Was Magic really better than Oscar?

[Biddy77]

Realistically, how many people on this forum were following the NBA(at an age where they could understand what they were watching, not 7 or 8 years old lol) when Oscar Robertson played in his prime? 2 or 3?

It's nearly impossible to compare modern era players to Robertson, Wilt, Russell, etc.

You can use all the stats that you can find, and watch the limited Youtube tape, but there's nowhere close to enough data and footage to judge those players and compare them to modern day guys(especially when you have to factor and extrapolate the potential advancements in time, even if those advancements are just shoes and training/nutrition methods).

This is a very, very important point.

Stats and advanced analytics are reports of what happened. Some tell part of the "how" (shot charts, situation statistics, etc), but the eye test provides a LOT of context. As an example, even something like saying "X was better than Y in 3pt catch and shoot situations" doesn't inform a consumer about X having exceptionally quick feet, and receiving the ball with an average an extra few feet of space compared to Y. This type of lost data is key when comparing players.

This is why I won't offer opinions on anything before 1989. That is when I started watching and looking for detail. Earlier stuff isn't for me to speak on as a voice of authority. The same should be true for most here, imho.

[tsherkin]

My take on Oscar, the player.

Big guy who knew how to use his size. Good range, popped 18- to 20-footers like it was nothing, like any good shooter we see now. Weird release, but he was able to get it off in traffic and off of the dribble with a hand in his face. High arc, good range. GREAT strength. He'd be listed at 6'6-ish today, and probably like 220 or 230, maybe? I dunno, I'm weak at evaluating player weight by sight, but he had a sturdy frame. I mean that as a compliment, since clearly he wasn't a fat guy.

Anyway, he was a fundamentally sound player in most senses. Hell, when I was getting serious about basketball in my late teens, his Art of Basketball was my Bible, and it was a good one. You can see him in the footage we have angling for shots closer and closer and closer. Given his predilection for using the post and how well he handled contact, I think he'd have done well ITO FTR in the contemporary NBA. Solid handle, too; not flashy, but he had Pierce-ish handles, those deceptive change-of-direction and hesitation things that you can do into your old age to screw with younger, more athletic defenders. With the threat of his shot and his ability to put his butt on your hip and move you, it made for a dangerous combination.

Oscar had good vision and good passing. He wasn't Magic, and his assists at the time were inflated by minutes he wouldn't see today, but even with that, he was an 8.1 AST36 guy on his career (peaking at 9.2) and in the one season for which we have the data (73-74, his age 35 season), he was an 8.2 AST100 guy. Magic, of course, was a course 14.5 AST100 guy and posted 11.9 AST100 during his comeback in 96, for point of reference at a similar stage in his career.

Oscar was a scorer first. He was a good passer, but he wasn't the same as Magic. Now, does that matter? Different styles, different efficacy. Well-rounded, efficient 2-guards have been the hub for a lot of title contention over the past 30 years. Jordan, Kobe and Wade have all made legendary accounts of themselves in that sort of role.

Even into his old age, he was a 6-7% TRB player, which is good. Imaging the general age curve for a player, especially a wing, as a rebounder, you can assume he was at least a little better at his peak. Someone may have better data for that than BBR, but for example, Jordan was a 9.4% TRB player in Chicago and 9.6% over his two seasons in Washington. Magic was an 11.1% TRB player on his career, and during his 96 comeback at age 36. He peaked at 13.7%. He was bigger into rebounding at the beginning and end of his career, based on his role and the relevance of Kareem, etc. He was a better rebounder than Oscar, which is hardly surprising, given his size. He'd still be a good wing rebounder today.

Good fade. Good pump fake. Good elevation on his J. More of a left hand and better handles than West, IMO. Created space on the ground pretty well, setting up his fade. Reminds me some of Old Jordan or post-07 Dirk in this regard. Not just getting the contested J, but clearing the space to get the cleaner look. Wicked mid-air body control. Didn't elevate like MJ, but when he went up, you didn't really DO anything to him, he just powered through you and did his thing. Didn't stun with his athleticism mostly, but honestly, I've seen another player who reminds me a fair bit of Oscar, and that's Brandon Roy... and he had athleticism that you didn't realize. 42" vert, but he only ever jumped as high as he had to, kind of like Oscar. Not that I'm saying Big O could do that, per se, but that he had more than he showed.

Loved the baseline. Loved the elbow. Loved the post. Loved both sides of the floor. Basically, where did you send him if you wanted to make life harder? Answer? The bench. Actually had a pretty nice in-out, right-to-left crossover. Don't think I ever saw him do it the other way, but that's not a move that the 60s saw from basically anyone. And he did it quickly, too. Stopped and popped very well. Loved screens, using them to find space for a J or PnR'g. Loved to post at the foul line. Again and again and again, you saw him going to certain spots and busting defenders who clearly knew what was going on. He had that quality that the really good scorers evidence, where they're just going to do what they do and good luck to ya.



I would say the gap, if there is one, between the two as scorers is smaller than people may want to believe because Magic was a stunning beast even when he was scoring in the low-mid 20s. Oscar was clearly a better shooter and was able to do his thing against smaller guys and guys his size as well, so I think he'd translate as well as anyone. He has almost none of the "haha, look at his handles" issues we see from so many players in the pre-merger era, and a couple of moves that sort of surprise you if you go into it thinking he was as limited as the rest in that regard.

But Magic was a better rebounder and playmaker, and himself quite a good scorer by the prime of his career. I think Magic, who was a fine scorer in college and showed all kinds of signs early on that he could score well enough, could have developed differently had the situation called for it, but either way, I wouldn't propose the idea that the gap is huge in either direction. More an issue of style than anything else, I suppose.



Honestly, between these two, I think the biggest deal is stylistic preference. I'm a Magic guy to the core, but even I am impressed a lot by Oscar. I think he leans more towards a 25/5/7 type guy than anything else in today's game, but given the efficiency he'd likely post, you're basically looking at Wade with more range (and a much better chance of developing at least a 33% shot from 3), which is a truly nasty player. I'd take Magic over him anyway, because I like the way he plays the game and feel he scores enough anyhow, but you can't overlook Oscar. He was very, very good.

[D Nice]

Honestly, between these two, I think the biggest deal is stylistic preference. I'm a Magic guy to the core, but even I am impressed a lot by Oscar. I think he leans more towards a 25/5/7 type guy than anything else in today's game, but given the efficiency he'd likely post, you're basically looking at Wade with more range (and a much better chance of developing at least a 33% shot from 3), which is a truly nasty player.

Good post overall but this jumped out at me. Do you actually believe he'd replicate the .498 FTR from his prime? With his style I see him as a .350-.375 FTR guy, and with that draw rate he's no longer really as efficient as Wade. I agree with ~ 25/5/7 as a projection (my personal one would be 23.5/5/7.5 so not far off) but closer to a 54 TS% player, not the 57%-58% Wade spent most of his prime around.

[tsherkin]

Good post overall but this jumped out at me. Do you actually believe he'd replicate the .498 FTR from his prime? With his style I see him as a .350-.375 FTR guy, and with that draw rate he's no longer really as efficient as Wade. I agree with ~ 25/5/7 as a projection (my personal one would be 23.5/5/7.5 so not far off) but closer to a 54 TS% player, not the 57%-58% Wade spent most of his prime around.

I do. You see a lot of him finishing jumpers through contact in traffic, and he'd get those calls today. He got to the rim a lot, as well, and he had a vicious pump fake. I think, with the tactical advancements we've made in terms of PnR basketball (at which he was strong intuitively), he'd be in the paint and getting calls plenty.

I do not see him as a league-average efficiency player at all, even without a 3 ball.

[Pg81]

Hard to say. Oscar played mostly on crap teams, while Magic played for a GOAT level team. Rules in the 50s/60s also differed quite a bit, as was counting assists. Oscar might have averaged more assists in the 80s.

Oscar's game was also strictly fundamental, no behind the back dribble or passing, no flash at all. In that regard he was the complete opposite of Magic. Some people let themselves be blinded by flashy actions and undervalue fundamentally looking game style.

Scoring is clearly in Oscars favor, but Magic was a bit better rebounder and passer, rest is a wash imho.

[Ryoga Hibiki]

As usual, when comparing players in different eras you must have the rules of the game very clear.
Oscar was a pioneer, in an era of less advanced coaching and more primitive training. Magic came when the game was already mature, witnessing the whole career of Oscar and West.
I'm going for Magic because in a smaller league Oscar didn't stand out as much.

[SinceGatlingWasARookie]

I have finally seen a few games with Oscar in his prime.

Oscar was a modern player in a non-modern league. Old Oscar backing in like Adrian Dantley was not like young Oscar who was was shooting quick fall away jumpers from the wings and driving to the rim when the path opened up.

I don't think Oscar puts up big rebounding numbers in a more modern era even though Fat lever was able to be an impressive rebounder. Oscar would have faced better dribble defenders in a more modern era. Oscar's quickness advantage would not be so large in a more modern era. Defenders would be better prepared to rise up with Oscar and get a hand in Oscar's face on his jump shots off the dribble in a more modern Era.

Magic probably would developed a more impressive low post game if he played in the 1960s.

I think Magic is in a class above Oscar.

[lorak]

It's always sad how underrated Oscar is because his game wasn't flashy and he played in the 60s and had bad press because he was fighting for players' rights. But no doubt he was better player than Magic - on both ends of the floor. Robertson was sometimes even put on opponents best perimeter player and he shut him down, while Magic wasn't able to do such thing. And of course there's offense, where results are clear. Lets look at all of their teams ORTG z-score with modified mean (to quote fpliii who did all the work: mean excludes the sample value, i.e. for an 8 team league, mean is calculated for the other 7):

Code: Select all

Team   Season   ORtg Z
MIL   1970-71   3,8
CIN   1961-62   2,4
CIN   1963-64   2,4
CIN   1960-61   2,3
MIL   1971-72   2,2
LAL   1986-87   2,2
LAL   1984-85   2,1
MIL   1973-74   2
LAL   1979-80   2
LAL   1985-86   2
CIN   1968-69   1,8
LAL   1982-83   1,7
CIN   1967-68   1,6
LAL   1989-90   1,6
CIN   1964-65   1,5
LAL   1988-89   1,5
CIN   1962-63   1,4
LAL   1987-88   1,4
MIL   1972-73   1,3
LAL   1981-82   1,2
LAL   1983-84   1,2
LAL   1990-91   1,2
CIN   1965-66   1,1
CIN   1966-67   0,8
LAL   1980-81   0,8
CIN   1969-70   -0,7


So we see that Oscar led more teams to better offensive results than Magic and IMO Robertson had worse offensive supporting cast and played in a league more difficult for perimeter players, so what he did is even more impressive. BTW, 1971 Bucks are the best offensive team ever with 2007 Suns 2nd (3.4 Ortg Z).

[Owly]

When it comes to Oscar's assists, it becomes hard to compare it to Magic and later point guards because in Oscar's era, many people say that back then stat keepers were more strict in what they considered an assist. Sometimes in today's game, people have made threads debating if certain point guards are getting their stats inflated a bit due to questionable stat keeping. Oscar might have averaged more assists in today's game all things considered equal due to some of his "non-assist" plays being called "assist" plays today.

If you look at how select stars accumulated assists back then it to me is pretty clear that the issues back then were just a more extreme version of what we see now: The guys who get the arbitrary stats regularly called their way are the guys the scorekeepers know to expect to get those stats. Once that stat becomes something people are actually paying attention to for that guy, scorekeepers make a real point to not miss them, and tend to go too far in the other directions. "Was that worthy of an assist?", "Well it came from X, I guess it must have been."

For example, guys here have done play-by-play analysis of Walt Frazier's 1970 Game 7 performance, and they don't see anywhere near 19 assists. Frazier in general isn't even a guy who racked up huge assists, but that night, for whatever reason, he was getting credited on assists for every jump shot conceivable. My guess would be it was because he got off to a hot start and the statkeepers then "nudged" him a bit further toward history. Same stuff happens today, although I doubt you'd see it during the Finals given how scrutinized it is.

Do we think 19 is indicative of what was happening? And on purpose? It seems like a typo, no?

Don't know about the general point but for Frazier, from what I've heard it's so far off, it seems to me, it had to be a typo (unless someone was really going by reputation and just making them up).

[Doctor MJ]

When it comes to Oscar's assists, it becomes hard to compare it to Magic and later point guards because in Oscar's era, many people say that back then stat keepers were more strict in what they considered an assist. Sometimes in today's game, people have made threads debating if certain point guards are getting their stats inflated a bit due to questionable stat keeping. Oscar might have averaged more assists in today's game all things considered equal due to some of his "non-assist" plays being called "assist" plays today.

If you look at how select stars accumulated assists back then it to me is pretty clear that the issues back then were just a more extreme version of what we see now: The guys who get the arbitrary stats regularly called their way are the guys the scorekeepers know to expect to get those stats. Once that stat becomes something people are actually paying attention to for that guy, scorekeepers make a real point to not miss them, and tend to go too far in the other directions. "Was that worthy of an assist?", "Well it came from X, I guess it must have been."

For example, guys here have done play-by-play analysis of Walt Frazier's 1970 Game 7 performance, and they don't see anywhere near 19 assists. Frazier in general isn't even a guy who racked up huge assists, but that night, for whatever reason, he was getting credited on assists for every jump shot conceivable. My guess would be it was because he got off to a hot start and the statkeepers then "nudged" him a bit further toward history. Same stuff happens today, although I doubt you'd see it during the Finals given how scrutinized it is.

Do we think 19 is indicative of what was happening? And on purpose? It seems like a typo, no?

Don't know about the general point but for Frazier, from what I've heard it's so far off, it seems to me, it had to be a typo (unless someone was really going by reputation and just making them up).

It could be a typo, but I'm really just of the mindset of 2 things:

1) Assume that anything statistical that's arbitrary has been manipulated at some point in time.
2) It's naive to think that people started with the manipulation in the modern era when it's harder to get away with it.

Here's an article how Nick Van Exel got 23 assists in one game:

http://deadspin.com/5336974/an-assist-f ... -the-books

Key quote:

Partly because I disagreed with the blatant stat manipulation (that I did) and partly because I'm a Laker fan, I gave Nick Van Exel like 23 assists one game. If he was vaguely close to a guy making a shot, I found a way to give him an assist. Afterwards, I fully expected someone to talk to me about it. Indeed they did. A senior management guy - "great job Alex, that'll get this game on Sportscenter tomorrow morning!" We (VAN) lost badly, of course.

With a guy like Van Exel, he wasn't getting a ton of assists in any one game, so what probably he happened is that the scorekeeper saw him get off to a hot start (waste of time to do this on a day where Van Exel isn't very involved) and then just focused on that accumulation.

Then you have the guys who really live off a given stat:

I also got bitched out by an Atlanta management guy because he felt I hadn't hooked Mutombo up enough w/ blocks in a particular first half. (I hadn't - I didn't like him because he was partly responsible for beating the Sonics and because I thought he was a bit of a punk so I made sure he didn't get a singly block that I wasn't sure he'd gotten - which was one in that half.) I told the management guy that the box score reflected the game and if Mutombo wanted more blocks, he needed to earn them. About 5 minutes later, Deke walked out for pregame warmups, asked the official scorer (the person who enters fouls and points in the archaic official scorebook) who does stats, she kindly pointed him to me, and he proceeded to glare at me for about a minute (which is, imo, a really long time for a gigantic man to glare at you). I want to say he blocked three 2nd-half shots and after each one, he made a point of, um, ensuring that I'd gotten them.

Any stat that's tracked, if a guy becomes known as particularly for that, there's going to be an immense pull to make sure in general he's at least getting what he deserves. If he's on your home team, you're literally putting money in your own team's pocket by inflating those totals.

So yeah, damn straight that Cousy & Oscar have inflated assist totals relative to their contemporaries. Might only be because they aren't deflated, but these guys were going to get the benefit of the doubt just like Magic.

[Doctor MJ]

It's always sad how underrated Oscar is because his game wasn't flashy and he played in the 60s and had bad press because he was fighting for players' rights. But no doubt he was better player than Magic - on both ends of the floor. Robertson was sometimes even put on opponents best perimeter player and he shut him down, while Magic wasn't able to do such thing. And of course there's offense, where results are clear. Lets look at all of their teams ORTG z-score with modified mean (to quote fpliii who did all the work: mean excludes the sample value, i.e. for an 8 team league, mean is calculated for the other 7):

Code: Select all

Team   Season   ORtg Z
MIL   1970-71   3,8
CIN   1961-62   2,4
CIN   1963-64   2,4
CIN   1960-61   2,3
MIL   1971-72   2,2
LAL   1986-87   2,2
LAL   1984-85   2,1
MIL   1973-74   2
LAL   1979-80   2
LAL   1985-86   2
CIN   1968-69   1,8
LAL   1982-83   1,7
CIN   1967-68   1,6
LAL   1989-90   1,6
CIN   1964-65   1,5
LAL   1988-89   1,5
CIN   1962-63   1,4
LAL   1987-88   1,4
MIL   1972-73   1,3
LAL   1981-82   1,2
LAL   1983-84   1,2
LAL   1990-91   1,2
CIN   1965-66   1,1
CIN   1966-67   0,8
LAL   1980-81   0,8
CIN   1969-70   -0,7


So we see that Oscar led more teams to better offensive results than Magic and IMO Robertson had worse offensive supporting cast and played in a league more difficult for perimeter players, so what he did is even more impressive. BTW, 1971 Bucks are the best offensive team ever with 2007 Suns 2nd (3.4 Ortg Z).

I had a response written here, but then I realize these aren't the numbers I thought they were.

According to what b-r did a while ago:

http://www.basketball-reference.com/blog/?p=6205

Things look quite a bit different, with Robertson's Cincy years appearing far less impressive.

What's the difference?

Does "modified mean" ignore the team in question?, and if so, Is that the only change?

[lorak]

[

Does "modified mean" ignore the team in question?,

Yes.

and if so, Is that the only change?

Probably not including playoffs is another one, because it seems they included playoffs on b-r.

[lorak]

Do we think 19 is indicative of what was happening? And on purpose? It seems like a typo, no?

No, it wasn't a typo. I've talked about that here: viewtopic.php?p=28805510&sid=a5b68345e07cf211dd1bc8bd086eda78#p28805510

[Doctor MJ]

[

Does "modified mean" ignore the team in question?,

Yes.

and if so, Is that the only change?

Probably not including playoffs is another one, because it seems they included playoffs on b-r.

Okay, thanks for the response.

So my general take:

1st, I largely ignore the numbers along these lines for the early 70s. The league stated expanding like crazy while a rival league sucked away talent from it, and then SRSs went through the roof. Coincidence? Probably not.

To the notion that when looked upon from this perspective Oscar's Cincy teams were more dominant on offense than Magic's Laker teams, that's interesting. I can't really remove from my thought process though that that offensive dominance was a mere footnote compared to what the elite defenses did at the time. It really seems like an age ripe for extreme levels of domination from outlier talents, especially when that talent meant the ability to do things smarter, and yet Oscar's offenses didn't really stand out at extreme levels despite essentially punting on defense.

As to the weak teammates, while I've reached a point where I'll knock Jerry Lucas pretty hard for not achieving more, the guy was certainly far more offensively talented than your average front court man. That was Oscar's opportunity to have serious talent with him in his prime, Oscar treated the opportunity something like a threat. In an age where Philly could easily blow by 100 ORtg the moment Wilt started playing smart, Oscar's Royals weren't at that level, and that's certainly something that made the difference between the what they did, and what they could have done.

None of this is stuff I typically knock Oscar for. I'm fine calling him the best offensive player we see until Magic, but when we look at the traits that make Magic what he is, he's a pretty different animal than Oscar. Both were brilliant, but Magic is the one who truly had the mentality of a community leader constantly looking for ways to make everyone around him thrive, and to me that's a very difficult thing to argue away on the basis that something else was more important, particularly given that we saw him adapt in thrive in a variety of circumstances up to and including efficient volume scoring.

[Doctor MJ]

Do we think 19 is indicative of what was happening? And on purpose? It seems like a typo, no?

No, it wasn't a typo. I've talked about that here: viewtopic.php?p=28805510&sid=a5b68345e07cf211dd1bc8bd086eda78#p28805510

Yeah in all honesty my best guess was that the scorekeeper just saw Frazier having an amazing game, and did what they could to add to the story probably starting in the 2nd quarter.

What's funny: It's conceivable this was done to ensure Frazier got the Finals MVP since he was truly the one winning the game for the Knicks rather than the team's established star Reed. And if that's the case, clearly it failed.

[lorak]

1st, I largely ignore the numbers along these lines for the early 70s. The league stated expanding like crazy while a rival league sucked away talent from it, and then SRSs went through the roof. Coincidence? Probably not.

That (eras' strength) is interesting issue and worth deeper discussion. But even if we ignore Oscar's teams in Milwaukee, then we still have three Cinncinati's teams from early 60s better offensively than any Magic's team.

To the notion that when looked upon from this perspective Oscar's Cincy teams were more dominant on offense than Magic's Laker teams, that's interesting. I can't really remove from my thought process though that that offensive dominance was a mere footnote compared to what the elite defenses did at the time.

Not really. Maybe in comparison to Celtics, but Russell was in perfect situation (time) to utilize his talents (on the other hand it was harder for perimeter players then in 80s or 00s). Other than Boston top defensive teams of the 60s were as dominant (or maybe even less dominant) as top offensive teams. From '60 to '69:

top 10 offenses

Code: Select all

Team   Season   ORtg Z'
CIN   1963-64   2,4
CIN   1961-62   2,4
PHI   1966-67   2,3
CIN   1960-61   2,3
LAL   1967-68   2,1
LAL   1965-66   1,8
CIN   1968-69   1,8
LAL   1963-64   1,7
CIN   1967-68   1,6
LAL   1962-63   1,5



top 10 defenses

Code: Select all

Team   Season   DRtg Z'
PHI   1967-68   -2
SFW   1963-64   -1,5
PHW   1959-60   -1,5
PHI   1965-66   -1,4
SFW   1966-67   -1,1
SEA   1967-68   -1
SDR   1968-69   -1
BAL   1968-69   -0,9
STL   1960-61   -0,9
STL   1962-63   -0,8



As to the weak teammates, while I've reached a point where I'll knock Jerry Lucas pretty hard for not achieving more, the guy was certainly far more offensively talented than your average front court man.

But we are not comparing Oscar's supporting cast to average, but to what Magic had. And talent around Robertson was much worse. The same with coaching. And of course era difference, what IMO is important, because I think it was harder back then for perimeter players than in 80s or later. Yet, despite being in worse position in all of those areas Oscar still led better offenses (not by much, but still). That's VERY impressive.

[lorak]

Do we think 19 is indicative of what was happening? And on purpose? It seems like a typo, no?

No, it wasn't a typo. I've talked about that here: viewtopic.php?p=28805510&sid=a5b68345e07cf211dd1bc8bd086eda78#p28805510

Yeah in all honesty my best guess was that the scorekeeper just saw Frazier having an amazing game, and did what they could to add to the story probably starting in the 2nd quarter.

What's funny: It's conceivable this was done to ensure Frazier got the Finals MVP since he was truly the one winning the game for the Knicks rather than the team's established star Reed. And if that's the case, clearly it failed.

There's also one more possibility: if pass lead to FTs then it was count as assist. Maybe someone will rewatch that game and count how many Frazier's passes generated FTs ;]

[Doctor MJ]

Not really. Maybe in comparison to Celtics, but Russell was in perfect situation (time) to utilize his talents (on the other hand it was harder for perimeter players then in 80s or 00s). Other than Boston top defensive teams of the 60s were as dominant (or maybe even less dominant) as top offensive teams. From '60 to '69:

top 10 offenses

Code: Select all

Team   Season   ORtg Z'
CIN   1963-64   2,4
CIN   1961-62   2,4
PHI   1966-67   2,3
CIN   1960-61   2,3
LAL   1967-68   2,1
LAL   1965-66   1,8
CIN   1968-69   1,8
LAL   1963-64   1,7
CIN   1967-68   1,6
LAL   1962-63   1,5



top 10 defenses

Code: Select all

Team   Season   DRtg Z'
PHI   1967-68   -2
SFW   1963-64   -1,5
PHW   1959-60   -1,5
PHI   1965-66   -1,4
SFW   1966-67   -1,1
SEA   1967-68   -1
SDR   1968-69   -1
BAL   1968-69   -0,9
STL   1960-61   -0,9
STL   1962-63   -0,8



First question: Are you eliminating Boston from the calculation of the Z scores? If not, you're clearly deflating the defensive ratings compared to the offense.

Beyond that though there is the matter that Cincy seems to be an offense-oriented team in their mediocrity. Like Tiny Archibald with the same franchise later on. I don't use this to say Oscar wasn't doing some great things, but if you're team is literally unsuccessful, what does it mean to be a dominant offense in a league where players must choose how much effort to put on to offense vs defense?

This is a question people bring up against Nash quite a bit as I'm sure you know. My response to them is:
1) But Phoenix was dominant in their success when they were healthy.
2) And there were times when the defense was quite solid.
3) But I'll admit you have a point if you simply want to say it's something that can be used against him when comparing him with all-time greats with slightly less dominant offenses that had more well rounded defensive talent.

So the same holds for Oscar imho, except we're talking less extreme success (prior to joining Kareem).

As to the weak teammates, while I've reached a point where I'll knock Jerry Lucas pretty hard for not achieving more, the guy was certainly far more offensively talented than your average front court man.

But we are not comparing Oscar's supporting cast to average, but to what Magic had. And talent around Robertson was much worse. The same with coaching. And of course era difference, what IMO is important, because I think it was harder back then for perimeter players than in 80s or later. Yet, despite being in worse position in all of those areas Oscar still led better offenses (not by much, but still). That's VERY impressive.

Magic started out with a vastly better supporting cast sure, but what makes Magic's legacy what it is is what he accomplished in the last '80s when he was having to do it all. Look at the '89 & '90 Lakers and you see only Magic with a PER north of 20 leading a team winning 60-ish games. There's nothing about that that screams "amazing offensive supporting cast",

[Doctor MJ]

No, it wasn't a typo. I've talked about that here: viewtopic.php?p=28805510&sid=a5b68345e07cf211dd1bc8bd086eda78#p28805510

Yeah in all honesty my best guess was that the scorekeeper just saw Frazier having an amazing game, and did what they could to add to the story probably starting in the 2nd quarter.

What's funny: It's conceivable this was done to ensure Frazier got the Finals MVP since he was truly the one winning the game for the Knicks rather than the team's established star Reed. And if that's the case, clearly it failed.

There's also one more possibility: if pass lead to FTs then it was count as assist. Maybe someone will rewatch that game and count how many Frazier's passes generated FTs ;]

I suppose, but if that's the case that's more than just fudging it, that's a fundamental rule.

In general my allegation is that the arbitrary nature of scorekeeper causes inflation. I have no evidence that people were simply tacking on assists thinking "well there was no bucket, but it was a great pass".

[ceiling raiser]

Doc - I don't have the spreadsheet handy but the only changes should be removing the team for which you're trying to find z score from calculations of mean/SD. That is to say, in an 8 team league, mean and SD are calculated for the other 7 teams.

The goal in mind was to get a read on what relative performances would look like in a larger league in which an outlier can't affect league-wide mean/SD as much (originally did put the spreadsheet together to look at Boston's DRtgs). I think I did check the calculations, but it should be pretty easy to replicate for individual teams/seasons.

EDIT: I think this was it: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc ... 0MUE#gid=0