FJS wrote:Owly wrote:5 and 4 in row? Which years do you have him not making the playoffs?
And wow, that's the first time I've heard him not taking a -5.92 SRS, worst team in the league, straight to the playoffs held against him. '68 too has pretty much been explained. They were clearly a playoff team with him, they were an abysmal, awful, shockingly bad team without. Thats year is not a knock on Oscar's resume in any way. So it comes down to 2 years. 2 years where he's edging out of his prime, one of those with Lucas and the team is .500 and doesn't make it in the stronger conference, and the other one the already somewhat addressed transition year with Cousy.
I'm not sure about "playoff years" as a methodology (arbitrary depending on conference, injuries, teammates play a large role etc) but here it's very superficially done (and wrong in details such as number of years and allegation of "several" missed playoffs with Lucas, which was once when healthy).
He missed playoffs in 60-61. It was his rookie year, but you can say it was his prime, because he almost put a triple double.
Then 68,69 and 70.
3 in a row, I made a mistake.
10 seasons in Cincinnati, 4 seasons under 50% W-L, one at 40% and 5 over 50% W-L (only one above 50 Wins).
And you can't play he was playing with bad suporting cast... Wayne Embry was 5 times allstar with O in the team. Lucas was 6 times. Jack Twyman 2 times, and Adrian Smith and Tom Van Ardesale one time each other. In fact Oscar played with 1 all star all 5 years and with 2 more all star other 5 years in CIN.
How many times is this going to come up. Maximum of three all-stars per team. If only 4 teams per conference (depending on the year and the exact number of all stars - it fluctuated) you could expect (and at one time guarantee) 3 all-stars per team (or 2.5 to about 2, with Oscar being one of them, and the record he was contributing to guaranteeing consideration for other Royals).
'61: 11 all-stars per team, max of 3 per team (as remains the case throughout this span), 4 teams in each conference, 3 teams will have 3 all-stars, one will have one.
Cincinnati have 2 all-stars: Robertson (game MVP, starts, plays team high 34 mins); Embry (plays team low 8 minutes)
'62: 11 all-stars, 5 teams in the West, (Cincinnati has 2nd best record in West)
3 all-stars: Robertson (Starter, joint leading minute getter, 26,13,7) Embry and Twyman (lowest minute getter), combined play less than Robertson.
'63: 12 all-stars, 4 teams in East (all teams guaranteed 3 all-stars)
3 all-stars: Robertson (Starter, joint leading minute getter, 21,6,3), Twyman (Starter, 16 mins), Embry DNP (cold)
'64: 10 all-stars ,4 teams in the East (est expectation 2.5 all-stars per team, Cincinnati clearly 2nd best team in the league)
3 all-stars: Robertson (Starter, joint leading minute getter, MVP), Lucas (starter 36 mins), Embry (21 mins)
'65: 10 (+1 replacement), 4 teams in the East (Cincinatti clearly 2nd best in the East)
3 all-stars: Robertson (Starter, joint leading minute getter, 28, 8, 6), Lucas (starter, MVP), Embry (19m)
'66: 10, 4 teams in East (Knicks clearly worse than every other team)
3: Robertson (starter, 17, 8, 10); Lucas (Starter), Adrian Smith (MVP, suggestions Oscar gifted it to him)
'67: 10, 5 teams in East
2: Robertson (Starter, 2nd in East in mins, 26,5,2); Lucas (22m)
'68: 12, 6
2: Robertson (Starter, 18,5,1), Lucas (starter)
'69: 12, 7
2: Robertson (Starter, joint minutes leader, MVP), Lucas (starter)
'70: 12, 7
2: Robertson (Starter, 24,1,15), T van Arsdale (joint-lowest minutes getter, 8m)
So:
1) A cap of all-stars per team in a fairly small league (plus the general position restrictions) render it very poor for gauging teammate quality.
2) Oscar himself was always a given as an all-star and as a starter, and big minutes getter and justified that status with his play on the stage.
3) Only Lucas was consistent starter or All-NBA guy (a much more accurate measure). Embry made the team consistently when teams basically had to have 2 or 3, and the Royals recorded demanded that they be one of the teams with 3. Others are a patchwork of throw ins (Tywman wasn't bad in the 50s).
4) Given that Oscar himself was a given (he was one of the two or three all-stars) the remaining one or two are (a) low minutes reserves on the team because the Royals are doing so well and you've basically got to have at least 2 per team, 3 if the teams are good as the Royals are at this point e.g. Twyman, sometimes Embry; (b) Jerry Lucas, or (c) peripheral, 1 time guys (Smith, Van Arsdale)
Oh and Lucas and his D, and his apparent lack of impact have been covered previously in this (and prior) threads.
And I can't overemphasise point number one because it keeps coming up. The '64 New York Knicks could be called a great team with their two powerhouse all-stars Tom Gola (nearly finished sub 30mpg, 10ppg in that apparently inflated era) and Len Chappell. I mean it's a bad-argument in any era because it implies the impact (positive and negative) of non-all stars in neglible (that's right, the range between Odom, Strickland, Derek Harper, Andre Miller et al and the worst players in the NBA, doesn't matter) and their are arbitrary position and conference limits, and team reputation is often factored in (they're doing so well they must have X all-stars). But it's particularly awful when you do with a tiny league where teams are practically guaranteed an all-star sometimes two.
And back to the main point the unforgivable 4 (not five) playoff misses were with ...
'61: 1 other all-star Embry who plays very little minutes
'68: 1 other all-star, starter Lucas where as noted previously the Royals were clearly a playoff team with Robertson they were just awful without him.
'69: 1 other all-star, starter Lucas. This is the one year that is a semi-legit argument. Oscar has started to slide a bit. I still don't like the other teammates too much (van Arsdale hasn't broken out yet, there are sub-replacement level guys getting 1000+ minutes) and they won 41 and would have been fine in the other conference but if you think he should have done better I can at least somewhat understand.
'70: 1 other all-star: van Arsdale, 1 time all-star.
Admittedly the lack of all-stars these years could be skewed by low team performance as that does happen though you'd have to point out who deserved it (I'd suggest Twyman in '61 was all-star level, but not better than the forwards ahead of him Baylor, Pettit, Howell and Hagan - another indication of the arbitrariness of all-stars, who was much better than in later years, though I'd also suggest they had very little beyond their top 3).
One last time, please, please, people (not that everyone does) don't use arbitrary criteria (playoff record with HCA, x many all-star teammates, X seasons outside the playoffs etc) when there are better tools to evaluate players. At very least don't make them anything like important planks in your argument (tbh if the argument doesn't look good without their flimsy support, maybe rethink the argument?).
post edited for clarity
