The Immortal 6 (MJ, Wilt, Magic, Kareem, Bird, Russell) ....

[WaltFrazier]

Gee all these years I believed the universally held opinion that Oscar was a great player. It took a couple of posters here to set the recors straight that he was overrated. Wow.

[TrueLAfan]

You're welcome.

Actually, Oscar got enormous props when he first came out because his game was extremely well developed from the moment he started playing in the NBA, and because he had such obvious, fundamental strengths. Later, as people became more stat obsessed and “triple double” became a part of the basketball vocabulary, there was a rebirth of interest in Oscar. This is part of the illusion of statistics...particularly rebounding, in this case. Oscar was not a 10 rpg guy. He was never close to Magic's level on the boards. Oscar had three years where he was a rebounder like, say, Jason Kidd. After that, he had a rebound rate of around 6 or 7...that's good for a PG, but hardly overwhelming. But people are seduced by the raw numbers of the past. Just as his strengths were obvious, his weaknesses were less so and it was a while before they were understood...and after that, they were partly obscured by the effect of his general statistics.

Nobody is saying Oscar wasn't a great player. He's certainly part of that second tier of players, along with West, Duncan, Shaq, Dr. J, etc. But, no, he's not automatically at the top—or near the top—of that group. And, yes, his numbers overstate his greatness. One thing that always struck me about Oscar was that he didn't just have good teammates, he had good big men on his teams. When you've got some combo of Boozer, Embry, Lucas, and Hairston, you've got a solid front line to say the least. (Compare that to the Lakers, who had Rudy LaRusso...who wasn't as good as most of those guys...and the absolute worst succession of Cs imaginable.) I've always wondered how a team that had good inside scoring and rebounding to go with Oscar could go wrong.

But they did. The “he went up against great teams” argument is a non-starter. It's not as though Oscar's teams were coming close to getting in the finals on a regular basis. Lots of times they didn't make the playoffs. Lots of times they didn't finish over .500. The Royals went 421-385 while Oscar was there. They missed the playoffs four times in ten years...and in the years they made it, had a record of 15-24. Oscar had great numbers...but he was the team quarterback and MVP, and the teams underperformed.

1968 is a typical example. We are talking about a team that had Jerry Lucas at his prime, a decent 2nd big in Connie Dierking, a pair of great young forwards in Happy Hairston and Bob Love, a solid shooting guard named Adrian Smith, a good group of role players below that in the rotation...how could a team like that lose? But they did. They were 39-43. That's not being beaten out by a great team--that's just being a sub-.500 team. There were lots of years like that for Oscar. At some point, as the team MVP, as the PG, as a player surrounded by other quality players, some of the responsibility falls on him.

[Warspite]

Some of Oscars degredation is due to him being blackballed by the NBA and the political attacks against him as he was head of the players union. Oscar led the lawsuit brought against the NBA on behalf of the players. His blackballing and character assination cannot be underestimated.

Some of Oscars knocks are justified. If you have the oppertunity to watch the program about the royal that fell on his head and had a brain anuesim and woke up paralized you will see the warmth and leadership of Twyman and its apparent for all to see Oscars lack of as he sits with Vescey and Goodrich and cant atlk about anything he did himself or anything he did with his team to help this player or to be a leader. Oscar feels very uncomfortable as he sits there talking about 2 of his players and how he was no where involved in being there for his teammate.

My guess is that Oscar is not as bad as TLAF and some other believe but hes no leader and he realy underachieved with what he had. Oscar is 9th on my list and I can safely say that currently no active player looks like they are moving into the great 6.

[tsherkin]

Insofar as Duncan vs. Shaq...

Duncan's 31... Shaq dropped off after he was 31 (that was the 03-04 season, when he was still mostly at the top of his game). This season will be telling for Duncan. If he's still a 20/11 player blocking 2+ shots per game and defending as well as ever, then he's aging better than Shaq and that's an important consideration.

He's got an extra MVP and has been a top-9 player in the MVP vote for 11 straight years. Shaq had 13 straight seasons in the top-9, so Duncan has to at least match that. The second MVP is nice but Shaq probably should have won in 04-05 and definitely should have won in 00-01 (maybe even 01-02), so questioning actual MVP wins leaves me skeptical.

Meantime, Duncan has never approached Shaq's offensive dominance. Shaq has, however, won as many titles and as many Finals MVPs as Duncan (though Tim's done it without teammate-related controversy, of course).

Tough call, really; any claim Duncan makes over Shaq will be legacy-related because he's got a more extended period of competition because he has never been immature. He wouldn't have fought with Penny or Kobe and wouldn't have left Miami so messily. He's stayed in one city and they've built around him consistently, year after year, new plan after new plan. So that's definitely a one-up on Shaq but does that make him "better," per se? Not yet but if he keeps winning in alternate years, his legacy will be undeniably that of an upper-half top-10 player.

[guy1]

Who cares if Shaq could've accomplished a greater amount for what reasons he didn't, all that matter is what he did accomplish. And no, Shaq and Duncan weren't really the same era, which is a common misconception. Shaq is 4 years older then Duncan, and had already played 5 seasons by the time Duncan was drafted. So I don't know if your doing this, but I hope you don't think comparing current Shaq to current Duncan is really fair.

Shaq is kinda like Jordan in that he was one of the best players for the most of two decades. Shaq has accomplished just about as much as Duncan, had a much greater peak, and has had greater longevity, mainly cause Duncan just isn't as old. If Duncan can play at the level he's playing now for a much longer time, and win a few more titles as well, maybe I'll put him ahead.

And even though Duncan's accomplished more then Hakeem already, from seeing Hakeem play, there is no way I would put Duncan ahead of Hakeem right now.[/quote]

Okay you're missing my point. I'm not punishing Shaq for failing to live up to potential, I'm explaining why in spite of his superior peak his accomplishments don't surpass Duncan's.

Ok fair enough. Some people when ranking Shaq, will rank him by his accomplishments, but then rank him lower due to his work ethic, which really didn't make sense to me cause he's already ranked lower then others due to his accomplishments, cause its partly a product of his work ethic.

Shaq and Duncan absolutely played in the same era. Think of it this way: If Shaq were a rookie in '97, and thus missing his accomplishments from before then didn't exist, would his place on the all time list change significantly? Nope.

It ABSOLUTELY would change. One less Finals appearance, one less scoring title, alot less MVP votes, 5 less 20+/10+ seasons, and assuming he's Duncan's age, a very significant decline when he's only 29 years old. There would be way more people ranking players like Duncan and Hakeem ahead of Shaq. It definitely would change significantly.

You're overrating the longevity. By my analysis Shaq's had 13 years as a top 10 player, while Duncan's had 11. To rate 2 all time greats giving any weight at all to whose 12th best year was better is really pretty crazy.

He's still been a great player the past few years, and to be the 2nd best player on a championship team at 34 years old and still able to average a double-double at 36 years old (Phoenix) is significant. From age 34-36, he's been more effective then alot of great centers in the past at that age. And I'm not saying longevity is the biggest reason I'd rank Shaq over Duncan, but it is a reason.

Duncan and Hakeem truly played in totally different eras so comparing accomplishments doesn't work nearly as well there. I've got no problem if you think Hakeem ranks higher. Why do I have Duncan higher? People underrated how good Duncan's peak was, and overrate how good Hakeem over the long haul. Everyone knows that Hakeem led a one man team to a title in '94, and that's amazing. But few seem to remember that the other guy to do that in the last quarter century was Duncan in '03. Meanwhile as good as Hakeem was at his best, he went through times where his attitude made it questionable whether he was even worth keeping around.

The bold doesn't really matter to me much. All that matters is how skilled they were and what they accomplished. If his attitude was that effective, it would've reflected on those two things. IMO, offensively Hakeem > Duncan, defensively Hakeem > Duncan.

And I don't think people underrate Duncan's peak. Its just not as appreciated because alot of other top 10-15 players had much better peaks.

[tsherkin]

To be fair to Hakeem, when his attitude was questionable, it was on account of enduring some of the worst team management in the league. The Rockets' FO was totally useless at giving him a competitive squad, so he went out and won a title anyway, and they finally got Drexler for him... and he played even better.

Hakeem's bad attitude was pretty much proportional to the "quality" of Houston's FO.

[guy1]

To be fair to Hakeem, when his attitude was questionable, it was on account of enduring some of the worst team management in the league. The Rockets' FO was totally useless at giving him a competitive squad, so he went out and won a title anyway, and they finally got Drexler for him... and he played even better.

Hakeem's bad attitude was pretty much proportional to the "quality" of Houston's FO.

Yea exactly. Does KG get more credit for being such a loyal player and leader to Minnesota, even though most will agree that team wasted away his great talents for 12 years?

[Doctor MJ]

Gee all these years I believed the universally held opinion that Oscar was a great player. It took a couple of posters here to set the recors straight that he was overrated. Wow.

Oh come on now. We're having a conversation about the "Immortal 6" and Oscar's name gets bandied about. If I simply don't think he belongs in that conversations, I'm bound to point out why. Doesn't mean I think he was a scrub. I've got him in my Top 15.

[Doctor MJ]

Tough call, really; any claim Duncan makes over Shaq will be legacy-related because he's got a more extended period of competition because he has never been immature. He wouldn't have fought with Penny or Kobe and wouldn't have left Miami so messily. He's stayed in one city and they've built around him consistently, year after year, new plan after new plan. So that's definitely a one-up on Shaq but does that make him "better," per se? Not yet but if he keeps winning in alternate years, his legacy will be undeniably that of an upper-half top-10 player.

This is indeed much of my thinking. Does it make him better? I mean Duncan's led more teams to titles (no, Shaq did not lead Miami to a title), and his net positive on the Spurs utterly dwarfs anything Shaq's done with any of the teams he's been on. I'm not saying you're crazy to have Shaq ahead of Duncan, but I think it's pretty clear why Duncan has an argument.

[Doctor MJ]

It ABSOLUTELY would change. One less Finals appearance, one less scoring title, alot less MVP votes, 5 less 20+/10+ seasons, and assuming he's Duncan's age, a very significant decline when he's only 29 years old. There would be way more people ranking players like Duncan and Hakeem ahead of Shaq. It definitely would change significantly.

Okay some perspective. Do you consider Kareem to have played in a different era than Wes Unseld? I mean, dude played a bunch of years in the 80s where Unseld didn't play, just like Shaq had those years in the 90s. And in both cases, we're not talking about Kareem or Shaq's peak. So it seems like just out of consistency, if Shaq and Duncan played in different eras, so did Kareem and Unseld.

If you don't see the problems with saying Kareem and Unseld didn't play in the same era, then you need to take a step back and think.

He's still been a great player the past few years, and to be the 2nd best player on a championship team at 34 years old and still able to average a double-double at 36 years old (Phoenix) is significant. From age 34-36, he's been more effective then alot of great centers in the past at that age. And I'm not saying longevity is the biggest reason I'd rank Shaq over Duncan, but it is a reason.

Again, deciding who was the better all-time great based on Shaq's ability to play at a sub-all-star level one year is silly. I don't care if Shaq's still doing what he's doing until he's 45, when people evaluate him, they will be doing so based on what he did when he was a star, because they'll be evaluating him as a star.

The bold doesn't really matter to me much. All that matters is how skilled they were and what they accomplished. If his attitude was that effective, it would've reflected on those two things. IMO, offensively Hakeem > Duncan, defensively Hakeem > Duncan.

And I don't think people underrate Duncan's peak. Its just not as appreciated because alot of other top 10-15 players had much better peaks.

To be clear, I"m saying these things did indeed affect his accomplishments. Go back and look at '90-91 for example. This was a team that won 50+ games despite Hakeem missing a lot of time, and in fact they were doing well even when he was away. Very clearly, he was not having anywhere near the team impact there that Duncan has year in and year out.

I'll re-iterate, I think Duncan's peak is underrated based on the shared perception we have of where he's rated (that you describe). Duncan's performance in the 2003 playoffs would be one of the standout achievements in any player's career in history.

[tsherkin]

This is indeed much of my thinking. Does it make him better? I mean Duncan's led more teams to titles (no, Shaq did not lead Miami to a title),

He's lead a team in one more title, but Shaq's lead just as many teams to the Finals and performed at an elite level; with Orlando, he just had the misfortune to be surrounded by a crappy team 4-12 and to play for a useless coach.

and his net positive on the Spurs utterly dwarfs anything Shaq's done with any of the teams he's been on. I'm not saying you're crazy to have Shaq ahead of Duncan, but I think it's pretty clear why Duncan has an argument.

True, though ranking depends rather significantly on the criteria used. I'd take Shaq's prime over Duncan without even blinking and right now, Shaq's got a career body of work over a decade and a half that's still pretty damned impressive. The next 2-3 years will be the ones that truly define Duncan's place in league history and will be a pleasure to watch. Duncan's one of my favorite players of all-time and one of the best of all-time.

He's an enduring example of why team work and the willingness not to be preoccupied with individual stats are of critical importance to winning... and how you can be one of the most dominant players of all-time and not a 27+ ppg volume scorer.

[guy1]

It ABSOLUTELY would change. One less Finals appearance, one less scoring title, alot less MVP votes, 5 less 20+/10+ seasons, and assuming he's Duncan's age, a very significant decline when he's only 29 years old. There would be way more people ranking players like Duncan and Hakeem ahead of Shaq. It definitely would change significantly.

Okay some perspective. Do you consider Kareem to have played in a different era than Wes Unseld? I mean, dude played a bunch of years in the 80s where Unseld didn't play, just like Shaq had those years in the 90s. And in both cases, we're not talking about Kareem or Shaq's peak. So it seems like just out of consistency, if Shaq and Duncan played in different eras, so did Kareem and Unseld.

If you don't see the problems with saying Kareem and Unseld didn't play in the same era, then you need to take a step back and think.

Ok whatever, now we're just talking about wording and what defines an era. Put it like this, Kareem and Wes played in the same era, while Kareem played a good portion and was significant in the following era as well. Same thing with Shaq except reversed. He played a good portion and was significant in the Jordan era, but is mostly part of the same era as Duncan.

My point is these two didn't exactly come to the league around the same time and to say that taking away Shaq's accomplishments from before wouldn't change his ranking is pretty ridiculous IMO. I think his prime with the Lakers was so great that people seem to forget that he was already a beast in Orlando. He was arguably a top 5 player for the majority of his time there, and the only two things that stopped him from winning championships was Hakeem and Jordan, which is understandable. Duncan has never had to go up against players that great except for Shaq in his prime. Like I said, take those years away, and his accomplishments, stats, and longevity all go down, which would change his ranking to alot of people.

He's still been a great player the past few years, and to be the 2nd best player on a championship team at 34 years old and still able to average a double-double at 36 years old (Phoenix) is significant. From age 34-36, he's been more effective then alot of great centers in the past at that age. And I'm not saying longevity is the biggest reason I'd rank Shaq over Duncan, but it is a reason.

Again, deciding who was the better all-time great based on Shaq's ability to play at a sub-all-star level one year is silly. I don't care if Shaq's still doing what he's doing until he's 45, when people evaluate him, they will be doing so based on what he did when he was a star, because they'll be evaluating him as a star.

Yea if that's all you base it on its silly. But if we're comparing two players, I think you have to take everything into account. The prime years definitely hold the most weight, but I don't think we should just totally forget the other years. And if you just want to base it on what the two have done as stars, then Shaq is easily ahead of Duncan. Shaq's decline in the past few years has actually brought this argument closer.

The bold doesn't really matter to me much. All that matters is how skilled they were and what they accomplished. If his attitude was that effective, it would've reflected on those two things. IMO, offensively Hakeem > Duncan, defensively Hakeem > Duncan.

And I don't think people underrate Duncan's peak. Its just not as appreciated because alot of other top 10-15 players had much better peaks.

To be clear, I"m saying these things did indeed affect his accomplishments. Go back and look at '90-91 for example. This was a team that won 50+ games despite Hakeem missing a lot of time, and in fact they were doing well even when he was away. Very clearly, he was not having anywhere near the team impact there that Duncan has year in and year out.

I'll re-iterate, I think Duncan's peak is underrated based on the shared perception we have of where he's rated (that you describe). Duncan's performance in the 2003 playoffs would be one of the standout achievements in any player's career in history.

[/quote]

Fair enough, I think I get what you're saying. I don't think Duncan's peak is underrated, but I will agree that he is underrated overall, most likely because he's "boring". He's top 10 all-time to me, but he's right behind Shaq and Hakeem.

[WaltFrazier]

Actually, Oscar got enormous props when he first came out because his game was extremely well developed from the moment he started playing in the NBA, and because he had such obvious, fundamental strengths. Later, as people became more stat obsessed and “triple double” became a part of the basketball vocabulary, there was a rebirth of interest in Oscar. This is part of the illusion of statistics...particularly rebounding, in this case. Oscar was not a 10 rpg guy. He was never close to Magic's level on the boards. Oscar had three years where he was a rebounder like, say, Jason Kidd. After that, he had a rebound rate of around 6 or 7...that's good for a PG, but hardly overwhelming. But people are seduced by the raw numbers of the past. Just as his strengths were obvious, his weaknesses were less so and it was a while before they were understood...and after that, they were partly obscured by the effect of his general statistics.

If Oscar's rebounds were inflated, which I don't concede, his assists were definitely undervalued. In the 60s assists were much harder to be credited for. It's well-known that in the 80s statisticians became much more generous with assists, and Magic and Stockton benefitted from that. There was a time when the Lakers stat man was replaced by the Clippers statitstician, and the Clippers guy wasn't giving Magic his usual generous share, so the Lakers quickly replaced that guy wih one more favorable to Magic. Saying Magic was a better rebounder than Oscar (though he should be at 6'9 vs 6'5) is merely a subjective statement.

Nobody is saying Oscar wasn't a great player. He's certainly part of that second tier of players, along with West, Duncan, Shaq, Dr. J, etc. But, no, he's not automatically at the top—or near the top—of that group. And, yes, his numbers overstate his greatness. One thing that always struck me about Oscar was that he didn't just have good teammates, he had good big men on his teams. When you've got some combo of Boozer, Embry, Lucas, and Hairston, you've got a solid front line to say the least. (Compare that to the Lakers, who had Rudy LaRusso...who wasn't as good as most of those guys...and the absolute worst succession of Cs imaginable.) I've always wondered how a team that had good inside scoring and rebounding to go with Oscar could go wrong.

In the Royals best year, 1964, Boozer was traded in midseason by the cheap management. That really cost them a shot at challenging the Celtics that year. Hairston didn't become a good player till later with the Lakers in their 71 title run. Embry was a poor man's Wes Unseld, a 6'8 widebody who set a lot of picks. Lucas was a Hall of famer of course, but a guy who couldn't get his own shot easily - whereas West played with the much better Elgin Baylor.

But they did. The “he went up against great teams” argument is a non-starter. It's not as though Oscar's teams were coming close to getting in the finals on a regular basis. Lots of times they didn't make the playoffs. Lots of times they didn't finish over .500. The Royals went 421-385 while Oscar was there. They missed the playoffs four times in ten years...and in the years they made it, had a record of 15-24. Oscar had great numbers...but he was the team quarterback and MVP, and the teams underperformed.

1968 is a typical example. We are talking about a team that had Jerry Lucas at his prime, a decent 2nd big in Connie Dierking, a pair of great young forwards in Happy Hairston and Bob Love, a solid shooting guard named Adrian Smith, a good group of role players below that in the rotation...how could a team like that lose? But they did. They were 39-43. That's not being beaten out by a great team--that's just being a sub-.500 team. There were lots of years like that for Oscar. At some point, as the team MVP, as the PG, as a player surrounded by other quality players, some of the responsibility falls on him.

You are forgetting how good Boston was in those days. Russell more than cancelled out any decent big men the Royals had. No one else ever beat the Celtics in those years either, except the Sixers superteam of 67. The Royals had some decent players around Oscar, but the 1960s Celtics had 6-7 Hall of Famers.

Oscar wasted about 10 years on mediocre Royals teams.Playing well over 40 minutes/game. When he got to the Bucks, he was about 30 and maybe a step slower. I didn't see him in his prime, but I clearly remeber watching the 71 Finals. He absolutely dominated the Bullets, Monroe and Carter, in that series. He refused to let the Bucks lose. He was awesome.

The Oscar critics here need to read books like:
Second Wind - Bill Russell
Calling the Shots - Earl Strom
Give em the Hook - Tom Heinsohn
Giant Steps - Kareem
Tall Tales - Terry Pluto

In all these books Oscar was regarded as the greatest guard of his time, an immortal along with Wilt, Russell, West and Baylor. Kareem particularly said how big a boost Oscar gave to his game, and he thought he'd never play with a guard like that again, until Magic came along. That's the pantheon of the 60s. In the 80s when Jordan began receiving notice as the best ever, the 60s era players and coaches said only Oscar could match him for all round brilliance. I've read that type of comparison many times.

The premise of this thread, the immortal 6, is too small a number. I'd go with 8 or 10. But Oscar is on the same level or better as anyone who ever played. He is first tier all the way, not second.

[JordansBulls]

The premise of this thread, the immortal 6, is too small a number. I'd go with 8 or 10. But Oscar is on the same level or better as anyone who ever played. He is first tier all the way, not second.

The thing is the guys from #7-10 or thru 12 can be debated. The top 6 really can't

[drza]

IMO It's too early to put a definitive ceiling on any of the current contenders outside of possibly Shaq. Duncan and KG just turned 32 in April/ May, and Kobe doesn't turn 30 until later this year. Olajuwon didn't start winning titles until he was 31 and his best years were the first half of his 30s. Jordan won 3 of his titles and 2 of his MVPs after age 32, and Kareem won an MVP and 5 titles after age 32. If any of Duncan, KG or Kobe have runs like that over the next several years they still have time to change their positions significantly on the All-time charts.

[Sedale Threatt]

The premise of this thread, the immortal 6, is too small a number. I'd go with 8 or 10. But Oscar is on the same level or better as anyone who ever played. He is first tier all the way, not second.

The thing is the guys from #7-10 or thru 12 can be debated. The top 6 really can't

Agreed. Oscar was an awesome player; I don't see how anyone can leave him off any Top 10 list. However, the Top 6 guys had such spectacular careers, from individual and team standpoints, that they deserve to stand alone. Fair or not, Oscar didn't earn as many accolades, nor did he win as many games/championships, so he shouldn't be ranked with them. I don't view that as punishing Robertson as much as I do rewarding the Top 6. They earned their distinctions.

[TrueLAfan]

First...I hate to tell you this, but I can tell you with 100% conviction that Oscar Robertson was nowhere close to Magic Johnson as a rebounder. It is not a subjective question. I can tell with absolute, precise knowledge how he rates as a rebounder. All we have to do is look at rebound rate—the percentage of rebounds a player gets when he is on the court. It equalizes between different eras. It's kind of a perfect stat. A great rebounder (a C or PF) will have a reb rate of over 18. A good PF will be around 16. A good rebounding SF will be around 11-12. A good rebounding PG or SG will be around 9-10. Oscar's rebound rates in his first five years are:

9.2
11.0
9.5
8.9
8.0

After that, he was never over 7.5 To put that in perspective, those first five years are similar to the top five years of Kobe Bryant. They're below someone like Clyde Drexler (who had eight years with reb rates over 10). They're well below, say, Jason Kidd. And Magic is in another realm completely...his career rate is higher than Oscar's best year. Magic rebounded like a good SF. Oscar was a good, not great rebounder.

You are correct that assist were given on a much lower percentage of shots. Except for...the Cincinnati Royals. Part of this is a chicken-or-egg discussion...did Oscar cause the team to have a higher percentage of field goals with assists? Or did local statisticians give him a boost? The Royals got credit for assists on about 56% of their field goals...much higher than the rest of the league, and pretty close to modern levels. Part of the credit certainly goes to Oscar. But it's an anomaly and more than a bit suspicious. Oscar would hardly be the only superstar to benefit from friendly statkeeping.

And I understand the greatness of the Celtics Dynasty perfectly well. What you don't seem to realize is that Boston's greatness is pretty much irrelevant to the fortunes of a .500 team that misses the playoffs in 4 out of 10 years. (It's like defending the play of Gilbert Arenas by saying, “You're forgetting the dopminance of the Detroit Pistons.”) The Celtics didn't keep Oscar's teams under .500 40% of the time, or from reaching the playoffs four times in ten years. The Royals were, indeed, mediocre...but they had good players. In general, they had better depth than the Lakers...and they had a frontcourt. Having Jerry Lucas to go with “a poor man's Wes Unseld” along with guys like Boozer, Happy Hairston and Connie Dierking is a nice place to start. Yet they habitually underperformed. And Oscar was the PG and team leader. When does some of the responsibility for their failure fall on him?

I watched the 1971 finals too, and I remember thinking that if Gus Johnson would have been healthy, the Bullets would have made a series of it. The bucks pounded Washington on the boards. Oscar had a fine series. So did Bobby Dandridge. Kareem was the man, of course. Anyway, Oscar had several good post season series. And several less stellar ones. And, well, I'll just add this. I was an assistant to the primary editor on one of the books you mention and did supplementary research work on another. You are drawing incorrect conclusions. I'd suggest having a look at the section on Oscar berating Wayne Embry in Tall Tales. That's your leader?

As I said, I personally put Russell in the second group of players...but I understand the idea of putting him in a top 6 position. Those players are head and shoulders above others, including Oscar...no disrespect to Oscar (or West, Duncan, Shaq, Erving, etc.).

[WaltFrazier]

I watched the 1971 finals too, and I remember thinking that if Gus Johnson would have been healthy, the Bullets would have made a series of it. The bucks pounded Washington on the boards. Oscar had a fine series. So did Bobby Dandridge. Kareem was the man, of course. Anyway, Oscar had several good post season series. And several less stellar ones. And, well, I'll just add this. I was an assistant to the primary editor on one of the books you mention and did supplementary research work on another. You are drawing incorrect conclusions. I'd suggest having a look at the section on Oscar berating Wayne Embry in Tall Tales. That's your leader?

It was the Baltimore Bullets then.

I'm not going to argue about your rebounding stats, because you can do anthing with stats. But averaging a triple double is averaging a triple double, no matter what era it was in.

Oscar berating Wayne Embry? It shows the kind of fiery leader he was. Jordan was much the same with his teammates, very hard on them. So were Magic and Bird, though people didn't realize it in Magic's case because of his smiling persona. All these greats were vicious competitors; that's what makes them stand out along with their skills. Kareem told a story of the first time he played with O in the Maurice Stokes game. Kareem cut the wrong way on a play, and Oscar yelled at him. Next time he cut the way Oscar said, and "like magic" the ball appeared in his hands. Kareem said so that's what it's like to play with a legend. Embry also said that Oscar made him a better player. I maintain that he made all his mediocre teammates better. The guys you mention just weren't that good, other than Lucas.

When he finally got great teammates late in his career, in Milwaukee, he won a title, went to the WCF against the eventual champs, and went to the Finals again in a 7 game series. But even that Bucks title team wasn't strong overall. Kareem of course was young and dominant. Bobby Dandridge was a young talented small forward, but not nearly as good as he was later on the Bullets championship team in 78. The other forward - Greg Smith a 6'4 guy who couldn't shoot, who hustled and scrapped and played defense. The other guard - Jon McGlocklin, who like Adrian Smith was a good shooter with no handle, so he was totally dependent on Oscar to get him the ball in the right places. If Oscar hadn't come to that team they would not have won any titles, not with Flynn Robinson as their point guard. There were 4 great teams in that 70-74 span , the Lakers, Knicks, Celtics and Bucks. The first 3 were much deeper in talent than the Bucks, but the Bucks had Kareem and Oscar to make them a powerhouse. Imagine of Oscar could have played on a team like that a bit earlier in his career.

As I said, I personally put Russell in the second group of players...but I understand the idea of putting him in a top 6 position. Those players are head and shoulders above others, including Oscar...no disrespect to Oscar (or West, Duncan, Shaq, Erving, etc.).

I disagree. To me you should talk about a top tier of 7-10, and Oscar's in that. With a big separation from the 2nd tier. No one who ever played is "head and shoulders" above Oscar, unleess you speak only about titles won and leave out ability.

[Doctor MJ]

I'm not going to argue about your rebounding stats, because you can do anthing with stats. But averaging a triple double is averaging a triple double, no matter what era it was in.

Alright just have to respond to this. I have a tough enough time when people dismiss stats with statements about them being a bunch of hocus pocus, but when you do that while embracing another far less sophisticated stats it just smacks of irrationality. True, averaging double figures in three categories is an absolute definition that does not change over time, however the meaning of accomplishing that feat is simply going to be dependent on things like the pace of the game. There is no room for debate there. Adding pace to the game is like adding time to the clock, and people's stats are going to go up.

I will say though, as TrueLA said, there's an additional factor with assists, and so anyone who claims that 60s era assists are inflated is probably quite ignorant.