RealGM

I've heard reference to Oscar at once being in the Goat debate, but falling off to the 11-15 range for most fans nowadays. Was this ever a legitimate claim, and if so, do we have any sources (Goat lists from like the 80's or something)? Additionally, why do we think this perception slipped? It seems that players and fans from the time thought that Oscar was better than West, whereas this board tends to view them as contemporaries (I only have Oscar ahead on my list due to this perception). As a newer basketball fan, it can be hard to understand how a player was perceived during their own time without 60 years of fluctuating narratives.

I think Oscar as goat was something that had some traction(more so among older media and players) up until the 80's/90's. I think MJ's crowning of goat by the media in that time and 6 rings to Oscar's 1 sort of ended it in general but there's still some of those players/media from back then still around who will say he is up there with MJ/Kareem etc. I still have him as top 12-13 personally but the lack of postseasons and success will always be a net negative when you compare him to guys like Magic, Bird etc who won so much more. It requires a lot of mental gymnastics to use his rs dominance as a way to get around the lack of post season dominance.

Oscar was below Russell, Wilt, and maybe West in his own era. I don't see a case for him as GOAT. He may have had one as GOAT guard with health and playmaking over West, scoring over Magic, and playmaking over Jordan but even there I don't think it's that strong.

Rishkar wrote:I've heard reference to Oscar at once being in the Goat debate, but falling off to the 11-15 range for most fans nowadays. Was this ever a legitimate claim, and if so, do we have any sources (Goat lists from like the 80's or something)? Additionally, why do we think this perception slipped? It seems that players and fans from the time thought that Oscar was better than West, whereas this board tends to view them as contemporaries (I only have Oscar ahead on my list due to this perception). As a newer basketball fan, it can be hard to understand how a player was perceived during their own time without 60 years of fluctuating narratives.

Got to be brief but can chip in a bit

Was this legitimate ... well ... that's kind of just saying "what do you think of him?" But I think I'm higher than most now and subscirbe to a broad range on older players. So it's not that wild.

There's a couple of books from the 90s (technically 3 but 2 from the same author and in the second one there's two separate parts with lists and one maybe iirc seems to suggest MJ surpassed him ... but otoh Taragano and Bjarkman each call him number 1).

In the physical hard copy lists (mainly circa 89-2010ish) Robertson was close to a lock to be above West. My recollection is his average ranking placed him narrowly behind Bird and then a little gap to the next guys, putting him as probably the last guy in the top tier (I think those two were on average ranked circa 6 to 6.5, again otoh).

Versus West briefly and otoh, I think Robertson is more productive and played quite a bit more, impact signal is maybe about the same, I'd guess West was the better defender though hard to get a good gauge. For me that puts Robertson ahead. Fwiw, I probably am more RS inclined than most.

Cavsfansince84 wrote:I think Oscar as goat was something that had some traction(more so among older media and players) up until the 80's/90's. I think MJ's crowning of goat by the media in that time and 6 rings to Oscar's 1 sort of ended it in general but there's still some of those players/media from back then still around who will say he is up there with MJ/Kareem etc. I still have him as top 12-13 personally but the lack of postseasons and success will always be a net negative when you compare him to guys like Magic, Bird etc who won so much more. It requires a lot of mental gymnastics to use his rs dominance as a way to get around the lack of post season dominance.

I don't think it requires mental gymnastics to "get around the lack of post season dominance" necessarily. It depends what for of course ... if one is saying "He is first" then there's a burden of proof and it's a big claim. And it depends what one means by lack of "dominance" (team? stats?). But say versus Bird it's not like his older Reference box-aggregates held up great (iirc Bird's BPM [at least present gen, idk about 1.0] holds up better than PER, WS/48 but then that might be true of Oscar too if available). It would depend on the individual's criteria too. For a "he might be" case there's so much data ... box and impact-y .. missing that the idea that he's could be in that vicinity doesn't seem too far fetched, though of course he could be weaker in these unknown areas too.

Rishkar wrote:I've heard reference to Oscar at once being in the Goat debate, but falling off to the 11-15 range for most fans nowadays. Was this ever a legitimate claim, and if so, do we have any sources (Goat lists from like the 80's or something)? Additionally, why do we think this perception slipped? It seems that players and fans from the time thought that Oscar was better than West, whereas this board tends to view them as contemporaries (I only have Oscar ahead on my list due to this perception). As a newer basketball fan, it can be hard to understand how a player was perceived during their own time without 60 years of fluctuating narratives.

I think a big thing to understand is that in Oscar's era you'd likely hear stuff like "the best all-around player" about him, which was a way of saying "Of course he's not as valuable as big men - and that's why he's not winning championships - but his body of skills is more complete". This was a bigger thing than just Oscar, but it might have been said about Oscar more than anyone else.

I'll also note that a generation before with Bob Cousy you had a contingent who simply said Cousy was the best and greatest player in history after the Celtics started their dynasty. These folks were stating, implicitly or explicitly, that while Bill Russell may be winning MVPs, Cousy was the true keystone that made the Celtics win...and I'd say they largely shut up after Cousy retired and the Celtics got better instead of falling off a cliff, and that's probably win "the best all-around player" started getting used as a euphemism for "the most valuable non-big man in the game".

I'd say that Oscar's rep got a separate boost in the wake of Magic Johnson and the rise of the phrase "triple double", which of course Oscar was the true king of...but wasn't emphasized the same day when he played. And I'd say now that the existence of Russell Westbrook will probably permanently diminish perception of this accomplishment. I'd argue that diminishing of the veneration for triple doubles is a very good thing, but it's something of a shame that Oscar gets hurt by this given that such statistics weren't the product of explicit pursuit.

Re: Oscar > West back in the day. Well remember, Oscar got handed the Royals right away whereas West didn't become the alpha option for the Lakers until long after he deserved it because of Elgin Baylor. As a result you can basically divide the Oscar vs West comparison during the epochs during their career:

First few years: Oscar by a landslide
Middle of career: HIghly debatable, with Oscar listed first as a default.
Last few years: West...along with the recognition that West seemed to have been better in the playoffs in the prior epoch.

Last thing I'll point out is that it's worthwhile looking at specific comparisons in the trajectory on the RealGM 100 over time. There we see a fascinating trend where West has the edge in the '00s, Oscar in the '10s, and West again in the '20s soo far. It's close each time, small numbers voting each time, and not the same voter pool each time, so I'd be wary of attributing the trend to general trends of perception, but interesting nonetheless.

Owly wrote:I don't think it requires mental gymnastics to "get around the lack of post season dominance" necessarily. It depends what for of course ... if one is saying "He is first" then there's a burden of proof and it's a big claim. And it depends what one means by lack of "dominance" (team? stats?). But say versus Bird it's not like his older Reference box-aggregates held up great (iirc Bird's BPM [at least present gen, idk about 1.0] holds up better than PER, WS/48 but then that might be true of Oscar too if available). It would depend on the individual's criteria too. For a "he might be" case there's so much data ... box and impact-y .. missing that the idea that he's could be in that vicinity doesn't seem too far fetched, though of course he could be weaker in these unknown areas too.

I don't think it's too hard to get him in a similar tier as Bird. I see them as almost being in similar tiers myself but that isn't the same as making a goat tier case for Oscar. I also don't know of too many people who put such little emphasis on post season success that they'd be willing to overlook Oscar's lack thereof when comparing him to guys we often think of as top 5 all time to get him into that group.

Cavsfansince84 wrote: I don't think it's too hard to get him in a similar tier as Bird. I see them as almost being in similar tiers myself but that isn't the same as making a goat tier case for Oscar. I also don't know of too many people who put such little emphasis on post season success that they'd be willing to overlook Oscar's lack thereof when comparing him to guys we often think of as top 5 all time to get him into that group.

When we say "lack of postseason dominance," are we talking about team-based stuff like series victories and titles?

Because we ARE talking about a roughly 30/9/9 guy while he was in Cinci who led the postseason in APG 4 times and another 3 times with Milwaukee, and a dude who led the postseason in TS% twice with Cinci and once with Milwaukee. He was going up against Wilt's Sixers and Russell's Celtics in the playoffs most of the time, too.

tsherkin wrote:
When we say "lack of postseason dominance," are we talking about team-based stuff like series victories and titles?

Because we ARE talking about a roughly 30/9/9 guy while he was in Cinci who led the postseason in APG 4 times and another 3 times with Milwaukee, and a dude who led the postseason in TS% twice with Cinci and once with Milwaukee. He was going up against Wilt's Sixers and Russell's Celtics in the playoffs most of the time, too.

I'm talking about all elements of it. Individual, team success and how teams lose. The other side of it is that if we are more focused on just the rs to make a case he only got 1 mvp in his career. So it's not a situation like with Wilt where he had 4 mvps which doesn't even count years where he put up 50/25 and 45/24. Some people put Wilt in the goat tier but not that many anymore due in large part to lack of team success.

Cavsfansince84 wrote: I'm talking about all elements of it. Individual, team success and how teams lose. The other side of it is that if we are more focused on just the rs to make a case he only got 1 mvp in his career. So it's not a situation like with Wilt where he had 4 mvps which doesn't even count years where he put up 50/25 and 45/24. Some people put Wilt in the goat tier but not that many anymore due in large part to lack of team success.

Right, but it bears mention that he was competing with Russ and Wilt, and is the only guy besides them to win a triple double in that era. And this was an early period where people didn't fully appreciate what he was doing. I don't really ascribe to the Oscar-as-GOAT deal, but there are some maaaajor achievements in his bag.

tsherkin wrote:
Right, but it bears mention that he was competing with Russ and Wilt, and is the only guy besides them to win a triple double in that era. And this was an early period where people didn't fully appreciate what he was doing. I don't really ascribe to the Oscar-as-GOAT deal, but there are some maaaajor achievements in his bag.

The bolded isn't necessarily something that a goat case can be made from though which is the entire thing being discussed here. I mean you're sort of arguing against what I'm saying but you haven't even attempted to make a goat case for him here. So I'm not really sure what I've said that you are honestly pushing back against. I think the case for Oscar has to be built around him solidly being the greatest offensive player/hub of all time.

Cavsfansince84 wrote: The bolded isn't necessarily something that a goat case can be made from though which is the entire thing being discussed here. I mean you're sort of arguing against what I'm saying but you haven't even attempted to make a goat case for him here. So I'm not really sure what I've said that you are honestly pushing back against.

I'm not pushing back against the idea that he isn't the GOAT. I'm reminding people that his achievements in-era were not always appropriately appreciated, and aren't now. The fact that he won a SINGLE MVP in that era is INSANE given the pro-big bias of the time. And the lack of appreciation for what he was doing with his teams offensively and individually.

Oscar's Royals had the #1 ORtg in the league for five years straight at one point. And his combination of volume, efficiency and playmaking was pretty insane. GOAT I think he has no case because there are two players in that very era that are clearly better (Russell and Wilt of course) and he suffers from a lack of team success for better or for worse even though it was very tough to win in Cinci given the circumstances.

Doctor MJ wrote:

Rishkar wrote:I've heard reference to Oscar at once being in the Goat debate, but falling off to the 11-15 range for most fans nowadays. Was this ever a legitimate claim, and if so, do we have any sources (Goat lists from like the 80's or something)? Additionally, why do we think this perception slipped? It seems that players and fans from the time thought that Oscar was better than West, whereas this board tends to view them as contemporaries (I only have Oscar ahead on my list due to this perception). As a newer basketball fan, it can be hard to understand how a player was perceived during their own time without 60 years of fluctuating narratives.

I think a big thing to understand is that in Oscar's era you'd likely hear stuff like "the best all-around player" about him, which was a way of saying "Of course he's not as valuable as big men - and that's why he's not winning championships - but his body of skills is more complete". This was a bigger thing than just Oscar, but it might have been said about Oscar more than anyone else.

I'll also note that a generation before with Bob Cousy you had a contingent who simply said Cousy was the best and greatest player in history after the Celtics started their dynasty. These folks were stating, implicitly or explicitly, that while Bill Russell may be winning MVPs, Cousy was the true keystone that made the Celtics win...and I'd say they largely shut up after Cousy retired and the Celtics got better instead of falling off a cliff, and that's probably win "the best all-around player" started getting used as a euphemism for "the most valuable non-big man in the game".

I'd say that Oscar's rep got a separate boost in the wake of Magic Johnson and the rise of the phrase "triple double", which of course Oscar was the true king of...but wasn't emphasized the same day when he played. And I'd say now that the existence of Russell Westbrook will probably permanently diminish perception of this accomplishment. I'd argue that diminishing of the veneration for triple doubles is a very good thing, but it's something of a shame that Oscar gets hurt by this given that such statistics weren't the product of explicit pursuit.

Re: Oscar > West back in the day. Well remember, Oscar got handed the Royals right away whereas West didn't become the alpha option for the Lakers until long after he deserved it because of Elgin Baylor. As a result you can basically divide the Oscar vs West comparison during the epochs during their career:

First few years: Oscar by a landslide
Middle of career: HIghly debatable, with Oscar listed first as a default.
Last few years: West...along with the recognition that West seemed to have been better in the playoffs in the prior epoch.

Last thing I'll point out is that it's worthwhile looking at specific comparisons in the trajectory on the RealGM 100 over time. There we see a fascinating trend where West has the edge in the '00s, Oscar in the '10s, and West again in the '20s soo far. It's close each time, small numbers voting each time, and not the same voter pool each time, so I'd be wary of attributing the trend to general trends of perception, but interesting nonetheless.

Looking at my post, another thing occurred to me:

The "all-around" thing didn't start with the '60s. People talked about that about Jim Pollard next to George Mikan. So it's definitely something that existed in the '40s with the arrival of the Big Man, it's just that there was a bit more resistance to the inevitability of Big Man-led championships while Cousy was still playing getting confused credit for a team winning with defense.

Cavsfansince84 wrote:

Owly wrote:I don't think it requires mental gymnastics to "get around the lack of post season dominance" necessarily. It depends what for of course ... if one is saying "He is first" then there's a burden of proof and it's a big claim. And it depends what one means by lack of "dominance" (team? stats?). But say versus Bird it's not like his older Reference box-aggregates held up great (iirc Bird's BPM [at least present gen, idk about 1.0] holds up better than PER, WS/48 but then that might be true of Oscar too if available). It would depend on the individual's criteria too. For a "he might be" case there's so much data ... box and impact-y .. missing that the idea that he's could be in that vicinity doesn't seem too far fetched, though of course he could be weaker in these unknown areas too.

I don't think it's too hard to get him in a similar tier as Bird. I see them as almost being in similar tiers myself but that isn't the same as making a goat tier case for Oscar. I also don't know of too many people who put such little emphasis on post season success that they'd be willing to overlook Oscar's lack thereof when comparing him to guys we often think of as top 5 all time to get him into that group.

Tiers is a bit vague ... granting that. Using both "almost" and in "similar" tiers actually sounds, cumulatively, like significant separation, though given the tone I wonder if perhaps using only one might more accurately represent your position? Idk. Similarly with not "too hard" to get to a "similar" (rather than "same") tier.

fwiw, my guess otoh is I'd have them in the same tier but haven't ever got to a level or rigor or consistency I'd be happy with and so that's much more me just spitballing.

I still have him as top 12-13 personally but the lack of postseasons and success will always be a net negative when you compare him to guys like Magic, Bird etc who won so much more. It requires a lot of mental gymnastics to use his rs dominance as a way to get around the lack of post season dominance.

To an extent I think my focus on Bird is shaped by the above. I wasn't clear in my understanding how much the former sentence related to the latter (there is cohesion through repetition of postseason), but in as far as it did (now seemingly that much?) or did not the Bird stuff would relate to your presentation of the GOAT stuff.

Per above I think "is" GOAT is very tough to get to, especially since LeBron amassed his body of work. The "could be" ... given a noisier era ... is more possible if still not likely.

Owly wrote:

Cavsfansince84 wrote:

Owly wrote:I don't think it requires mental gymnastics to "get around the lack of post season dominance" necessarily. It depends what for of course ... if one is saying "He is first" then there's a burden of proof and it's a big claim. And it depends what one means by lack of "dominance" (team? stats?). But say versus Bird it's not like his older Reference box-aggregates held up great (iirc Bird's BPM [at least present gen, idk about 1.0] holds up better than PER, WS/48 but then that might be true of Oscar too if available). It would depend on the individual's criteria too. For a "he might be" case there's so much data ... box and impact-y .. missing that the idea that he's could be in that vicinity doesn't seem too far fetched, though of course he could be weaker in these unknown areas too.

I don't think it's too hard to get him in a similar tier as Bird. I see them as almost being in similar tiers myself but that isn't the same as making a goat tier case for Oscar. I also don't know of too many people who put such little emphasis on post season success that they'd be willing to overlook Oscar's lack thereof when comparing him to guys we often think of as top 5 all time to get him into that group.

Tiers is a bit vague ... granting that. Using both "almost" and in "similar" tiers actually sounds, cumulatively, like significant separation, though given the tone I wonder if perhaps using only one might more accurately represent your position? Idk. Similarly with not "too hard" to get to a "similar" (rather than "same") tier.

fwiw, my guess otoh is I'd have them in the same tier but haven't ever got to a level or rigor or consistency I'd be happy with and so that's much more me just spitballing.

I still have him as top 12-13 personally but the lack of postseasons and success will always be a net negative when you compare him to guys like Magic, Bird etc who won so much more. It requires a lot of mental gymnastics to use his rs dominance as a way to get around the lack of post season dominance.

To an extent I think my focus on Bird is shaped by the above. I wasn't clear in my understanding how much the former sentence related to the latter (there is cohesion through repetition of postseason), but in as far as it did (now seemingly that much?) or did not the Bird stuff would relate to your presentation of the GOAT stuff.

I see Oscar and Bird as very similar level players. Bird's overall success in the post season leads me to put him about half a tier higher though. I have questions about Oscar's CP3 like qualities and how they may affect team chemistry that I don't about Bird since he sustained around 60 win per season excellence throughout his prime on top of 5 finals& 3 titles. I can't assume everyone will use the same methodology I use though so it's easy for me to change it up a bit and come up with different results in terms of how I or others could view them.