Should Oscar Robertson get more love?

[ceiling raiser]

I feel like many people underrate him, myself included. He has a pretty strong case to be considered with top 10 GOAT players.

Arguments for Oscar
• From limited impact stats (thinking of team ORtg and WOWYR), stands out as much as anybody from that era, except possibly Russell
• Was not a player who dominated solely due to physical gifts (length, athlticism, size, etc) relative to peers
• Had near GOAT level BBIQ, which translates across eras
• A couple years after the Celtics fell off, was #1b/#2 on arguably the GOAT team to that point (71 Bucks)
• Was still solid in the 74 Finals, could probably have had a longer career with modern medicine

Reasons for Hestitation
• Wasn't a dominant shooter, so no reason to believe he'd be able to expand his range (unlike a West or Lucas who shot from range a lot) EDIT: expand it to beyond the arc, to be clear
• He did back down a lot of smaller, weaker guards. We have a lot of small guards, but I wonder how this would translate
• Perimeter talent has improved significantly, so even if he held up, or was even better, is he a top 3 guard in most modern seasons?

What do you guys think?

[70sFan]

• Wasn't a dominant shooter, so no reason to believe he'd be able to expand his range (unlike a West or Lucas who shot from range a lot)

I don't think that's fair criticism. You can argue that Oscar was better shooter than West.

[jalengreen]

I think he should. I don't like to put too much weight in hypotheticals like how they would perform in the modern era, I care more about what we can more objectively assess, like their impact in the era that they did play in. And I do think that Oscar's offensive impact was generational and those Royals teams were lackluster due to their defensive deficiencies which I wouldn't blame him for.

Royals had the #1 ORTG in each of Oscar's first five seasons after ranking 5th (of 8 teams) in the season prior to his arrival with a similar team.

I also think it's telling how much praise he gets in the basketball world despite being an **** by many accounts. Good collection of them here: https://old.reddit.com/r/nba/comments/or2mtc/oscar_robertson_was_once_regarded_as_the_greatest/. Includes quotes from the likes of Kareem, Russell, West, Magic, Havlicek, Auerbach, Wooden, etc.

[Texas Chuck]

He's in the mix for me at the bottom of the top 10. I usually give that 10th spot to Dream, but I think three guards all have cases too: West, Oscar, and Kobe. And KG and Dirk shouldn't be totally rule out either though I would tend to have Oscar above them.

[wojoaderge]

I have him at #14, but definitely

[Cavsfansince84]

I see him at #12 but not that far off from the 9-10 spots. For me I can't get past the lack of post season success in Cincy which may or may not be fair but its a major component for me when I rank guys in the top 30.

[penbeast0]

(a) I think Wilt stood out more than Oscar too. Heck, I think Wilt stood out more than anyone, ever in many respects.
(b) His physical gifts were LeBronesque for his era. He was the strongest, most athletic guard in the league, the only ones close were forwards like Billy Cunningham.
(c) (to 70s fan) I don't think you can argue that Oscar was a better shooter than West in terms of range; he was a much stronger player who worked his way inside for better shots while West did more of the full speed slash or long distance jumper . . . and yet they were comparable in terms of efficiency.

I think he was clearly a superior playmaker to West (though West is underrated there) and healthier. West is the better shooter, more versatile in terms of playing on or off ball, and a superior defender. Overall they are very close; like Bird/Magic close.

Like many here, I don't have either top 10 but have both top 15.

[70sFan]

Oscar is a better FT shooter and from what I've seen, West attacked the rim more frequently. Oscar was mostly a midrange shooter (and a post player), yet his FG% is spectacular.

It's probably true that West took more shots from long range, but this alone doesn't make him a better shooter.

[Stalwart]

You can't be in considerstion for the top 10 all time if you've never led a team to a title multiple times. Oscar has never even done it once. Never even led a team to the finals.

With that said he does have a high level of individual success, accomplishments, and accolades. He put up all time great stats. He was able to compete for titles as the #2 guy. Top 20 seems appropriate to me.

[JN61]

I don't really see any valid list having him outside of top 15 all time. But I could see few lists having him on 10th spot. Ultimately it's his limited winning that stall him there on an era where Russell won everything.

If he had teamed up with Wilt in style of Lebron would he be higher? Without a doubt but that's why one shouldn't hold manufactured championships as high as ones of older generations who had way more limited options on free agent field.

[Amares]

He was considered top 10 twenty years ago. But it's hard to have him that high at this moment, personally I don't see difference between Oscar and Chris Paul and have them equal on all-time list. Most "Arguments for Oscar" would look the same for Chris.

[Owly]

I don't really see any valid list having him outside of top 15 all time. But I could see few lists having him on 10th spot. Ultimately it's his limited winning that stall him there on an era where Russell won everything.

If he had teamed up with Wilt in style of Lebron would he be higher? Without a doubt but that's why one shouldn't hold manufactured championships as high as ones of older generations who had way more limited options on free agent field.

What, in your opinion, are "manufactured championships"? Any in the full free agency era?
Related could you clarify what you mean re: "older generations who had way more limited options on free agent field". At the moment I fear it could be [mis-?]construed as all older generations having way fewer options. I'd take it mean 90s players having the same movement options as today (but better incentives to stay without an individual max cap) whilst the eldest generations, the players of the 50s and most of the 60s had no free agency options (technically later, but maybe people could count the ABA from the off, if the player was willing to risk missing a year), but this is probably colored by my own understanding of the situation.

Is your criticism of the internal inconsistency of championships as a measure not a case for using better tools, rather than some weighting for "manufactured" titles?

[70sFan]

He was considered top 10 twenty years ago. But it's hard to have him that high at this moment, personally I don't see difference between Oscar and Chris Paul and have them equal on all-time list. Most "Arguments for Oscar" would look the same for Chris.

Without touching details, Paul's main problem are his durability problems, which is not the case with Oscar. Healthy Paul could compete for top 15 spots, but he was never healthy.

There are other factors (Oscar's a better scorer for example), but the first one is the most significant.

[Owly]

He was considered top 10 twenty years ago. But it's hard to have him that high at this moment, personally I don't see difference between Oscar and Chris Paul and have them equal on all-time list. Most "Arguments for Oscar" would look the same for Chris.

Interesting.
Possible outlooks for one still bullish on Robertson that broadly accepts the comp.
a) Paul is underrated too.
b) The Paul criticism tends to center (now playoff advancement is gone) around having inconvenient, sometimes niggling, injuries and that these were costly (though I think this depends on perspective: this can be spun as further evidence of his impact). I haven't seen this argument against Robertson (though the broad "lack of team playoff success/titles as 'the guy'" stick is used against each).

Fwiw, the published consensus (from circa 90-2010) had Robertson, on average, about tied with Bird (slightly below if you count Simmons's TBoB 2 editions (hardback, paperback) separately and include a 2012 book, tied if you eliminate 2012 book, Robertson ahead if you eliminate either TBoB edition and obviously if you eliminate either and the 2012 book) as part of a clear cut top 7 (MJ, WC, BR, E"M"J, KAJ, LB the others) - this method obviously skewing anti-players who hadn't established themselves by the early 90s as their early rankings would typically be less than after their full career. Robertson's best results were that he topped two authors' lists and was 2nd in the AP Player of the Century poll to Jordan. His worst placing, and only non-top 10 finish, was 19th in a 2005 book heavily influenced by team performance which has Tommy Heinsohn above him.

[ty 4191]

He was considered top 10 twenty years ago. But it's hard to have him that high at this moment, personally I don't see difference between Oscar and Chris Paul and have them equal on all-time list. Most "Arguments for Oscar" would look the same for Chris.

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1B7L0VTBk3EPsXOnEntxJyBVsLrF7MNa3/edit#gid=1966911757

"Career TS Add"

Where is Chris Paul on this list? He'd fall 40th, alongside Larry Nance. He'd also not be in the top 40 in TS Add per season (per 82).

Meanwhile, Oscar is 4th in career TS Add and 2nd, per season.

Steals weren't even tracked during Oscar's career, and he was known for his proclivity with stealing the ball. He loses a ton of value because of this.

And, more globally, I’m saying, overall, Chris Paul isn't a great comp for Oscar Robertson.

[eminence]

I believe I had him right around there last time I put together a list. A real contender for offensive GOAT in my mind, and I’m in agreement with those who are high on his shooting. Obviously never Curry, but I have him as a very solid shooter. I think CP3 is a fine comparison as a relatively controlled offensive lead that primarily passed but was also an all-time midrange scorer, though he tended to use strength to get to his midrange spots instead of quickness/handle. Notably higher volume though.

[ceiling raiser]

• Wasn't a dominant shooter, so no reason to believe he'd be able to expand his range (unlike a West or Lucas who shot from range a lot)

I don't think that's fair criticism. You can argue that Oscar was better shooter than West.

It was mostly about three point shooting in particular. Sorry, I’ll edit the OP for clarity. West shot from that range before the 3pt line existed, so I imagine making it a major part of his game would come naturally.

I actually do value midrange shooting a ton from a game theoretical POV (the more weapons you have, the harder it is to stop you in the playoffs - if you know when to use them). I’m just saying that being able to shoot the 3 makes me think even more highly of a player since a lot of my evaluation is predicated on how well a guy translates to today.

Do you think Oscar would develop 3pt range today? I defer to your knowledge if you’ve seen him taking a lot of really deep twos.

[Owly]

Steals weren't even tracked during Oscar's career, and he was known for his proclivity with stealing the ball. He loses a ton of value because of this.

Do you have a source on this?

I've seen some positive quotes on his D and I'd guess that I'd lean slightly more bullish on his D than many here, but personally I don't recall seeing this cited anywhere.

Thanks.

[Stan]

He just doesn't have the resume/accolades/achievements to be top 10. Even someone like Kobe who clearly has a better resume than Oscar doesn't make the majority of top 10 lists.

[No-more-rings]

I think he has a case for top 10, but it’s not a strong one. I have him in the 11-13 range but wouldn’t consider it outlandish for some to have him 9th or 10th. You can probably argue he’s a more resilient playoff performer than Bird, but it’s difficult for me to say that with confidence since the number of games is not at all comparable. As others mentioned it’s hard for me to call someone top 10 when they have so many early playoff exits, with no finals trips or championships as the best player. For me that’s sort of why someone like KG doesn’t get in my top 10 even though i know he had a lot of success in Boston. Oscar’s peak doesn’t exactly scream top 10 to me either so if he doesn’t have a standout peak, longevity or high number of championships I don’t see how I could put him there.