RealGM

I'm not sure anymore. Other than team success, I don't really see how Johnson was better than Robertson. Magic was the better playmaker, Oscar better scorer. Rebounding is really close (slight edge Magic, because Oscar's numbers are a bit inflated by higher pace, although Magic was obviously bigger, which helps with rebounding - on the other hand, I guess you can argue that Oscar's physical advantages over his peers were greater than Magic's, so it more or less evens out), and by all accounts, Oscar was better defensively. In terms of skillset, I'd lean slightly towards Robertson.

Oscar's career playoff numbers don't really look great, but we all know they're skewed because he played most of his playoff games in Milwaukee, when he was past his prime (maybe except 1971, but even then, he wasn't in his absolute prime anymore), and his playoff numbers in Cincinnati look very good (even a little better than his RS numbers).

Oh, and Oscar's ability to anchor top offensive teams was just as good as Magic's. Their teams were basically a fixture as the best offensive team in the league, or at least very close to the top.

So, if you disregard accolades (at least those which depend on team success), who do you think was the better basketball player?

Yes Magic was better. Oscar led a team to 50+ wins once as the man on the squad. He was good, but he wasn't Magic Johnson good.

JordansBulls wrote:Yes Magic was better. Oscar led a team to 50+ wins once as the man on the squad. He was good, but he wasn't Magic Johnson good.

Magic never won for a team that never won before tho
both players needed Kaj to win except Magic made it known he wanted to play w/ Kaj/La before he got to the Nba

Gut reaction to the question? Oscar was a better jump shooter, but magic had better court vision and was a match up nightmare. I'd confidently say that he had the ability to be more of a volume scorer if his career trajectory was different, too. I'd still rank magic ahead of him.

As an aside, NBA TV showed his first game when he made his comeback in 96 recently. He was winded as all hell, but the skill set was still there, and he was just abusing people in the post. He still put up 14.6 PPG on 61% TS after 4 seasons removed from the league. That's kinda absurd (he had a solid overall line, too... scoring that efficiently given the circumstances just sticks out the most).

http://www.basketball-reference.com/pla ... game::none

I don't know where to go with this. You laid out a really great case, Q, and it's difficult to find things to argue with.

The thing I most struggle with ITO players from that era is that their "advanced" techniques are things we take for granted today. Oscar was a master of ball fakes and hesitations, and for his time was a playmaking savant. And yet through the lens of today's players his skills look totally elementary. So I admit I don't fully know how to process that, because it's difficult to know without detailed statistics 1. How far ahead of his peers he truly was, and B. how much that should count.

I mean, from the looks of things, he was having LeBron-like offensive impact in his era. He toiled away on brilliant offensive teams who could hardly guard a chair. When he did make the playoffs, he really only lost to Russel's celtics or Wilt's Sixers.

And frankly, the combination of elite volume scoring, elite playmaking (even if he wasn't necessarily Magic in that sense), and elite team offense is really difficult to top, even for most all-timers. I don't know, I'm excited to see where this goes.

Clyde Frazier wrote: I'd confidently say that he had the ability to be more of a volume scorer if his career trajectory was different, too.

Okay, but he'd still never approach Oscar's level as a volume scorer though. There are too many variables to simply say Magic could up his volume scoring and A. maintain his playmaking, and B. actually help his team with his scoring (ie. being efficient.). Like, just because he had the skills to score doesn't mean it was a good idea. And really, we're talking about several tiers of scorers between these two, so this is only really relevant insofar as you believe Magic was just a much better offensive player than he ever showed, which would be a difficult case to make.

For anybody wondering about Oscar's court vision or passing ability, watch the last quarter of the 1972 game between the Lakers and the Bucks available on NBA Hardcourt where the Bucks broke the Lakers 33 game win streak. Oscar had a good overall game, but it was his passing that keyed a fourth quarter blowout of the Lakers. Included among the passes were two over the shoulder assists to KAJ, a few no look passes, and one or two full length passes for baskets.
Robertson was a tremendous court general. That plus his superior scoring ability over Magic made him the better player by a slight margin.

When it comes to Oscar's assists, it becomes hard to compare it to Magic and later point guards because in Oscar's era, many people say that back then stat keepers were more strict in what they considered an assist. Sometimes in today's game, people have made threads debating if certain point guards are getting their stats inflated a bit due to questionable stat keeping. Oscar might have averaged more assists in today's game all things considered equal due to some of his "non-assist" plays being called "assist" plays today.

Dr Spaceman wrote:

Clyde Frazier wrote: I'd confidently say that he had the ability to be more of a volume scorer if his career trajectory was different, too.

Okay, but he'd still never approach Oscar's level as a volume scorer though. There are too many variables to simply say Magic could up his volume scoring and A. maintain his playmaking, and B. actually help his team with his scoring (ie. being efficient.). Like, just because he had the skills to score doesn't mean it was a good idea. And really, we're talking about several tiers of scorers between these two, so this is only really relevant insofar as you believe Magic was just a much better offensive player than he ever showed, which would be a difficult case to make.

I know this wasn't really your intention, but it kinda seems like you're putting words in my mouth. I wasn't saying that if necessary magic could consistently reach the level at which oscar scored, just that if his situation was different, he could score effectively at a higher volume. He happened to end up on a team featuring other scorers where he could best suit the team as an elite distributor. He did show flashes of stepping up as a scorer as the makeup of the lakers changed later in his career:

http://www.basketball-reference.com/pla ... ml#LAL-BOS

http://www.basketball-reference.com/pla ... ml#PHO-LAL

http://www.basketball-reference.com/pla ... ml#LAL-GSW

Outside of a so so jumpshot, I think he possessed the tools necessary to still be a significant mismatch as a scorer, and not just a passer. The ball handling at his size, the art of deception in his style, the threat of the pass, and his abliity to post up would make him a tough cover every night. He would even develop a reliable shot from 3 later in his career (34.3% on 3 attempts per game from 89-91).

For me its the intangibles that seperate them. Very similar to Russell vs Wilt. You helped Oscar win but Magic helped you win.


I wish we had more footage of Oscar or that they were peers.

by all accounts, Oscar was better defensively

So yeah, this is just not true - Oscar, even man to man, wasn’t as good, and the difference in talent level between the guys they were checking was enormous. I’ve never heard the “by all accounts Oscar was a better defender either,” when his teams routinely sucked on defense and he didn’t really guard any wings particularly well. His lateral quickness was kind of crap and his hands on defense weren’t anything special. He didn’t do a good job of anticipating off ball, wasn’t a standout help defender…all I basically see is a guy who is tough to score on when opposing guards try to post him up. He was very much so the completely opposite of a good defender by all “accounts” and via analysis. Magic had an impact with his size, length, and IQ. If history can be revised to turn Larry into some high-impact defensive player the same would be said of Magic. He wasn’t someone you singled out to go after on D and in the era of the post-up SF he was extremely effective guarding wings on the block.

Rebounding is really close

No, it’s “really” not. Oscar was a 8% TRB player in his prime Magic was always 10%-14%.

on the other hand, I guess you can argue that Oscar's physical advantages over his peers were greater than Magic's, so it more or less evens out)

Why in the world would having a bigger physical advantage against his era matter? We’re comparing them to each other, not who played in a worse period and therefore had a bigger advantage. If you are doing an era relative comparison that’s one thing (and Mikan > both), if you are comparing them to each other it means nothing. Statistically in terms of both pace and rebound rate Magic is far superior.

I have no idea how anybody can watch both players and come away thinking Oscar is in the same galaxy as Magic as a playmaker. I really, really don’t. Oscar might have been better out of the pick and roll. Magic eons better in every other conceivable aspect. Oscar looks like a 7-8apg player at most in today’s league.

Oh, and Oscar's ability to anchor top offensive teams was just as good as Magic's. Their teams were basically a fixture as the best offensive team in the league, or at least very close to the top.

No. His ability to “anchor top offenses” compared to Magic isn’t a face-value statement either considering there were 9 teams in the entire league and his teams struggled to crack an ORTG of 100…the worst the Lakers ever did under Magic (in a league of 23+ teams) was rank 7th sporting an ORTG of 108 and LA was routinely above 113. This is in no way "close."

Now, disregarding this comparison and just analyzing him (Oscar) in a vacuum the biggest problem with his game is that he’d be a two, not a point, in a modern context (at the very least he would guard/be guarded by SGs) so this mitigates his biggest advantage offensively (his size/strength) and his favorite move/spots on the court are the easiest to trap/double without actually conceding “value” defensively. He doesn’t have the first step that every single other all-time great SG has, he doesn’t have generational size like Magic/Larry, and he doesn’t have good range. One of the things that made Oscar so efficient was his FTR and given his playstyle that would drop off dramatically in 2014. This curbs his projected efficiency quite a bit.

Saying Oscar = Magic is the same thing as saying ABA Erving = Jordan. Yes, when you ignore pace, era competition, skill-set, playoffs, team-elevation, and perhaps defense, you will probably start to see equivalency. When you don’t, both are great players but one is a tier or 2 higher than the other. There is a reason after pundits saw 3-4 years of the better player (Magic/Mike) it wasn't even seen as very debatable.

D Nice wrote:

Oh, and Oscar's ability to anchor top offensive teams was just as good as Magic's. Their teams were basically a fixture as the best offensive team in the league, or at least very close to the top.

No. His ability to “anchor top offenses” compared to Magic isn’t a face-value statement either considering there were 9 teams in the entire league and his teams struggled to crack an ORTG of 100…the worst the Lakers ever did under Magic (in a league of 23+ teams) was rank 7th sporting an ORTG of 108 and LA was routinely above 113. This is in no way "close."

Yeah you can't do this. Teams during Magic's era had significantly higher ORTGs than team's during Oscar's prime. You have to compare the teams based on ORTG relative to league average.

NinjaSheppard wrote:

D Nice wrote:

Oh, and Oscar's ability to anchor top offensive teams was just as good as Magic's. Their teams were basically a fixture as the best offensive team in the league, or at least very close to the top.

No. His ability to “anchor top offenses” compared to Magic isn’t a face-value statement either considering there were 9 teams in the entire league and his teams struggled to crack an ORTG of 100…the worst the Lakers ever did under Magic (in a league of 23+ teams) was rank 7th sporting an ORTG of 108 and LA was routinely above 113. This is in no way "close."

Yeah you can't do this. Teams during Magic's era had significantly higher ORTGs than team's during Oscar's prime. You have to compare the teams based on ORTG relative to league average.

Which brings me back to if you want to say he's better because he played in a comparatively suck era, then do so. But just admit that Mikan = GOAT.

People compare the SSOL Suns offenses to the Showtime offenses even though the Suns achieved their results by spamming 3s and intentionally sacrificing defensive fortitude to get an artificial edge on offense (vis-a-vis skewed court orientation). If that's OK, then so is this.

Well, yes accolades has a lot to do with the perception of their rankings. If oscar had 5 rings and magic had 1, oscar would be viewed as the better player. With that said they are very close as players. Careers arent that close though.

Realistically, how many people on this forum were following the NBA(at an age where they could understand what they were watching, not 7 or 8 years old lol) when Oscar Robertson played in his prime? 2 or 3?

It's nearly impossible to compare modern era players to Robertson, Wilt, Russell, etc.

You can use all the stats that you can find, and watch the limited Youtube tape, but there's nowhere close to enough data and footage to judge those players and compare them to modern day guys(especially when you have to factor and extrapolate the potential advancements in time, even if those advancements are just shoes and training/nutrition methods).

Quotatious wrote:I'm not sure anymore. Other than team success, I don't really see how Johnson was better than Robertson. Magic was the better playmaker, Oscar better scorer. Rebounding is really close (slight edge Magic, because Oscar's numbers are a bit inflated by higher pace, although Magic was obviously bigger, which helps with rebounding - on the other hand, I guess you can argue that Oscar's physical advantages over his peers were greater than Magic's, so it more or less evens out), and by all accounts, Oscar was better defensively. In terms of skillset, I'd lean slightly towards Robertson.

Oscar's career playoff numbers don't really look great, but we all know they're skewed because he played most of his playoff games in Milwaukee, when he was past his prime (maybe except 1971, but even then, he wasn't in his absolute prime anymore), and his playoff numbers in Cincinnati look very good (even a little better than his RS numbers).

Oh, and Oscar's ability to anchor top offensive teams was just as good as Magic's. Their teams were basically a fixture as the best offensive team in the league, or at least very close to the top.

So, if you disregard accolades (at least those which depend on team success), who do you think was the better basketball player?

I think it's a question worth asking, but there are two strikes that work in tandem against Oscar here:

1) From an absolute perspective, Magic's teams stood out further from their competition on offense.

2) From a relative perspective, Magic's teams stood out further from their competition on offense.

That doesn't clinch anything, but in terms of how confident I am in the two player and who gets more benefit of the doubt, it's significant.

The thing is that logically it makes sense to think that an absolute juggarnaut of an offensive talent ought to be able to truly run circles around 1960s competition. Maybe expecting an analog of what Russell's teams did on defense is unfair, but the thing is that when Philly finally figured out how to use Wilt, they didn't just surpass Oscar's offensive dynasty, they blew it completely out of the water. That tells us that something more was possible, and that Oscar just didn't get his team there, which means that although on the whole he was the best offensive player of his generation, he wasn't quite running circles around everyone else.

For me also there's the matter: "Magic's the better playmaker but...", but what? If you want to run an outlier good offense there is nothing as important as that. You need other traits so that people will take your shooting seriously, but you get the best offenses when you have a world class decision maker, and like you, I don't see any reason to go against Magic there.

On the other side of things: Being the best playmaker isn't the top priority necessarily on weaker teams, and in theory we can weigh that altogether and give Oscar the nod, but realistically a major part of Oscar's argument on here is that he led elite offenses, and while his impact on those teams are unquestioned, the argument is never that he did that with awful offensive teammates.

Rob Diaz wrote:Realistically, how many people on this forum were following the NBA(at an age where they could understand what they were watching, not 7 or 8 years old lol) when Oscar Robertson played in his prime? 2 or 3?

It's nearly impossible to compare modern era players to Robertson, Wilt, Russell, etc.

You can use all the stats that you can find, and watch the limited Youtube tape, but there's nowhere close to enough data and footage to judge those players and compare them to modern day guys(especially when you have to factor and extrapolate the potential advancements in time, even if those advancements are just shoes and training/nutrition methods).

Issues like this are known. Our options are either to do the best we can, or ignore Oscar's era as anything more than a footnote in history. I don't think there's any question we learn more doing the former.

Quick Eye wrote:When it comes to Oscar's assists, it becomes hard to compare it to Magic and later point guards because in Oscar's era, many people say that back then stat keepers were more strict in what they considered an assist. Sometimes in today's game, people have made threads debating if certain point guards are getting their stats inflated a bit due to questionable stat keeping. Oscar might have averaged more assists in today's game all things considered equal due to some of his "non-assist" plays being called "assist" plays today.

If you look at how select stars accumulated assists back then it to me is pretty clear that the issues back then were just a more extreme version of what we see now: The guys who get the arbitrary stats regularly called their way are the guys the scorekeepers know to expect to get those stats. Once that stat becomes something people are actually paying attention to for that guy, scorekeepers make a real point to not miss them, and tend to go too far in the other directions. "Was that worthy of an assist?", "Well it came from X, I guess it must have been."

For example, guys here have done play-by-play analysis of Walt Frazier's 1970 Game 7 performance, and they don't see anywhere near 19 assists. Frazier in general isn't even a guy who racked up huge assists, but that night, for whatever reason, he was getting credited on assists for every jump shot conceivable. My guess would be it was because he got off to a hot start and the statkeepers then "nudged" him a bit further toward history. Same stuff happens today, although I doubt you'd see it during the Finals given how scrutinized it is.

D Nice wrote:. If history can be revised to turn Larry into some high-impact defensive player the same would be said of Magic.

Bird was thought of as a good defender when he played. Magic and Bird were not thought of as equals defensively during their careers.

One thing I noticed when I looked into Oscar was his relatively poor coaches. I think it's worth considering when gauging his teams' offensive and defensive performances.

Taken from this post:

In Oscar's first 3 years, the team was coached by Charles Wolf, who had no previous experience and then finished his coaching career with a disastrous 25-66 stint with Detroit that had All-NBA 2nd teamer Bailey Howell (and a young but mostly injured Dave DeBusschere). For the next 4 years, Cincinnati was coached by Jack McMahon, who outside of Cincinnati amassed a total of one first round loss across 6 seasons with a combined record of 113-209. The next 2 years for Cincinnati were the only head coaching years of Ed Jucker. Oscar's last season in Cincinnati saw new coach Bob Cousy at the helm, and as has been gratefully pointed out, Cousy didn't seem to get along with Oscar. Following that season, Cousy's teams never made the playoffs and had a combined record of 105-161.

That is the entirety of the head coaching expertise that Oscar had at his disposal across 10 years in Cincinnati - 3 of the 4 coaches had never had a head coaching position in the league prior to coaching the Royals, and their combined resume outside of Cincinnati boasts 2 playoff wins and an overall record of 243-436 (35.8%).

In Milwaukee, Oscar was coached by Larry Costello, and outside of the run from the time when Oscar was there, Costello likewise did not have much success, with one series victory in 6 other seasons.

Chuck Texas wrote:

D Nice wrote:. If history can be revised to turn Larry into some high-impact defensive player the same would be said of Magic.

Bird was thought of as a good defender when he played. Magic and Bird were not thought of as equals defensively during their careers.

I don't really deny this but it has completely swung the other way where it is painted as a large edge in his favor when the gap was extremely small. Bird was a bit more physical and had more active hands. Never saw a hugely meaningful separation. A big part of why he looked better was the general approach the team adopted, he was in no way a defensive "hub."

Also, this perception was hugely influenced by Bird playing Power Forward to begin his career. He was on the back line so he was in a position to make more (easily visible) influential plays. Once he moved to SF he didn't look like a significantly more impactful defender than Magic, yet was argued as a superior defender to some guys in the top 100 he wasn't even on the same defensive tier as.