Milwaukee Bucks in the 70s and how good is Oscar Robertson

[ThaRegul8r]

Prior to Robertson’s arrival, the Royals finished fifth in an eight-team league in field-goal percentage. After Robertson’s arrival, the Royals led the league in field-goal percentage for five consecutive years from 1960-61 to 1964-65, finished second in ’65-66 and ’66-67, third in ’67-68, and second in ’68-69. When Robertson was traded to the Milwaukee Bucks for Charlie Paulk and Flynn Robinson in 1970-71, the Bucks became the first team in NBA history to shoot over 50 percent from the field for a season, and four Bucks finished in the top seven in field-goal percentage (Kareem Abdul Jabbar 2nd at .577, Jon McGlocklin 4th at .535, Greg Smith 6th at .512, and Bob Dandridge 7th at .509 [Robertson was 11th at .496]). The Bucks led the league at 49.8 percent in ’71-72, 48.1 percent in ’72-73, and 49.2 percent in ’73-74, Robertson’s final season in the league. The year after Robertson’s retirement, Milwaukee’s field-goal percentage dropped to 46.8 percent, fourth in the league.

Nash's ability to make his teammates better, Kobe's scoring ability, Kidd's rebounding, Jordan's leadership. how is this guy out of top10 all time ?

"Most people" don't know (or care) anything about anyone whose careers came before whenever it is they started watching basketball. And from what I've seen, NBA fans are the least knowledgeable as a whole when it comes to their sport's history.

[tsherkin]

Nash's ability to make his teammates better, Kobe's scoring ability, Kidd's rebounding, Jordan's leadership. how is this guy out of top10 all time ?

I think it's mainly because he doesn't have the mix of individual recognition or team success that's a prerequisite for presence in the top 10 given the players who have come since.

He certainly had representation in the MVP vote, finishing top 5 9 times. He finished top 2 twice, and of course suffered for playing alongside both Wilt AND Russell, then alongside Kareem. So that was a little unfair to him.

But Oscar's resume, impressive statistical achievements or not, doesn't necessarily stack up to what others accomplished. He certainly isn't far out of the top 10, if he is (and he still has an argument for 10th), I typically have him like 12th or so, for example.

[bastillon]

tsherkin what's your take on Magic vs Oscar ?

[tsherkin]

tsherkin what's your take on Magic vs Oscar ?

Magic exists because of Oscar, in a way.

I'm inclined to take Magic, because I think he was a far more dynamic passer, and I think Oscar over-used the ball in his day, personally. Also, I know that his raw numbers are pace- and minutes-inflated.

However, even if you adjust his minutes to more reasonable numbers for the post-60s/early 70s, he was still a 25/7/9 player in his prime, at a shot rate that he'd be able to match in the modern era and he was an excellent FT shooter who was amazing at drawing fouls because he was a cunning monster in that respect.

I respect what Oscar did. I still think I'd take Magic. He was, as terrifying as it is, more efficient and a better passer in my opinion, and a similar rebounder. I think it's pretty clear that Oscar was a better overall scorer, and that he had a lot more 2 in him than 1, but because he was so good and used the ball so much, he was also really good at posting assists. And to begin with, he had all the fundamentals mastered, so he was also a very good passer.

Oscar Robertson taught me basketball, FWIW. Not, you know, personally, but one of the books he wrote was the basis of how I developed my game. It was later, as I watched Magic and Bird at the end of their careers (and then pouring over video of their careers after), that I added those elements, but Oscar's fundamental development is about as good as it gets as a template for any player because he really didn't have a weakness, per se. He didn't have West's shooting ability, but you sure as Hell didn't want to leave him open at ranges we now refer to as "under the arc." 21 feet and in, good luck with that. Great post game, always taking that extra inch towards the basket, faking everyone out, etc. Really cerebral player.

I'd probably have a different opinion of Oscar v Magic if I hadn't grown up watching Magic win basically every other year (slightly more often, actually), essentially. And if Oscar hadn't run into the unstoppable Wilt and the immovable Russell through the prime of his career. And of course, he earned the hell out of all of those FTAs.

I have deep respect for Oscar, is I guess what I'm saying. I think I'd still take Magic, because I like his approach to the game better than younger Oscar... but clearly, the Big O was capable of adapting to different situations, because his impact in Milwaukee was evident and large.

But damn if it isn't a hard choice. There's an evident leap forward in Cinci's scoring when he arrived as a rookie. PPG is always a fickle thing to use, even team PPG, but he had around a +2.9 SRS impact on a crappy team in only 71 games. The year after, with him playing 8 more games, they made ANOTHER roughly +4.3 leap in SRS. The overall SRS wasn't that great, but that kind of impact is a little hard to ignore.

I dunno, man. Oscar was dope. Magic is my favorite player ever, so I'm hella biased, but Oscar does need his respect.

[LakerLegend]

HOLD UP........first, as you mentioned the trades, but not just the improvement of Kareem but ALSO Dandridge. Correct me if I'm wrong but SRS is all about margin of victory, and of course DEFENSE factors into that. So if anything Kareem would be more responsible for that SRS as he was the defensive anchor.

ALSO...the league added THREE teams in 71, I'm sure that skews a stat like SRS in historical terms.

How does he have the GOAT offensive impact when his cincy teams won more than 50 games ONCE? He wasn't playing with scrubs either, he had another top 50 in Lucas by his side. Their PPG didnt increase a point from the year before they drafted him to his rookie year and it dropped 1 point the year he left. Dude was criticized by teamates in cincy for not playing D. Wouldnt pass to teamates if he didnt like the way they were playing, was arguably the most ball dominant player ever.

Per ur own quote

Norm Van Lier:
I hated him cause he always wanted the ball..."GET THAT BALL BACK OVER HERE"...yes sir, you know

.

Top two offenses every year? You must have missed his last 6 or so years in Cincy.

Scoring like Kobe? Doesnt pass the visual test. Passing like Nash? Ditto. Sipping the kool-aid would be an understatement here.

When Magic came into the league he was basically called a bigger, more athletic, more versatile Big O.

[LakerLegend]

..and I would like to add if Oscar had so much more talent in Milwaukee to show off his true skills and wasnt the ball dominant beast critics claim, why did his assists go DOWN in Milwaukee?? Perhaps him taking a LESSER role was better for team offense!!

[bastillon]

HOLD UP........first, as you mentioned the trades, but not just the improvement of Kareem but ALSO Dandridge. Correct me if I'm wrong but SRS is all about margin of victory, and of course DEFENSE factors into that. So if anything Kareem would be more responsible for that SRS as he was the defensive anchor.

but its not the defense that improved.

ALSO...the league added THREE teams in 71, I'm sure that skews a stat like SRS in historical terms.

league added Raptors and freakin Memphis in '96 but that won't mean I'll start dissing GOAT team because of that.

How does he have the GOAT offensive impact when his cincy teams won more than 50 games ONCE? He wasn't playing with scrubs either, he had another top 50 in Lucas by his side. Their PPG didnt increase a point from the year before they drafted him to his rookie year and it dropped 1 point the year he left.

their defense sucked (last in the league year after year) because Lucas and Embry were 6'8 and 6'7 respectively and couldn't guard the paint to save their lives. but Oscar made their offense click, it always top notch.

as for Lucas, he was a notorious stat-padder with extremely poor defense. based on quotes by his teammate Wayne Embry we know that Lucas was chasing after rebounds from his own teammates. or he wouldn't boxout his opponent because he wanted to got after rebounds and didn't want it to go into teammates hands. he actually told Wayne Embry in '67 to box out both Wilt and Luke Jackson at the same time... what an idiot.

Top two offenses every year? You must have missed his last 6 or so years in Cincy.

you might just as well look at their TS%, ORTG or team OWS. it's all in RPOY threads.

[Doctor MJ]

Top two offenses every year? You must have missed his last 6 or so years in Cincy.

you might just as well look at their TS%, ORTG or team OWS. it's all in RPOY threads.

Seriously. I don't understand why people have such confidence about things they haven't researched.

[LakerLegend]

but its not the defense that improved.

They went from allowing 114 ppg to 106?

league added Raptors and freakin Memphis in '96 but that won't mean I'll start dissing GOAT team because of that.

Adding 2 teams to 27 team league is much different than 3 to a 14 team league.

Seriously. I don't understand why people have such confidence about things they haven't researched.

I dont rely on flawed gimmick stats.

[PostKeynesian]

Prior to Robertson’s arrival, the Royals finished fifth in an eight-team league in field-goal percentage. After Robertson’s arrival, the Royals led the league in field-goal percentage for five consecutive years from 1960-61 to 1964-65, finished second in ’65-66 and ’66-67, third in ’67-68, and second in ’68-69. When Robertson was traded to the Milwaukee Bucks for Charlie Paulk and Flynn Robinson in 1970-71, the Bucks became the first team in NBA history to shoot over 50 percent from the field for a season, and four Bucks finished in the top seven in field-goal percentage (Kareem Abdul Jabbar 2nd at .577, Jon McGlocklin 4th at .535, Greg Smith 6th at .512, and Bob Dandridge 7th at .509 [Robertson was 11th at .496]). The Bucks led the league at 49.8 percent in ’71-72, 48.1 percent in ’72-73, and 49.2 percent in ’73-74, Robertson’s final season in the league. The year after Robertson’s retirement, Milwaukee’s field-goal percentage dropped to 46.8 percent, fourth in the league.

I think this is seriously attributing too much to him. Of course a person's FG% would improve if they actually had a good point guard that knew how to do his job. If anything this only shows that Oscar was competent as a point guard, it shows nothing regarding a top ten status.

As for Kareem being an anchor...no. He played defense like Wilt did during his lazy years, except Wilt still tried to block shots whereas Kareem was only a great shot blocker in his early years with the bucks.

[tsherkin]

I should point out that the FG% increase that the Cinci teams has as much to do with Oscar's own scoring as it does to do with his passing.

Remember, he was taking 20-23 FGA/g over his first 8 years in the league and he ranked top 10 in FG% in all of them and top 4 four times as well.

That has a HUGE impact, given the proportion of their shots he was taking.

[tsherkin]

Kareem was only a great shot blocker in his early years with the bucks.

Mmmm...

That's not actually true. His BLK% was 4% or better from 74 (first year recorded) through 82 (when he was 34). It didn't vary all that much in that time. He blocked at about the same rate. His BLK36 was the same in 75 and 82, and only 0.1 better in 74. He had peaks in between there, including for example the two shot-blocking titles he won with the Lakers, so I don't know what you're talking about.

[semi-sentient]

So no mention of the Royals offense improving across the board when Oscar was traded to the Bucks? Almost no change in SRS (slightly worse)?

No mention that the Bucks were the #1 offense in the league even before Oscar joined them?

No mention of Kareem improving from his rookie to sophomore season (quite a leap across the board), not to mention Dandridge? Surely Oscar made them more efficient, but these guys became better through experience, and a year of playing together does wonders for chemistry, does it not?

I think there are some details being left out here. Oscar was definitely a high impact player, but not as high as we're making him out to be in this thread. He was not as impactful as Kareem, and I think it's crazy to suggest otherwise (if that's even being suggested).

[PostKeynesian]

I should point out that the FG% increase that the Cinci teams has as much to do with Oscar's own scoring as it does to do with his passing.

Remember, he was taking 20-23 FGA/g over his first 8 years in the league and he ranked top 10 in FG% in all of them and top 4 four times as well.

That has a HUGE impact, given the proportion of their shots he was taking.

He was 49% in 70-71, 47% in 71-72, 45% in 72-73 and 43% in 73-74, so not necessarily.

However, you are right about Kareem's blocking prowess from 75-82, but I was speaking in terms of elite a la chamberlain and russell...and I take this from newspaper evidence and what stats we know about a few games here and there that showed Jabbar to be an elite shot blocker in his early years.

[Doctor MJ]

but its not the defense that improved.

They went from allowing 114 ppg to 106?

Well, now I'll admit to needing to do more review before saying that the defense did not improve, but have you looked at any more detail than this? I ask because it's not debatable whether looking into more detail is necessary.

The difference in allowed points you mention? Well, the league as a whole saw its scoring go down by 4.5 points. So right there, if we assumed that that was the full story would mean that the majority of the change had nothing to do with improved defense on Milwaukee's part, but just larger trends.

Okay now let's get a sense of how impressive the Bucks' offense became by looking at eFG%.

In '69-70, the Bucks eFG% was 0.028 better than the league average, which was the best in the league.
In '70-71, the Bucks eFG% was 0.033...better than the 2nd best team in the league. That's a holy crap moment right there.

For comparison,
The 2nd best team of '70-71 was 0.027 better than average.
On defense, the best (also the Bucks) was 0.025 better than league average.

So literally, there was a standard for what the gap between fantastic and average was on both offense and defense, and the arrival of Oscar, plus the maturation of Kareem, led to an offense as far above 'fantastic' as 'fantastic' was above 'average'.

Amazing.

I dont rely on flawed gimmick stats.

TS%, ORTG and team OWS are flawed gimmick stats? Right, how about you explain what the gimmick is, and then we'll talk. Honestly, when you talk like this, it makes me think you have no idea how any of this stuff works and simply assume that anything you don't understand must have something wrong with it.

[Strange Clouds]

Probably around prime Iguodala.

Make me famous now.

[tsherkin]

He was 49% in 70-71, 47% in 71-72, 45% in 72-73 and 43% in 73-74, so not necessarily.

Pause and consider. In 59-60, the year before he was drafted, the Royals took 103.8 FGA/g and shot 41.2% FG.

In 60-61, his rookie season, Oscar took 22.5 of their 104.8 FGA/g. The team shot 43.8% and he shot 47.3%.

I'd say that's a pretty significant impact, personally.

However, you are right about Kareem's blocking prowess from 75-82, but I was speaking in terms of elite a la chamberlain and russell...and I take this from newspaper evidence and what stats we know about a few games here and there that showed Jabbar to be an elite shot blocker in his early years.

Unless he reversed a trend that we've seen in Robinson and Olajuwon and a bunch of other guys, I'd be less likely to believe that KAJ was a much better shot-blocker in his first four seasons.