Has anyone watched old Oscar Roberston games?

I never seen his play, but i can immagine his fantastic performance of trible-double.
one of the best top 10 player in Nba history. no one can compare him in the future. Paul? Who is him.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
My favorite sport web: http://www.nowgoal.com/22.shtml

 

Regardless, I still feel it's a real shame that there's no visual record of this.

 

I guess I'll put this in here though it doesn't relate specifically to Oscar Robertson.

A sincere question I have is how does one compare eras or specific players within different eras, beyond stats? I realize that skillset is contextually based, but it's that very distinction that doesn't allow me to make comparisons.

The reason I ask is, if you recall, a few years ago, not so much anymore, you heard so-called 'purists' lamenting the downfall of the game and romanticizing the past. I just never got it - sure, they shot better and had more teamwork blah blah, but I watch NBA basketball to watch great individual talent. Watch clips from even as recently as the 80s and point guards were slapping at the ball with their left hands virtually vestigial. Even small forwards today handle the ball like it's attached to their palms, and have footwork and pivot moves that make the guys of yesterday look like the YMCA league. Obviously, things evolve, but how can anyone say with a straight face that the game used to be better before than it is today unless willfully romanticizing the past.

And moving on from that, how do you even begin to fairly compare yesterday's legends to today's? Moochie Norris would wipe the floor with Bob Cousy. I realize that context is a factor, and that most people take account for this (ie: not Oscar v. Kobe but Oscar against his era v. Kobe against his era), but I am addressing the people that argue that X former legend would without a doubt be better than X present legend. How can one even arrive at that?

 

It depends on what timeframe you are referring to. As far as your bolded part....who has this elite footwork? Maybe the top stars (if that...see Dwight Howard), but for the most part the fundamentals are the worse that I have ever seen in basketball.

The things that made greats great back then was their work ethic and fundamentals. I don't see why a big wing like Oscar still couldn't be great today if he grew up in this era with all the new technology made available to him. It's easy to say put X player back then and he would dominante....but conversely imagine putting players from then in this era of less physical play and players who lack fundamentals.

 

I'm glad you said this because this is almost exactly what I'm talking about. By technology I'll assume you are only speaking of weight training/nutrition/rehab, ie: size/strength. And this is exactly what I don't get. Why is there this assumption that the only thing better about today's players is their bodies? what are these fundamentals of the other guys that you speak of? did they have better work ethic - yea probably. but what else are we talking about here? all i see is guys shooting two handed set shots with awful form and middle school level ball handling. i realize that was the stage the game was at back then, but why am i force fed this notion that it/guys were so superior, because quite frankly i'm not the least bit impressed. one could even say that if defenses were geared back then the way they are today, with intricate schemes and 6'9 athletic freaks with a hand in your face, guys wouldn't be looking so superior in their shooting.

now if someone adjusted for these discrepancies in their analysis and conceded that skill levels weren't developed back then, i could totally buy the comparisons. but noone even says that. i'm somehow supposed to believe that the ball handling, footwork, etc. of today's players isn't an exponential improvement over the guys of the past? really?

 

I think this deserves its own thread...and i agree with you. I'm just glad someone else said it. But, it's a subjective arguement and in those the legends always get the benefit of the doubt.

 

Yes. For example, IIRC weight lifting was seen as a negative in basketball up until the 80's. But I'm also speaking of scouting reports, video of opponents, better travel, playing ball year round and doing nothing else, as opposed to some older players who still had regular jobs, etc.

No assumption...it's quite obvious if you go watch older games. Dudes today don't dribble as well. They don't shoot as well. They don't pass as well. The mid-range game is basically non existent. I can count on one hand the number of pivots with legit post moves. Of course some elite stars can do all of these things, but the average player can't. Our team is a perfect example. For the past 3 years we have only had one dude that can throw a proper pass to a 7 footer. The league is considering changing the traveling rule as well.

Again, what period are you referring to? You surely can't be referring to the 70's and beyond. For example, are you saying Walt Frazier didn't have a handle?

The majority of these uber athletes can't defend because their fundamentals suck. We should know this as Rockets fans. See Steve Francis, Swift and Gerald Green.

Again, what period are you referring to? I would argue that the majority of the players today have the poorest skill sets I have ever seen.

 

Understood. I am speaking of 'skillset', primarily.

Re: dribbling - if you think players today don't dribble as well then we can't even have this discussion because there is no starting point. from my vantage point, decent guards at any big high school have better handles today than even the elite NBA guards of years past.

Re: post moves - that is definitely true, but it's not like guys of yesterday had the pivot moves of the great bigs of the late 80's/90's. watching clips of the old time legends, i see nothing but awkward two handed turnarounds. nowhere near even the basic pivot footwork of say kenny thomas.

Re: post entry passing - that's a very extreme example you used there. we have the most immobile big man in the NBA. in addition, you don't think the fact that defensive schemes are so much more intricate, and that wing defenders often have 7-footer wingspans adds to the difficulty?

I don't know which specific era as I can only relay on video clips, but I would guess I am referring to pre 80's. Michael/Magic/Isiah were the first superstar guards I've seen using counter moves (ie: the infancy stages of what has developed into today's crossover moves). guys like havlicek and jerry west essentially dribbled in a straight line, sometimes with one hand - how am i to be impressed by that? bob cousy was even more embarrassing.

These are again extreme examples. It's well known that Francis, Swift, and Gerald Green are three of the dumbest players ever to play in the NBA. But the average NBA player isn't as bad defensively as he is made out to be by romanticists, and certainly not worse than his pre-modern counterpart.

 

It's something that makes me want to tear my hair out, but I never bring it up because it's near blasphemous. I don't even see how one can even begin to compare the skillsets of the modern era with previous eras, MUCH less claim that those of previous eras were superior.

 

I don't, especially when 75% of them are palming/carrying the ball whenever they dribble. Just because it isn't called.....

Kareem didn't have moves? Moses? Walton?

I don't think I am. Passing is a basic, fundamental skill that most wing players used to have. The fact that a team can go through multiple years with only one dude who can throw a post pass correctly speaks volumes IMO. And every wing player that we face every night, especially from the PG spot, doesn't have a 7 foot wingspan.

What about Pistol Pete? West and Oscar have said that they could do all the things he could, but at that time most felt it was showboating and unnecessary....especially since Pete was never winning. Sometimes fancy dribbling is just that....fancy dribbling. It looks good but often doesn't achieve much. We should know this since we saw the Francis/Mobley era.

We will have to agree to disagree on this one.

 

Ok, I just watched a little bit of that second video. The quality of play is worse than a junior varsity high school game in present day. How can anyone seriously be impressed by this?

 

Noone any longer uses that sweeping Allen Iverson crossover move that was the rage of the 90's.

Again, I think this is a disingenuous example. I haven't seen anyone on our team struggle to pass the ball into Scola or Landry or Mo Taylor etc. It's a problem indemic to Yao Ming, not our passers. Could they be better and get into him? Sure. But the fact that they could stand to improve isn't probative of any mediocrity in their passing abilities. That's like if I said Roy Oswalt is a bad pitcher because he can't strike out Albert Pujols on 3 pitches every time. Could he have Johan Santana's stuff? Sure, but an extreme example isn't indicative of the rule.

Again, Francis and Mobley were extreme examples. I'm not talking about the showboating of the late 90's with the wide Allen Iverson crossovers. All I mean is a simple, between the legs-crossover while bringing the ball down. These things aren't just for show - they have great utility in getting past your man and keeping him off you. A simple between the legs crossover, or changing hands behind the back goes so far in aiding the point guard. Did you see that 2nd video where Oscar is laboring to bring it up as he literally backs his man down inch by inch up the court? High school kids can bring it down better than that. A few plays later, one of the players, not sure who, dribbles down the court with one hand, picks up his dribble right in the middle of the fastbreak and awkwardly passes it in - we're not just talking about aesthetics here.

 

While I was watching those old Oscar Robertson vids, I keep thinking that the old dudes were really freaking slow and had extremely limited range on their Js. The set offense looked to probe the defense to get a good 10' to 15' shot, preferable 10'. The set defense looked to prevent easy shots and appeared to be happy letting their opponents shoot from outside of 10'.

My next thought was that Jack Yates could run both of those teams off of the floor. Bill Russel would certainly get his points, but I am not sure if that would be enough.

My last thought was none of these old guys would hit a decent % from the college three point line. Obviously there was no reward in the old timers game for taking a long range shot, so it was a skill that was not practiced.

 

cabbage, I know what you are saying. Comparing players from different eras is extremely subjective.

I think when we say today's players have "technology," it is more than just better bodies. The skills, techniques, and general basketball knowledge also evolve. You use the example of dribbling. Yes, they dribbled funny in those days--by today's standard. (Watch how Calvin Murphy used to dribble.) That's because everybody did it that way. Actually, some older folks might be able to confirm. Maybe they would be called carrying if they dribbled like today's players. I don't know.

Remember, Aristotle was totally wrong in physics. But he is one of the greatest minds in human history. Would he have beaten out Einstein if he had modern scientific knowledge? Who knows?

 

The argument you are presenting is fair, but it's a different one. I have no problem with accounting for these differences in a comparison. ie: if you said 'well havlicek was X %age better than his competition so extrapolating his productivity out into the modern era and adjusting for body and evolution of skillset he would be better than iverson' - i have absolutely no problem with that (though i'm not sure how one could come up with a sound mathematical model to quantify this...)

what i'm speaking of is the blanketed, timeless assertion that players of yesterday were better/the game in years past was better, not adjusting for anything. taken as is!

that is what literally blows my mind. i watch these clips and i'm like the AVERAGE NBA point guard, say kyle lowry, adjusting for physical advancement (even though he's naturally stalky, let's just even take a conservative approach and make him skinny and say some of the bulk is from the weights), with his current skill set, he would literally be chris paul in that era. he would be running circles around bob cousy - literally. and then it hits me that this is somehow a blasphemous, fringe opinion. how does noone appreciate just how far the game has come? i repeat - professional NBA players, hall of famers, used to dribble in straight lines with their heads down, with one hand!

 

Right, its a shame they dont exist and figured its why there isnt much footage shown. I did say "some" of the old games meaning samplings out of whatever they have. MTV doesnt have EVERY single video they absolutely ever showed, but they have enough.

You know how it is. Old timers will ALWAYS fudge the accounts of the old days. Even against undeniable truth countering their beliefs they won't give up and inch of bias.

Though skill level is a little better now. The players from the 70's and back brought in the game, and its been perfected from there. Not just basketball, just about every sport. Alot of former NFL players will admit players are bigger, stronger, faster and better now.

I think in basketball old time talk they lean heavily on the transcendent talents like Russell, Wilt, Dr J, Oscar, David Thompson, Pistol Pete, etc. to make the whole league look better When they made the original Dream Team, Red Auerbach claimed he could BEAT the Dream Team with guys from the 40s thru 70's. (That was met with skepticism over 15 years ago, just to show how even then the game evolved big time) Point is Auerbach had to pick guys from 4 different decades to play with the current guys. And Red was as old time loyalist than anybody.

As much as a trasported Luther Head would be a perennial All Star in 1950 and 1970 Hall of Fame inductee, just cant hold the limitations of the times against the old players. In track Jesse Owens would be Jesse OWNED in today's times. But he set records for his time. Some high school guy today might can do what he did back then, but Owens is still gonna be considered greater.

 

I hate to say this with just stats and a little bit of film, but I think Robertson is a bit overrated and took advantage of stat-inflation. He's a great player, but I think that he's not really in the mix as far as greatest of all time.

 

QFT...

Basketball has advanced, similar to math and science (and many other things over a given time period). College students know things that only the greatest physicists knew years ago. Similarly, College basketball players have moves that a player like Oscar Robertson might have created. You have to respect the pioneers and how they dominated the competition in their respective eras but you can't loose sight of how the game has changed. Great mathematicians of the past probably never screwed up on their algebra...they were sound in fundamentals, possibly because that is all there was. They didn't deal with calculator errors because there were none. Ball players of the past may have moved the ball better...they were sound in fundamentals, possibly because that is all there was. They didn't have to deal with a player botching a 360-though-the-legs dunk because no one could do that.

 

How was the outcome long decided ??? The warriors was leading 10-15 points that's not long decided.
It's not a season deciding game but the score was reasonably close till the very end.