RealGM

Oh, his greatness gets some lip service here--but when younger fans talk about the great guards in the history of the NBA, he always seems to be an afterthought.

His "sin"? He wasn't flashy. He just beat you to death with fundamentals. He was a perfectly oiled, smoothly functioning basketball machine. In my opinion sloppy fundamentals are the weakest aspect of "stars" in the game today who get by on their athleticism--and of course the NBA powers that be let them get away with it. Steps, palming, no boxing out, no hand checking, "continuation" etc. etc.

Not needed in his day, of course, but could he have developed a competent three point shot? I believe with his skills he could have.

If he had, in his prime I'd take him over ANY damned guard in the game today. And yes, I mean ANY guard.

i have heard criticisms of his defense and conservstive passing

how true is that?

What makes him superior to Magic if we are comparing them in their primes in your opinion? Superior scorer and better scoring repertoire potentially?

I heard Kareem one time comparing Big O and Magic. He said they had different styles but were pretty equal, with Big O maybe having a slight edge due to his defense and scoring.

falcolombardi wrote:i have heard criticisms of his defense and conservstive passing

how true is that?

Most people questioning his defense usually bring up Royals poor defensive performance. I don't think that's fair, guards don't have enough defensive impact to carry mediocre defensive teams on their backs.

From what I've seen, Oscar was physical man defender with a lot of size. He used handcheking very often, it wasn't easy to beat him in isolation. He wasn't very quick though, so it's better to have him on bigger guards. Without the ball he was decent, but nothing spectacular. I haven't seen him missing rotations very often, but he usually didn't make high value plays helping out.

In terms of conservative passing, I don't see that at all. He wasn't on Magic or Nash level for finding every opening and attempting every pass imaginable, but he was more of a heavy P&R floor general.

It seems to me that with all of Oscars abilities he never translated them into team success.

He gets overrated more than anything. I think when you consider the almost total lack of team success its kind of hard to put him inside the top 15.

As far as point guards in todays game I don't think any of us know how Oscar would do. He probably doesn't win as many titles as Steph.

Stalwart wrote:It seems to me that with all of Oscars abilities he never translated them into team success.

He gets overrated more than anything. I think when you consider the almost total lack of team success its kind of hard to put him inside the top 15.

As far as point guards in todays game I don't think any of us know how Oscar would do. He probably doesn't win as many titles as Steph.

"Never" is an overstatement, as Oscar won the ring, went to two NBA finals and another three conference finals.

LukaTheGOAT wrote:What makes him superior to Magic if we are comparing them in their primes in your opinion? Superior scorer and better scoring repertoire potentially?

Much better shooter.


Maybe right now it is, but I remember Oscar consistently ranked ahead of Kareem in many media works.

70sFan wrote:

falcolombardi wrote:i have heard criticisms of his defense and conservstive passing

how true is that?

Most people questioning his defense usually bring up Royals poor defensive performance. I don't think that's fair, guards don't have enough defensive impact to carry mediocre defensive teams on their backs.

From what I've seen, Oscar was physical man defender with a lot of size. He used handcheking very often, it wasn't easy to beat him in isolation. He wasn't very quick though, so it's better to have him on bigger guards. Without the ball he was decent, but nothing spectacular. I haven't seen him missing rotations very often, but he usually didn't make high value plays helping out.

This is my observation as well; he generally looks pretty solid defensively to my eye.
Nothing flashy by way of steals/blocks, but he had good length [for a PG] for contesting shots, he absolutely could not be bullied in the post, and he stayed in front of his man. His off-ball positioning always seemed decent/appropriate too (and I don't recall seeing him burned backdoor while ball-watching).

I think it would be fair to question if he could do as well staying in front of his man in an era with restricted hand-checking; but in an era when a moderate amount was allowed, he was more than capable of staying in front of most guys.

The Bucks DRtg does some interesting things upon his arrival/departure, too......

'70 Bucks descending order of minutes played (-0.9 rDRTG)
Kareem [rookie]
Jon McGlocklin
Flynn Robinson
Bob Dandridge [rookie]
Greg Smith
Zaid Abdul-Aziz
Freddie Crawford
Len Chappell
Guy Rodgers [twilight year]

'71 Bucks descending order of minutes played (-4.1 rDRTG [-3.2 improvement])
Kareem
Oscar Robertson
Jon McGlocklin
Bob Dandridge
Greg Smith
Bob Boozer [aging]
Lucius Allen
Dick Cunningham

Note there's very little change in the top 5 rotation (and I'm skeptical how much the lower roster changes mattered in this), other than Oscar has replaced Flynn Robinson......and yet their DRtg makes a huge jump. Certainly improvement in Kareem and Dandridge could play a big role, too; but just pointing it out.

The Royals get worse defensively when he leaves, too.

And then from '74 to '75......I mean, a few roster changes happen. But by far the BIGGEST change is that Oscar is no longer around (Kareem missing 17 games is arguably the next-biggest factor); and the rDRTG worsens by +4.2, from -4.1 to +0.1.

70sFan wrote:In terms of conservative passing, I don't see that at all.

I disagree. I see this as a valid "criticism", in the same way that it is for Chris Paul [Oscar's closest modern comparison in terms of play-making]. Both could be called conservative in that they'll sometimes forego the high risk/high reward pass.......but that's part of what allows Chris Paul to achieve GOAT-level [literally GOAT-level] turnover economy (which has its own offensive benefit, obviously).
I don't have near enough stat-tracking for Robertson to see if similar applies to him. If so, could that also be a part of the defensive effect??? (fewer turnovers ---> fewer transition opportunities for your opponent ---> better DRtg).

I don't have Wilt nor Oscar among the most underrated and disrespected players of all-time. I think the premise to this thread is all wrong. Oscar was the first player ever really referred to as GOAT, right? And Wilt is universally seen as one of the 7 or 8 best players of all-time.

The fact that they aren't seen as the very best player ever in 2022 doesn't make them as underrated or disrespected as some other players who actually are very underrated. Tim Duncan probably will always lead that category among the masses.

Texas Chuck wrote:I don't have Wilt nor Oscar among the most underrated and disrespected players of all-time. I think the premise to this thread is all wrong. Oscar was the first player ever really referred to as GOAT, right? And Wilt is universally seen as one of the 7 or 8 best players of all-time.

The fact that they aren't seen as the very best player ever in 2022 doesn't make them as underrated or disrespected as some other players who actually are very underrated. Tim Duncan probably will always lead that category among the masses.

Agree.

In terms of players well past the top 10(ish) range, I think guys like Bill Laimbeer, Jeff Hornacek, Horace Grant, Terry Porter, and Zelmo Beaty are astonishingly underrated in the mainstream [even unheard of among modern casual fans]. Less so here, though even here I believe all of these guys except perhaps Porter guys are at least a little underrated.

trex_8063 wrote:

Texas Chuck wrote:I don't have Wilt nor Oscar among the most underrated and disrespected players of all-time. I think the premise to this thread is all wrong. Oscar was the first player ever really referred to as GOAT, right? And Wilt is universally seen as one of the 7 or 8 best players of all-time.

The fact that they aren't seen as the very best player ever in 2022 doesn't make them as underrated or disrespected as some other players who actually are very underrated. Tim Duncan probably will always lead that category among the masses.

Agree.

In terms of players well past the top 10(ish) range, I think guys like Bill Laimbeer, Jeff Hornacek, Horace Grant, Terry Porter, and Zelmo Beaty are astonishingly underrated in the mainstream [even unheard of among modern casual fans]. Less so here, though even here I believe all of these guys except perhaps Porter guys are at least a little underrated.

Don't forget about forgotten Cliff Hagan as well!

A similar player, Russell Westbrook, is the most underrated and disrespected player. Achieving 30pt triple double in modern era, winning scoring title and MVP the same season, yet he was portraited as a stat padder.

dygaction wrote:A similar player, Russell Westbrook, is the most underrated and disrespected player. Achieving 30pt triple double in modern era, winning scoring title and MVP the same season, yet he was portraited as a stat padder.

There is nothing similar about Westbrook and Oscar. I can't think of two point guards as different as they are.

70sFan wrote:

dygaction wrote:A similar player, Russell Westbrook, is the most underrated and disrespected player. Achieving 30pt triple double in modern era, winning scoring title and MVP the same season, yet he was portraited as a stat padder.

There is nothing similar about Westbrook and Oscar. I can't think of two point guards as different as they are.

Come on, you know that's an over exaggeration.

dygaction wrote:

70sFan wrote:

dygaction wrote:A similar player, Russell Westbrook, is the most underrated and disrespected player. Achieving 30pt triple double in modern era, winning scoring title and MVP the same season, yet he was portraited as a stat padder.

There is nothing similar about Westbrook and Oscar. I can't think of two point guards as different as they are.

Come on, you know that's an over exaggeration.

Not at all, if we want to compare two elite PGs throughout the history it would be extremely hard to find more different ones than these two.

70sFan wrote:

dygaction wrote:

70sFan wrote:
There is nothing similar about Westbrook and Oscar. I can't think of two point guards as different as they are.

Come on, you know that's an over exaggeration.

Not at all, if we want to compare two elite PGs throughout the history it would be extremely hard to find more different ones than these two.

Unless you don't take players' physical attributes, like size, strength, speed relative to their peers, scoring ability, rebounding ability... into consideration. Of course, Westbrook is more flashy, athletic, and makes more boneheaded moves.

dygaction wrote:

70sFan wrote:

dygaction wrote:
Come on, you know that's an over exaggeration.

Not at all, if we want to compare two elite PGs throughout the history it would be extremely hard to find more different ones than these two.

Unless you don't take players' physical attributes, like size, strength, speed relative to their peers, scoring ability, rebounding ability... into consideration. Of course, Westbrook is more flashy, athletic, and makes more boneheaded moves.

Oscar is significantly bigger than Westbrook.
Westbrook is significantly faster than Oscar.
Oscar is significantly better scorer.
Westbrook is significantly better rebounder.

They didn't play similar at all. Westbrook weaknesses (high turnovers, lack of jumpshot, poor decision making, weak efficiency, stubborn plays) were Oscar's strengths. Oscar didn't have Westbrook's motor and athleticism either. Westbrook relied heavily on his ability to drive, Oscar didn't collapse defenses in the same way - he was much more methodical offensive creator.

Seriously, it's worse than comparing Larry Bird to LeBron James because of their boxscore raw lines.

70sFan wrote:

dygaction wrote:

70sFan wrote:Not at all, if we want to compare two elite PGs throughout the history it would be extremely hard to find more different ones than these two.

Unless you don't take players' physical attributes, like size, strength, speed relative to their peers, scoring ability, rebounding ability... into consideration. Of course, Westbrook is more flashy, athletic, and makes more boneheaded moves.

Oscar is significantly bigger than Westbrook.
Westbrook is significantly faster than Oscar.
Oscar is significantly better scorer.
Westbrook is significantly better rebounder.

They didn't play similar at all. Westbrook weaknesses (high turnovers, lack of jumpshot, poor decision making, weak efficiency, stubborn plays) were Oscar's strengths. Oscar didn't have Westbrook's motor and athleticism either. Westbrook relied heavily on his ability to drive, Oscar didn't collapse defenses in the same way - he was much more methodical offensive creator.

Seriously, it's worse than comparing Larry Bird to LeBron James because of their boxscore raw lines.

Oscar is significantly bigger than Westbrook. -- Although both being tall PGs
Westbrook is significantly faster than Oscar. -- Although both being athletics to their peers
Oscar is significantly better scorer. -- Not at all after if you adjust for the pace, more efficient maybe.
Westbrook is significantly better rebounder. -- Although they are both elite compared to their peers. Jordan being a significant better scorer does not mean Jordan and Kobe do not have things in common.

Why does it feel like the Royals disappointed? Their run is equivalent to the KG Timberwolves, one strong year, and bottoming out near the end. I'm not sure I buy the anti-Lucas stuff, it feels like it was something people came up with to justify the Royals not being better, he is not an MVP but he was a solid perennial all-star big who's likely to be underrated on offense by his stats.