everything to do with your case being too weak. you're looking from a wrong angle on this, the problem is that you - West voters never responded to the crux of the reason why Oscar is over West.

2) another huge reason why West isn't voted in yet is that you're arguing for the wrong year. many people are against missing this many games. you seemed to be ok with this reasoning but now you're acting as if voting didn't make sense. I don't see any consistency here. if you're ok with this reasoning then why are you surprised that West is being voted much lower than expected ?

3) defense was also brought up by both sides. West followers pointed to the accolades, stl/blk records and his general defensive reputation. his opponents pointed to weak in/out runs on defense (me, DS), poor team defenses he was playing on in his career (me), the nature of gambling players not making big impact (DS), superstar guards not being known as high impact defenders (drza, me), unimpressive history of man defense over the course of postseason career (drza). there was more, go through the threads. your so called "evidence" of West even making a positive impact is based on boxscore and reputation. it doesn't get any worse than that. drza asked a specific question: why would we think that West was more like LeBron (quantifiable real impact) than Kobe (accolades and rep but without statistical evidence to back it up) ?

West voters keep saying that he was harshly treated but it's really not the case. you are willing to make a huge number of questionable assumptions. West voters tried making a case that his boxscore stats + rep is enough to make him a more impactful defender than Dirk. his clutch scoring was supposedly better than Dirk's because of his freakin nickname. he missed 30 games but you're willing to overlook that as well. his offensive boxscore stats aren't nearly as impressive as Oscar's but you made a comment that Oscar was doing pretty much the same thing as a playmaker.

Oscar was getting voted in without such hysterical arguments. there was a massive postseason performance (arguably the best series ever for a non-MJ guard ? Series Averages: 33.4 PPG, 12.4 RPG, 8.5 APG (?) on 48.5 %FG, 89.2 %FT, 58.1 %TS vs like top2 defense ever), there was his well documented offensive impact, there was his leadership (something in which he has a clear advantage over West viewtopic.php?p=29183547#p29183547 ) and finally historical accounts are actually picking Oscar, not West as the best guard of the era: viewtopic.php?p=29191964#p29191964 (Kareem), viewtopic.php?p=29192100#p29192100 (number of Oscar's peers, including Jerry West himself). so you're doing revisionist history actually. West was seen as a clear step down from Oscar and the gap was even bigger when comparing 63 Oscar vs 68 West given their playoff play and health. it's not like people were picking Oscar over other players based on his defense or his nickname like West voters were trying to do.

as a side note, I think people missed my post on this but I was watching Knicks-Bucks full game from the beginning of 71 season. announcers said that for the first time in his career Oscar started guarding the toughest player on the opposing teams and he was locking up people like Jerry West and Mullins (really some horrible games from them). so not only do we see that Oscar had defensive abilities (there's a reason why people were saying he didn't have any weaknesses) but more importantly that's a further proof that superstar guards carry too much load offensively to make defensive impact. Oscar had to became a 2nd option on the Bucks to play lock down defense. I'm not saying he was some difference maker because his help defense was sub-par imo but you can see the general trends. Oscar was not a poor defender and I'd expect him to be a very valuable defensive piece when he was posting double-digit rebounding stats along with the potential man defense capabilities.

[bastillon]

ardee, look at this that way: "race card" was extremely important during 60s (I think we all agree with that). Main pro West (and anti Oscar) arguments are based on media relations from the 60s (for example: West was great defender and perfect leader; Oscar was horrible defender and bad leader), when most of the media members were white. So I will not believe that don't affected how West and Oscar were perceived during 60s and so how all these newspapers and stories from the 60s looks like.
(and of course race card is only one of several arguments I used, so please, don't focus on that one.)

+1, you have to be delusional to ignore race card in the 60s:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v4piRZ8_ ... r_embedded
you're not going to repeat this outrageous statement after watching this clip.

[Doctor MJ]

Knocking his stats by using pace?

The same was done in Oscar's case. The thing is: Robertson's stats after adjusting for pace and era looks like Magic's stats. West's like Manu's. Ginobili is obviously great player, I sometimes rate him over Kobe (if I ignore minutes played), but it's still not as impressive as being on Magic's level.

I don't recall that conversation really happening, but I can't claim to remember it perfectly.

So what you're saying is essentially that Oscar's being given the point guard bump. All the general stats from the time rate the two guys roughly equally, but we typically agree that Magic is way better than other guys with similar stats so Oscar gets the nod that way.

Yeah, I'm inclined to say that's a problem if people are doing that. Good observation regardless.

Choosing to simply ignore parts of his historical record and assuming his mediocrity in areas not because you have contradictory evidence but because you simply "aren't convinced" it's true.

Choosing to fixate on negatives when there were obvious negatives for Oscar that hardly got discussed (his defenses were HORRIBLE).

That's simply not true. Robertson in worst case was 0 on defense and from game tape I saw he for sure wasn't worse defensively than West.

What do you mean it's not true? Oscar played on a lot of crappy teams because the defense was utterly incompetent. That's true, and yes, that's a negative.

Of course, that you're willing to state definitively that from game tape you know "for sure" he was at least as good as West on offense would certainly be a good reason for you to personally ignore the team incompetence. And yeah, if you're willing to go out on a limb and say that, that qualifies as a paradigm shift, because that's a pretty atraditional opinion.

If you truly think it was wrong, explain it. In the end, that's what I'm asking people to do when I talk about the inconsistencies I see, and I don't see what unreasonable about that. If it's a true shift in how people think about these two players, isn't it worth explaining?

But it was explained many times: health issues, performance vs better teams, offensive brilliance (Oscar was even better shooter than West), even pace and era adjusted box score stats. Difference is big actually, more or less like between Magic and Kobe.

I guess it makes sense to ask other voices to chime in. Do people feel like all this has been discussed and I just missed it? Not saying that's impossible, but is this truly a consensus people have reached?

At this point I feel weird asking people to explain some of these things, but I might as well ask:

What was the performance vs better teams thing? And just so it's in people's minds from the start: Oscar's teams typically were worse than West's, are you alleging that that in part this was because they simply did poorly against weak teams?

I understand the health issues. They can be big in some years, but it doesn't seem a factor at this point to me. We've reached the point where I'd vote in his healthier years anyway.

Offensive brilliance? Oscar has the edge there. Let's remember though that it's not like West when he was in was playing on bad offenses. It was really quite comparable. This was not a case where you had one guy simply pushing offensive ceilings way past the other guy.

Pace & stuff? As mentioned, this only makes sense if you start by assuming Oscar deserves a Magic-style bump.

Magic vs Kobe? Except that Kobe's biggest issue is his lack of faith in teammates which results in him breaking out of an offense designed by a superior basketball mind for no good reason. West on the other hand when he actually got to play in better designed offenses took to them like a fish to water. I mean hell, listen to the two men talk. Kobe's trying to take on a Jordan persona, West's had low self-esteem his whole life. Which do you think is going to work with other people better?

Meanwhile on the Magic side of things, as impressive as Oscar is, he didn't actually break molds all that well. Most those years when his team was leading the league in offense, it's separation from it's peers was incredibly impotent compared to modern great offenses, which is why his team was often mediocre. I totally get if you think that that's just a product of obsolete strategies which were beyond Oscar's control, but how can you not cut West the same slack?

And I don't want to offend anyone, but I think West is generally overrated because: 1. he played for Lakers, 2. was only white superstar during era of black superstars (Russell, Oscar, Wilt, Baylor), 3. off court he was much nicer person than Oscar, Russell or Wilt, so it was easier to make him league poster boy (the Logo) 4. played in weaker conference and often advanced to the finals which were obviously the most discussed and watched games during 60s so that created his reputation as clutch player because he was often in such clutch situations (similar story with Jones or in modern era with Fisher or Kobe).

I understand the theoretical narrative causes you're talking about here, but I don't see what your evidence is.

We look at stats like PER, both guys look about the same. PER's not a perfect stat, but it's not like we're talking about Oscar putting up huge numbers compared to West by all measurements and West getting similar love for no apparent reason.

Did contemporaries jump on board the West bandwagon and give him undeserving accolades while Oscar languished in obscurity? No, Oscar won the MVP the first time his team was decent. This after winning College Player of the Year 3-times in a row on a program that improved right after he left. I'm not saying he didn't deserve these honors, but the man was getting his fair share of the glory right from the beginning.

By contrast, West had to join an existing superstar's team, who overshadowed him for a good while based on his bigger scoring numbers, which only modern observers really understand was coming off of much worse efficiency.

I do agree that the fact that he got to go to the Finals so much help with his stature though. That's an area where you have to factor in his superior opportunity, and the fact that it wasn't Oscar's fault he didn't have that...but it's not like people back didn't know Oscar was great.

[Doctor MJ]

ardee, look at this that way: "race card" was extremely important during 60s (I think we all agree with that). Main pro West (and anti Oscar) arguments are based on media relations from the 60s (for example: West was great defender and perfect leader; Oscar was horrible defender and bad leader), when most of the media members were white. So I will not believe that don't affected how West and Oscar were perceived during 60s and so how all these newspapers and stories from the 60s looks like.
(and of course race card is only one of several arguments I used, so please, don't focus on that one.)

Stern, stop for a second:

Here you are saying, "Oh look, here they are blaming the black guy saying his team's defense was bad."

But the defense was bad. Really, really bad. Step forward to right now: Don't guys on bad defenses still get picked apart for their defense? I mean, it's one thing to say that in a given situation their allocation of blame is wrong, but you calling people racists for doing basically the exact same thing I'd expect them to do now.

"bad leader", well there's some of that, and there's a lot of great stuff too. The "bad leader" stuff didn't come out of nowhere though. There were issues on his team and the guy was harsh as hell. If you want to say, "Same with Jordan & Kobe and they get praised don't they?", okay, but imho they shouldn't get very much praise, and they wouldn't be getting that praise if their teams weren't doing well.

Meanwhile, you're talking about the white media praising West's defense, which they did often in terms of his blocks & steals... and it turns out, the dude seems to have really gotten a lot of blocks & steals. You can still argue he wasn't a great defender, but are there completely non-racist reasons for people to overrate the value of a block & steal guy? Absolutely.

And I am sorry to focus on the race card, because it was only one of several things you brought up, and it is something for people to ponder, but if I didn't know about their race, there would be nothing in the data that gave me the feeling that these guys' reputations were totally out of whack.

[bastillon]

Doc MJ nice job of ignoring the crap out of my post.

[Doctor MJ]

okay so here comes the guy who runs this project and makes further complaints about something that I refered to already. what am I supposed to do ? well I'm gonna be consistent and this time I'll call you out. I couldn't care less if you're the guy who runs things, in this Oscar debate you're just another voter to me.

Okay I gotta disengage here. Getting way to wound up. I look at the bulk of what you've written later.

I will say, I don't really like the tone I've been using. Feels like whining under the guise of a parental figure, and it has been excessive. It's not a random thing that I've begun responding like this certainly, but regardless, it's not good for the vibe of this project, and I apologize for that.

2) another huge reason why West isn't voted in yet is that you're arguing for the wrong year. many people are against missing this many games. you seemed to be ok with this reasoning but now you're acting as if voting didn't make sense. I don't see any consistency here. if you're ok with this reasoning then why are you surprised that West is being voted much lower than expected ?

I have to say this though: How many times have I told other people I was willing to switch my vote? Quite a few.

One of the things I said in one of my recent posts somewhere around here is that it seemed like people were simply placing '68 West as the official West candidacy and then using it as a punching bag because they probably wouldn't see a season with that many missed games as a Top 50 season period. This is not a reasonable approach. And there I go again getting all self-righteous, telling people how they "should" be doing this stuff, but is there really a debate how you ideally should be doing this stuff?

People ideally should already have their own lists roughly on their mind, and if they are truly ready to vote for '66 or '70 West but not '68 West, they should be speaking out about that.

Now, I don't know for sure what's in people's minds, but you've just indicated that the idea that this isn't happening doesn't seem far fetched to you, and so you're acknowledging right there that there's some truth in the critiquing I"m doing.

Sigh, but again I'm telling myself to take a step back. Me talking like this doesn't seem like it's making people do anything but be defensive, so I need to stop and concentrate on making this thing more positive.