RealGM

Throughout their prime whose offense was better/more impactful ?

Going to say Oscar by a somewhat clear margin. I don't think Kareem's scoring gap makes up for Oscar's bbiq/playmaking gap.

Kareem very clearly imo. Top 3 scorer ever with solid playmaking

It's Kareem and it's not close.

3 things worth remembering to adjust for when you look at the stats; the minutes, the pace, and the quality of the leagues their best numbers came in. The NBA was considerably more competetive in say 1977 as opposed to 1960-64.

Interesting contrast so far, but I'm also in the Oscar 'not all that close' camp. Got his own shot better, better playmaker for others, and a similar level scorer.

Oscar literally saw the worst offense in the league become the best offense in the league as a rookie...

Narigo wrote:Kareem very clearly imo. Top 3 scorer ever with solid playmaking

That doesn't sound better than a top 3 playmaker who is a 30 PPG scorer.

Oscar anchored the best offense in the league every year no matter what the roster was. He's also a point guard so that's kind of his job.

Narigo wrote:Kareem very clearly imo. Top 3 scorer ever with solid playmaking

Clearly?

Did you forget Oscar anchored best offenses in the league for the duration of his prime?

It's reasonably close, but I'd probably take Oscar for his playmaking capability and extremely well rounded skillset.

One_and_Done wrote:It's Kareem and it's not close.

3 things worth remembering to adjust for when you look at the stats; the minutes, the pace, and the quality of the leagues their best numbers came in. The NBA was considerably more competetive in say 1977 as opposed to 1960-64.

More competitive in the sense that there wasn't a superteam like the Celtics.

But the talent level per team was probably lower even post merger due to the massive expansion of the previous 10 years. I don't believe the talent pool expanded by more than double (22 teams v. 9) in the space of 15 years. Also, the degree of team continuity was worse due to the constant disruptions of late ABA team implosions and the merger; thus there is less talent per team and they play together less well.

Yeh I just disagree. I think the average talent has exponentially improved as the league has progressed.

One_and_Done wrote:Yeh I just disagree. I think the average talent has exponentially improved as the league has progressed.

I get the approach for like an Oscar v LeBron comparison. It doesn’t make much sense for guys who were teammates at one point.

eminence wrote:

One_and_Done wrote:Yeh I just disagree. I think the average talent has exponentially improved as the league has progressed.

I get the approach for like an Oscar v LeBron comparison. It doesn’t make much sense for guys who were teammates at one point.

Just asking but wasn’t Oscar in his very late prime once he even got to MIL?

1993Playoffs wrote:

eminence wrote:

One_and_Done wrote:Yeh I just disagree. I think the average talent has exponentially improved as the league has progressed.

I get the approach for like an Oscar v LeBron comparison. It doesn’t make much sense for guys who were teammates at one point.

Just asking but wasn’t Oscar in his very late prime once he even got to MIL?

Absolutely, ‘exponential’ talent improvement is still silly (without getting into the huge expansion from Oscars best years to Kareems career).

One_and_Done wrote:Yeh I just disagree. I think the average talent has exponentially improved as the league has progressed.

I would say it's the late 80s before average talent in the league caught up to expansion from the early 60s and that the mid 70s just before the merger is arguably the worst average talent in NBA history since the 24 second clock. 77 catches up a bit by cutting teams instead of expanding.

Integration, shooting style, coaching, and training differences obviously make a major difference too, especially in the 50s so I do downgrade Top end talent is always unique though and doesn't run in nice neat growth curves. True top end talent tends to be an outlier though so that difference isn't dispositive.

I think it’s closer than some on this thread do, but I’ll take Oscar here. I think total offensive load, the instant impact and sustained impact on team results, and offensive “with or without you” data would bolster Oscar’s argument; this checks out, as a perimeter player is being compared to a big man.

As everyone knows / could speculate, where Kareem gets the edge in any career measure is combining slightly worse offense (compared to Oscar) along with a DPOY level track record. That aggregate value makes him a top 3 peak and top 2 career for me.

One_and_Done wrote:Yeh I just disagree. I think the average talent has exponentially improved as the league has progressed.

Do you have anything to back it up that the league improved exponentially from 1964 to 1974?

I only clicked on this thread to see who 70sFan picked

70sFan wrote:Do you have anything to back it up that the league improved exponentially from 1964 to 1974?

"Exponentially" does seem pretty aggressive.

At the most elementary level:

1964: 43.3% FG, 72.2% FT, 94.6 ORTG, 48.5% TS
1974: 45.9% FG, 77.1% FT, 97.7 ORTG, 50.3% TS

Again, super rude, very basic, first-pass examination. It does appear that the league improved over the intervening decade. Basic shooting proficiency as much as anything else, even despite expansion. I don't really see anything that indicates "exponential" improvement from a quick glance at the basics, though.

1977: 46.5% FG, 75.1% FT, 99.5 ORTG, 51.1% TS

Looks a lot like a gradual improvement arc over time to me.


And just for extension's sake:

1980: 48.1% FG, 76.4% FT, 105.3 ORTG, 53.1% TS

1990: 47.6% FG, 76.4% FT, 108.1 ORTG, 53.7% TS

2000: 44.9% FG, 75.0% FT, 104.1 ORTG, 52.3% TS

2010: 46.1% FG, 75.9% FT, 107.6 ORTG, 54.3% TS

2020: 46.0% FG, 77.3% FT, 110.6 ORTG, 56.5% TS

2023: 47.5% FG, 78.2% FT, 114.8 ORTG, 58.1% TS

Ambrose wrote:I only clicked on this thread to see who 70sFan picked

He usually has some wonderful insights, especially with older players. It's a good tactic.