RealGM

A lot of us have concerns about the Cinci Royals record with Oscar + other talent like Lucas, Embry, Twyman, etc. Mid 40s and high 30s consistently and 3 straight playoff exits does not look good for a top 10 all timer playing with another HOF.

But is it possible we're underestimating the 8 team league impact here.

From the time the Royals record starts to look shaky (post Oscar/Lucas pairing), they're almost always the 4th best team in the league. Celtics, Lakers, Wilt, Royals. When Wilt's teams sucked early, Pettit's Hawks still had it and Oscar didn't have his teammates yet. If you're truly the 4th best team in the league, you should be expected to lose a lot of those games, as you always should expect against better teams.

3 out of 8 teams is 38% of your competition. If you're playing a team better than you 4 out of 10 times, it makes complete sense you win 55-60% of your games (45-49 Ws) on the regular, with a 65% year one season with your best team (Royals won 55 once) and some 45-50%s (35-40) when the chemistry falls out. When it comes down to it, being the 4th best team in an 8 team league makes it statistically unlikely you have a shot at a .700 type W%, that would require a bunch of 15 20 W teams and these teams had more talent than today's bottomfeeders too. 66 Knicks were 2nd last in the league with Reed, Bellamy, Barnett, maybe as good as today's Memphis. If you have to play your whole schedule 12x Mavs, 12x Spurs, 12x Heat, 8x Lakers, 8x Thunder, 8x Memphis, 8x Atlanta, and you're the Orlando Magic, 45 Ws doesn't sound so bad. Chances are you're a 30 W team with Dwight and turds and Atl wins 20

Do we criticize Oscar for having a team worse than the Celtics (definitely no), the late 60s Sixers (definitely not), the mid late 60s Lakers (maybe), the early 50s Hawks (maybe). Maybe that's the way to look at it. 4th best, ok, but who was ahead of them.

a) Yes, it is right to criticise him (relative to who he is being compared to here), and
b) Given where I rank Pettit (not especially high), yes we hold it against him, especially since
c) It's just a misrepresentation to suggest those 4 teams were the only ones beating him those years. They were behind teams like the 63 and 61 Syracuse Nationals, tied with the 67 Hawks led by Zelmo Beatie, just ahead of the Willis Reed Knicks in 67. In 68 they finished behind the Dave Bing Pistons, the Reed Knicks (Frazier barely played or contributed), the Thurmond Warriors (and Thurmond missed way more games than Oscar that year), massively behind the Zelmo/Wilkens Hawks. The Royals were behind the Bullets in 69, heck they were tied 7th that year with the Wiltless Warriors. In 1970 they finished tied for 9th with the Sonics, and behind the Bulls and Suns.

The characterisation you've made of Oscar is just wrong. His team performance is acceptable relative to guys like Kobe and Barkley, but not for a guy who is being portrayed as a borderline GOAT, more impactful than Lebron.

This has been tossed around the forums a few times now.. but what was Oscar supposed to do about bad defense? These are the years he worked with HoF candidate Jerry Lucas -

D-Rating estimates from Chicago76's BR formula

64: 4 of 9
65: 8 of 9
66: 8 of 9
67: 9 of 10
68: 12 of 12
69: 14 of 14

The team that ranked 4 of 9? It was 2nd in SRS that year, and lost to the Celtics in the playoffs. It's not on Oscar for being stuck in bad situations through his prime years.

Vinsanity420 wrote:This has been tossed around the forums a few times now.. but what was Oscar supposed to do about bad defense? These are the years he worked with HoF candidate Jerry Lucas

The inside game: race, power, and politics in the NBA - Wayne Embry

Excellent excerpts, Dipper.