Oscar Robertson > Michael Jordan?

[beau_boy04]

Someone said "Oscar couldn't fly, bu he did everything else better than Michael Jordan"

Whatever the position, whatever the standards of the era, Oscar Robertson was the most perfect basketball player ever.

What do you guys think of the statements above? Do people draw such conclusions because of the triple season season, so on and so forth?
I've never seem him played ever but just by looking at his stats, those are some pretty damn great numbers compared to MJ's stats to say the least.

[MaD_hAND1e]

I can't really say, because I haven't seen Oscar Robertson play, but MJ had an edge to him, he could get into the defenders head and he was a great leader, some of the intangibles that you can't see in the stats, but should be included in a comparison.

[Fresh8]

Stats don't tell the full story. What made MJ great was his ability to dominate everyone on the court. I don't think that Oscar Robertson had this ability to do that. MJ was imtimidating as Mad Handle siad and by his championship years, he knew what to do in any situation and he still dominated despite being physically less athletic in terms of jumping and stuff like that.

[AlwaysWhat,NeverWhy]

The only way to tell which player is better, is have them play against each other. That is out iof the question, now, so all we can do is speculate.

Different eras, different styles of play, different players...

Jusging by achievements , both individual and team, MJ has a VERY clear edge.

[cyanide]

How long was Oscar Robertson's career anyway? It's amazing to put up a triple double for a season or two, but man, Jordan really dominated in his era, and he proved it over and over again. I have to say Jordan > Robertson. I'd love to see Robertson play, though.

[Kemp]

His airness is the greatest player of all time, so the answer is no! Jordan > Robertson.

[J@3]

How long was Oscar Robertson's career anyway? It's amazing to put up a triple double for a season or two, but man, Jordan really dominated in his era, and he proved it over and over again. I have to say Jordan > Robertson. I'd love to see Robertson play, though.

1960-61: 30.5ppg / 10.1rpg / 9.7apg
1961-62: 30.8ppg / 12.5rpg / 11.4apg
1962-63: 28.3ppg / 10.4rpg / 9.5apg
1963-64: 31.4ppg / 9.9rpg / 11.0apg
1964-65: 30.4ppg / 9.0rpg / 11.5apg
1965-66: 31.3ppg / 7.7rpg / 11.1apg
1966-67: 30.5ppg / 6.2rpg / 10.7apg
1967-68: 29.2ppg / 6.0rpg / 9.7apg
1968-69: 24.7ppg / 6.4rpg / 9.8apg
1969-70: 25.3ppg / 6.1rpg / 8.1apg
1970-71: 19.4ppg / 5.7rpg / 8.2apg
1971-72: 17.4ppg / 5.0rpg / 7.7apg
1972-73: 15.5ppg / 4.9rpg / 7.5apg
1973-74: 12.7ppg / 4.0rpg / 6.8apg

So basically he nearly did it in 4 other seasons. Personally I prefer him to MJ but I don't really know if he was better.

[Jeffx]

A lot of these young NBA fans feel the league begins and ends with Jordan, so it's a waste of time arguing with them about cats from the past. I'd put Oscar on the same level as MJ(with Wilt and Russell a notch above). You could say Oscar was the NBA's first big guard. Did whatever he wanted to do on the court.

[Matthew]

You could say Oscar was the NBA's first big guard. Did whatever he wanted to do on the court.

Except win.

Exactly how can you put Wilt ahead of Jordan? Russel I can understand, 11 rings is amazing.

[kinokong]

wilt is a pathetic loser who crapped the shit out of his pants when a fucking crippled willis reed walked onto the court in the 1969 or 1970 finals i believe, since when does a pussy like that belong over jordan who would of taken it to the hole everytime and dunked over reed not giving a shit...

[AlwaysWhat,NeverWhy]

wilt is a pathetic loser who crapped the shit out of his pants when a fucking crippled willis reed walked onto the court in the 1969 or 1970 finals i believe, since when does a pussy like that belong over jordan who would of taken it to the hole everytime and dunked over reed not giving a shit...

Great, more respect from the young towards the legends...

[Worm]

Greetings!

I think Big O and MJ is on the same level. Mr Oscar Robertson was a dominating force of HIS era, a point guard, who played like Magic. He never got a great center until 1971 when he joined to Mr Lew Alcindor.

About Wilt Chamberlain. I see him as a greatest center of all time, because of his unbeliveable strenght and WILL. But I give respect to Willis Reed, who was a skilled, dog-fighter center, who could lead despite his height disadvantage.

SO RESPECT THE LEGENDS!!!

(I'm sorry if I took gramatical mistakes I am from Hungary)

[AlwaysWhat,NeverWhy]

Greetings!

Welcome to the forums. I agree with your opinions.

[Matthew]

Jordan never had a great centre either, and he won 6 times.

Magic won 5 times with a lesser Kareem. Does this mean Magic is better than Oscar (yes).

The reason Kobe is better than Tmac is he has won. There is no variation here. The difference between MJ and oscar is Jordan is a winner. I have no idea what kind of defender Oscar was, so I wont get into that much.

And as for Wilt, I wont say he wasn't physically strong, but his will? The same will that saw him lose time and time and time and time and time again in critical situations? Wilt averaged 30.1 ppg in the regular season over his career, and only 22.5 in the playoffs. That's a significant drop in the most important time of the year for someone with so much "will". Give me Shaq or Kareem ahead of Wilt.

[Andrew]

There's no denying the brilliance of Oscar Robertson. Not only did he average a triple double for an entire season and come close four other times, for those first five years he did average a triple double. But stats aren't the be all and end all. But since we're talking about numbers, here's a couple that are rarely mentioned. During his 10 years in Cincinnati, his Royals won just over half of their games and missed the playoffs 4 times.

In comparison, Michael Jordan's Bulls went 695-371 (0.652). Take out the two seasons where he played less than 20 games and it's 620-284 (0.686). If you want to make it specific, he missed 7 games in his first 9 seasons with the Bulls (excluding his sophomore year) during which they went 1-6 and they finished 13-4 in 1994/1995, which means the Bulls went 632-282 (0.691) during his tenure there (once again excluding the 1985/86 season), making the playoffs every year and winning six championships including two three peats.

Furthermore, Roberson (like Wilt) has these tremendous statistics but that's almost where the story begins and ends. With other greats - Jordan, Russell, Magic, Bird - there are the stories of not only great statistics but also inspiring performances, driving their teams to victory on the biggest stage.

I've read interviews with Robertson where he's claimed to be the greatest clutch player in history. Yet, there are no stories about playoff series in which he went ballistic statistically or games that seemed unwinnable in which the Royals emerged victorious or game winning shots to seal an important victory - or for that matter, the most important victory - in a successful championship run? In fact, Wilt and Oscar's playoff career averages are lower than their regular season averages. That doesn't strike me as being unstoppable or the greatest. Guys like Jordan, Russell, Bird and Magic were amazing from beginning to end. They were winners. They achieved in so many ways, not just in the form of statistical feats. They shone as individuals and their teams shone as well.

Also, I'd like to throw the whole double standard out there. When Michael Jordan failed to lead the Wizards to the playoffs those two seasons (though they were seemingly on the way there in 2001/2002 before his knee injury), he was criticised and it was suggested his legacy had been tarnished; that because he failed to lead his team to the playoffs his final two years, even though he was clearly not the player he was in his prime and was hobbled by injuries in the 2002 campaign.

Why is it then, that the fact Oscar Robertson's Royals missed the playoffs four times during his prime swept under the rug? Like Wilt's 22.5 ppg career playoff average, it's never mentioned. Any negative remark that can be made about Michael Jordan's career will be trotted out and used against him, but these less than impressive facts about the old-timers are always brushed aside. It's almost taboo to mention them, yet they are as significant as the criticisms lobbed at Michael Jordan.

As much as it may have become a knee-jerk reaction to call Jordan the greatest of all-time, it's become a knee-jerk reaction to say he isn't, spout off the same old reasons why (some of which are conveniently twisted or use double-standards) and proclaim Wilt or Robertson the best, offering the 100 point game/50.4 ppg average or the triple double season as incontestable proof.

I'll also throw this out there, on the subject of double-standards. Why is it a player like Shareef Abdur-Rahim or Antawn Jamison gains a reputation as a player who puts up good numbers on bad teams, while Robertson put up great numbers on mediocre teams (only winning a championship as second fiddle to Kareem Abdul-Jabbar) and is sometimes lauded as the greatest player of all-time? I'm not saying those guys are as good as Oscar Robertson; that would be ridiculous. But it's the same principle, yet the same criticism is never made.

Now the fact of the matter is, no one can conclusively prove who was the better player. But Michael Jordan is dismissed far too quickly, which is easy to do when you carefully select facts about each player to make your argument. And I use the word "carefully" very kindly, because failing to consider any negative statistic or fact about Robertson is hardly making a fair comparison.

[Matthew]

Becuase if they held everyone to the same standard, Jordan would be number one. They have to discriminate (or come up with a formulae ) to produce any kind of argument as to why MJ isnt the best.

This is comming from someone who didn't like Jordan when he was on the Bulls.

[Andrew]

Formulas like that are easily manipulated to give the desired result. There have been formulas in Michael Jordan's favour that I consider equally bogus, even if they support my beliefs.

[Matthew]

Thats my point altogether..

I could make a formula that says im a more prolific poster than you, but it would be as accurate as the other formula's.

[Andrew]

I know, I was just expressing my contempt for those formulas too. But if they do hold any weight, it can be "proven" MJ could have scored 100 points given the same opportunity as Wilt.

[Matthew]

Hahah, But Jordan was just a ballhog. Wilt wasn't!!

How close minded is that? MJ gets labelled as a ballhog, but won 6 rings. Wilt wins 2 rings, takes more shots, and isn't considered one?

What a joke.

[AlwaysWhat,NeverWhy]

But if they do hold any weight, it can be "proven" MJ could have scored 100 points given the same opportunity as Wilt.

No one could or can score 100 points from a guard position. Given the rules, playing style and trends of the game of basketball, it is nigh impoissible to score 100 playing mostly if not totally on the perimeter.

[Matthew]

Give MJ 63 shot attempts and I think he could do it.

[Fenix]

[
No one could or can score 100 points from a guard position. Given the rules, playing style and trends of the game of basketball, it is nigh impoissible to score 100 playing mostly if not totally on the perimeter.

Well, MJ wasn't really (just) a perimeter player.

[Andrew]

No one could or can score 100 points from a guard position. Given the rules, playing style and trends of the game of basketball, it is nigh impoissible to score 100 playing mostly if not totally on the perimeter.

As VanK said, MJ wasn't a prototype perimeter player. Besides, my point was that it's possible to manipulate various statistics to "prove" that was possible. There's perhaps some merit to it, but it doesn't prove it.

[J@3]

If they recorded blocks in those days, I honestly think Bill Russell would be considered the greatest player ever. The only real downside to his game was that he didn't score heaps of points, but his defending/rebounding more then made up for it. Of course we really have no idea how many blocks he got, but I think it would be an interesting argument when you factor in play-off performances, championships and being clutch all apply to Russell.

Anyways we've been through this argument before.. I now feel compelled to go and use Robertson in NBA Live 2005... which means actually playing it