Todays League: Oscar Robertson vs Kevin Durant

[One_and_Done]

I'm talking about the Oscar Robertson who actually existed. Could he have been a star today?

Sure, but you're quoting me, and I was talking about shooting.

Sidebar to your unrelated tangent, yes. Yes, he could have been a star today easily.

And the prototype for his actual skillset being a modern star would be?

[tsherkin]

And the prototype for his actual skillset being a modern star would be?

Irrelevant to the conversation about shooting you're still dodging.

[falcolombardi]

I'm talking about the Oscar Robertson who actually existed. Could he have been a star today?

Sure, but you're quoting me, and I was talking about shooting.

Sidebar to your unrelated tangent, yes. Yes, he could have been a star today easily.

And the prototype for his actual skillset being a modern star would be?

Oscar seems to have a lot of thinghs going for him

He was superb efficient for the time with a jumper heavy shot selection aka a outlier among jumpshoters at the admittedly weaker shooting era

He was very tall for a guard amd seemingly fairly athletic despite playing a slower game on tape

Of course if time machine'd forwards he wouldnt automatically gain modern ball handling no matter how laxer dribbling rules may be (a point the now banedd poster unibrow often said) and ball handling at modern nba guard level is not somethingh you easily develop if you dont pick it up very early

Oscar game as it comes out im the footage i have seen is very barkley-esque in how much of it is long dribbling post ups before a shot attempt, just further from the rim

Is not a sure thingh he would develop a better face up handle or a strong pull up off the dribble ability

I wonder if he would attack the paint more with better spacing tho

[One_and_Done]

And the prototype for his actual skillset being a modern star would be?

Irrelevant to the conversation about shooting you're still dodging.

It's really not given the criteria I expressed for the 100th time. You are free to rank guys based on your imagination, I'm going to rate him purely off the skillset he had. I have explained my reasoning many times on here, including to you. I disagree with your premise.

[tsherkin]

It's really not given the criteria I expressed for the 100th time. You are free to rank guys based on your imagination, I'm going to rate him purely off the skillset he had.

No, it's still irrelevant to what you quoted from me. If you want to quote me, then address my remarks. If you don't, then just ignore the remark; don't redirect pointlessly.

Meantime, Oscar was 6'6, a skillful ballhandler, the premier playmaker of his time, extremely skillful at drawing fouls, and had a broad all-around game. Early use of the pick and roll. Good post player. Good body control. Good ball handling; he had in-and-outs, he had good footwork with a live dribble, could dribble with his left. He could pull up on a dime going right or left.

Not really clear what about his approach or skill set raises flags. Today's game would offer him more space, more forgiveness with his handle and more advanced team offense at a distance from the basket as far as the PnR game. All of that plays in his favor.

[One_and_Done]

I find it interesting that nobody ever argues the old timey player with a good midrange game won't be able to develop a 3pt shot like Demar. Clearly Demar should have just played in the 60s, then everyone would take the position we should assume he could extend his range out.

[falcolombardi]

It's really not given the criteria I expressed for the 100th time. You are free to rank guys based on your imagination, I'm going to rate him purely off the skillset he had.

No, it's still irrelevant to what you quoted from me. If you want to quote me, then address my remarks. If you don't, then just ignore the remark; don't redirect pointlessly.

Meantime, Oscar was 6'6, a skillful ballhandler, the premier playmaker of his time, extremely skillful at drawing fouls, and had a broad all-around game. Early use of the pick and roll. Good post player. Good body control. Good ball handling; he had in-and-outs, he had good footwork with a live dribble, could dribble with his left. He could pull up on a dime going right or left.

Not really clear what about his approach or skill set raises flags. Today's game would offer him more space, more forgiveness with his handle and more advanced team offense at a distance from the basket as far as the PnR game. All of that plays in his favor.

I am high on oscar as the best offensive player in the world before kareem but i am not as sure he would automatically have a strong handle if time machined forward

While is totally true rules are laxer today, just like is totally true for example that older football players played in rougher fields and with worse balls for dribbling.

It doesnt mean a 1960's player automatically would become elite at the skill today as if he was dropping weighted clothes or somethingh

Older players had effective dribbling for the era whistle and where able to protect the ball effectively at the sacrifice of versatile movement with the ball

There is a wider degree of thinghs (ruleset helped for sure) that a guard needs to be able to do while protecting the ball to run a effensive offense today imo and just because a 60's ballhandler suddendly was -allowed- by the ruleset to do them, he wouldnt necesarrily develop them

Dribbling skillsets in sports are imo the one thingh you usually have to pick up from very damn early

[tsherkin]

I am high on oscar as the best offensive player in the world before kareem but i am not as sure he would automatically have a strong handle if time machined forward

No, I meant watching him, he did pretty well even beyond his own era. Like I said, he had a left hand, he could in-and-out, he could go into a fast pull-up in either direction. You don't need to be Kyrie in order to have effective scoring moves. Particularly so in a league where PnR is so common, which de-emphasizes isolation action heavy on multiple dribbles.

It doesnt mean a 1960's player automatically would become elite at the skill today as if he was dropping weighted clothes or somethingh

Sure, but that's irrelevant. I didn't say he'd have an "elite" handle, I said he had a strong handle. He could protect the ball, he could change direction going either way, he could get into his pull-up, etc, etc. He could do what he needed to do; he wouldn't need to be The Professor. You're forgetting that simpler stuff works a lot of the time, and that a lot of guys today OVER-dribble. Simpler is usually better. Granted, we wouldn't be apt to see him looking like Steph, but that was never his game to begin with. He wasn't a speed-driven guy. And he wouldn't need to be today either.

[Ol Roy]

Name me the modern day player with no 3pt shot who is the archetype for Oscar. I'll wait.

LeBron came into the league with a weak 3 point shot; In his first 8 years in the league he was shooting under .333 from 3. But he had all the physical talent in the world with the ability to score, pass, and rebound at an elite level due to his physical ability and strong skillset. Basically Oscar.

And others like Derozan never developed one.

DeMar DeRozan's career FG% from 16ft-3P is 40%.

The fact that DeRozan is always brought up as the token example of someone who couldn't convert long twos to threes, when he wasn't a great long two shooter to begin with, has never made sense.

[One_and_Done]

LeBron came into the league with a weak 3 point shot; In his first 8 years in the league he was shooting under .333 from 3. But he had all the physical talent in the world with the ability to score, pass, and rebound at an elite level due to his physical ability and strong skillset. Basically Oscar.

And others like Derozan never developed one.

DeMar DeRozan's career FG% from 16ft-3P is 40%.

The fact that DeRozan is always brought up as the token example of someone who couldn't convert long twos to threes, when he wasn't a great long two shooter to begin with, has never made sense.

Demar started his career with no shot. He gradually improved his skills each year, including his shooting. His % from 16-3pt range over the last 7 years is 434 FG%. That's a good % from that range, considering 25% of his shots come from there and he takes high degree of difficulty attempts. Given the closeness of the corner 3, we might assume he could easily put up 40% from 3 on volume given that. Yet he has never developed as a 3pt shooter. Not everyone does, but when we look at older players nobody ever argues they won't develop the skill. It's always assumed they will, which is silly.

[Ol Roy]

Demar started his career with no shot. He gradually improved his skills each year, including his shooting. His % from 16-3pt range over the last 7 years is 434 FG%. That's a good % from that range, considering 25% of his shots come from there and he takes high degree of difficulty attempts. Given the closeness of the corner 3, we might assume he could easily put up 40% from 3 on volume given that. Yet he has never developed as a 3pt shooter. Not everyone does, but when we look at older players nobody ever argues they won't develop the skill. It's always assumed they will, which is silly.

I still don't see why he should be the poster boy.

Ok, he came in with no shot. But he's generally compared to players who do come in with a shot and who are much better at shooting long twos. So, it's comparing an inferior shooter to better shooters.

I don't know why one would assume that shooting 43% on long twos translates to a 40% 3P rate on good volume. I certainly don't and haven't heard anyone else say anything like that.

If we take guys like KG and MJ, who were shooting 45% on long twos (many just inside the line, and at an even better rate in their primes), knock off 10% and project a 35% floor from 3P-land, that seems more than reasonable. I'm sorry, but I can't rationally throw my hands up and declare it's impossible to speculate. Of course we can make inferences within reason.

Anyway, back to Oscar and others where there is less data. We can use a bad example and/or outlier like DeRozan, but I don't think that gets us closer to a conclusion we can have some confidence in.

[One_and_Done]

Demar started his career with no shot. He gradually improved his skills each year, including his shooting. His % from 16-3pt range over the last 7 years is 434 FG%. That's a good % from that range, considering 25% of his shots come from there and he takes high degree of difficulty attempts. Given the closeness of the corner 3, we might assume he could easily put up 40% from 3 on volume given that. Yet he has never developed as a 3pt shooter. Not everyone does, but when we look at older players nobody ever argues they won't develop the skill. It's always assumed they will, which is silly.

I still don't see why he should be the poster boy.

Ok, he came in with no shot. But he's generally compared to players who do come in with a shot and who are much better at shooting long twos. So, it's comparing an inferior shooter to better shooters.

I don't know why one would assume that shooting 43% on long twos translates to a 40% 3P rate on good volume. I certainly don't and haven't heard anyone else say anything like that.

If we take guys like KG and MJ, who were shooting 45% on long twos (many just inside the line, and at an even better rate in their primes), knock off 10% and project a 35% floor from 3P-land, that seems more than reasonable. I'm sorry, but I can't rationally throw my hands up and declare it's impossible to speculate. Of course we can make inferences within reason.

Anyway, back to Oscar and others where there is less data. We can use a bad example and/or outlier like DeRozan, but I don't think that gets us closer to a conclusion we can have some confidence in.

It seems reasonable that Demar's 3pt % over the last 7 years wouldn't be 31% off a miserable 10% of his shots, but it is. By your logic Demar should have shot 343. from the 3 at least, off a healthy diet of shots.

Maybe guys would develop other skills, but it's too speculative. It's also unfair in my opinion because you're punishing modern players, and automatically giving the benefit of the doubt to older players that they'd not end up like Demar. I'm less concerned about whether it's fair, but I don't think it is.

Sidenote; alot of these skills are ones that you need to develop from a young age to master. Trying to develop them as an adult is very difficult.

[Ol Roy]

Demar started his career with no shot. He gradually improved his skills each year, including his shooting. His % from 16-3pt range over the last 7 years is 434 FG%. That's a good % from that range, considering 25% of his shots come from there and he takes high degree of difficulty attempts. Given the closeness of the corner 3, we might assume he could easily put up 40% from 3 on volume given that. Yet he has never developed as a 3pt shooter. Not everyone does, but when we look at older players nobody ever argues they won't develop the skill. It's always assumed they will, which is silly.

I still don't see why he should be the poster boy.

Ok, he came in with no shot. But he's generally compared to players who do come in with a shot and who are much better at shooting long twos. So, it's comparing an inferior shooter to better shooters.

I don't know why one would assume that shooting 43% on long twos translates to a 40% 3P rate on good volume. I certainly don't and haven't heard anyone else say anything like that.

If we take guys like KG and MJ, who were shooting 45% on long twos (many just inside the line, and at an even better rate in their primes), knock off 10% and project a 35% floor from 3P-land, that seems more than reasonable. I'm sorry, but I can't rationally throw my hands up and declare it's impossible to speculate. Of course we can make inferences within reason.

Anyway, back to Oscar and others where there is less data. We can use a bad example and/or outlier like DeRozan, but I don't think that gets us closer to a conclusion we can have some confidence in.

It seems reasonable that Demar's 3pt % over the last 7 years wouldn't be 107. but it is. By your logic Demar should have shot 343. from the 3 at least.

Maybe guys would develop other skills, but it's too speculative. It's also unfair in my opinion because you're punishing modern players, and automatically giving the benefit of the doubt to older players that they'd not end up like Demar. I'm less concerned about whether it's fair, but I don't think it is.

Sidenote; alot of these skills are ones that you need to develop from a young age to master. Trying to develop them as an adult is very difficult.

Edit-Misread the first part. Well, 34% vs. 31% isn't a massive difference especially if you factor in the horrible outlier that was 2019.

I'm not inventing skills for older players. I'm using some analysis to project how their demonstrated skills would translate in another context. It isn't as if people are claiming Shaq would be bombing threes. Punishing modern players doesn't even come into the equation.

To reiterate, I am not claiming that non-shooters would suddenly become shooters. Although we actually have a plethora of examples of players who have done that. I (and others) am conservatively approximating how shooters would adapt in a given setting.

[One_and_Done]

I still don't see why he should be the poster boy.

Ok, he came in with no shot. But he's generally compared to players who do come in with a shot and who are much better at shooting long twos. So, it's comparing an inferior shooter to better shooters.

I don't know why one would assume that shooting 43% on long twos translates to a 40% 3P rate on good volume. I certainly don't and haven't heard anyone else say anything like that.

If we take guys like KG and MJ, who were shooting 45% on long twos (many just inside the line, and at an even better rate in their primes), knock off 10% and project a 35% floor from 3P-land, that seems more than reasonable. I'm sorry, but I can't rationally throw my hands up and declare it's impossible to speculate. Of course we can make inferences within reason.

Anyway, back to Oscar and others where there is less data. We can use a bad example and/or outlier like DeRozan, but I don't think that gets us closer to a conclusion we can have some confidence in.

It seems reasonable that Demar's 3pt % over the last 7 years wouldn't be 107. but it is. By your logic Demar should have shot 343. from the 3 at least.

Maybe guys would develop other skills, but it's too speculative. It's also unfair in my opinion because you're punishing modern players, and automatically giving the benefit of the doubt to older players that they'd not end up like Demar. I'm less concerned about whether it's fair, but I don't think it is.

Sidenote; alot of these skills are ones that you need to develop from a young age to master. Trying to develop them as an adult is very difficult.

Edit-Misread the first part. Well, 34% vs. 31% isn't a massive difference especially if you factor in the horrible outlier that was 2019.

I'm not inventing skills for older players. I'm using some analysis to project how their demonstrated skills would translate in another context. It isn't as if people are claiming Shaq would be bombing threes. Punishing modern players doesn't even come into the equation.

To reiterate, I am not claiming that non-shooters would suddenly become shooters. Although we actually have a plethora of examples of players who have done that. I (and others) am conservatively approximating how shooters would adapt in a given setting.

Demar's 3pt % over the last 7 years was 31%, but off a pitiful number of attempts. He's almost always shooting when wide open, and mostly refuses to shoot them. He's averaged 1.8 per game over that span.

[70sFan]

It's really not given the criteria I expressed for the 100th time. You are free to rank guys based on your imagination, I'm going to rate him purely off the skillset he had.

No, it's still irrelevant to what you quoted from me. If you want to quote me, then address my remarks. If you don't, then just ignore the remark; don't redirect pointlessly.

Meantime, Oscar was 6'6, a skillful ballhandler, the premier playmaker of his time, extremely skillful at drawing fouls, and had a broad all-around game. Early use of the pick and roll. Good post player. Good body control. Good ball handling; he had in-and-outs, he had good footwork with a live dribble, could dribble with his left. He could pull up on a dime going right or left.

Not really clear what about his approach or skill set raises flags. Today's game would offer him more space, more forgiveness with his handle and more advanced team offense at a distance from the basket as far as the PnR game. All of that plays in his favor.

I am high on oscar as the best offensive player in the world before kareem but i am not as sure he would automatically have a strong handle if time machined forward

While is totally true rules are laxer today, just like is totally true for example that older football players played in rougher fields and with worse balls for dribbling.

It doesnt mean a 1960's player automatically would become elite at the skill today as if he was dropping weighted clothes or somethingh

Older players had effective dribbling for the era whistle and where able to protect the ball effectively at the sacrifice of versatile movement with the ball

There is a wider degree of thinghs (ruleset helped for sure) that a guard needs to be able to do while protecting the ball to run a effensive offense today imo and just because a 60's ballhandler suddendly was -allowed- by the ruleset to do them, he wouldnt necesarrily develop them

Dribbling skillsets in sports are imo the one thingh you usually have to pick up from very damn early

I think people overcomplicate this topic for a number of reasons:

1. People overrate the value of diverse ball-handling moves in basketball game. To be an effective ball-handler in the NBA, you need to be able to get to the favourable spots on the court against defensive pressure. To do that, you typically need to provide some kind of athletic advantage (size, speed, quickness etc.) as well as a good control of the ball at the high speeds. Of course the tighter your handles are, the better because you don't focus on a dribble and can have a better vision on the surrounding situation. Players who rely heavily on dribbling moves are usually the ones who can't create a separation by his physical advantages alone. Oscar was a massive athletic dude who would enjoy a significant physical advantage over the majority of the league guards even today. He wouldn't need a Kyrie-level ability to manipulate the ball to gain advantage over the opponent.

2. The league is more P&R oriented than ever before. The smart use of screens can minimise most of the deficiencies in ball-handling skills.

3. Although the rules were significantly different in the 1960s, we shouldn't act like the feel of the ball during dribbling was incomprehensibly different. These players often played in less restricted situations and they spent thousands of hours dribbling the ball. Even if you use different techniques, you still develop a necessary feel and muscle memory during the process.

4. Oscar dribbled the way he did because he was forced to, not because he was unable to do it differently, in an easier way. Asking Oscar to use his palm more to control the ball wouldn't be a shocking experience for him. Of course he'd need some time to explore the new opportunities and to develop his own style. I also don't expect him to become Kyrie (he wouldn't need that, as I mentioned earlier) but it's nothing for guys who breathed basketball during their lives.

5. We have examples of 1970s players being effective at the end of the 1980s when the league made ball-handling officiating significantly looser. Of course not to the degree we see today, but it is an evidence that the more modern handles don't turn you into a different tier of a player.

We're talking about something extremely simple. Ball-handling requires a specific level of coordination, but we have no reasons to believe that someone like Oscar wouldn't possess that, unless you believe that no man from the 1960s was that athletic, but this argument is way beyond stupidity. I get that we could try to poke holes in Oscar skillset, but ball-handling is the laziest way to do that and it's the easiest one to defend.

[penbeast0]

Demar started his career with no shot. He gradually improved his skills each year, including his shooting. His % from 16-3pt range over the last 7 years is 434 FG%. That's a good % from that range, considering 25% of his shots come from there and he takes high degree of difficulty attempts. Given the closeness of the corner 3, we might assume he could easily put up 40% from 3 on volume given that. Yet he has never developed as a 3pt shooter. Not everyone does, but when we look at older players nobody ever argues they won't develop the skill. It's always assumed they will, which is silly.

It's not always assumed they will. It is pretty much always assumed that the great outside shooters of other eras will develop at least a league average 3 which is what we are talking about but I haven't seen a lot of people suggesting that Joe Caldwell or T.R.Dunn or other guys who were good NBA players but below average NBA shooters for their era would develop a good 3. There's a difference between one of the two best shooting guards to play in a 20 year period before 1970 and an average or below average shooter.