Most similar player to Oscar Robertson all time?

[penbeast0]

No, if Poole played in the 60s, you'd discredit him because of his era.

If LeBron James time traveled to the 60s and played according to the rules and style of the time, and we erased your memory of him, you'd claim he wouldn't be able to adapt to today's game.

So the question becomes, is LeBron James' status as a player dependent on whether One_and_Done ever saw him play? If a tree falls in the forest, and One_and_Done didn't hear it, did it really fall?

This has nothing to do with genetics. Nothing about Oscar's skillset or athleticism suggests he has the talent and/or athleticism of Lebron. Just use youtube, those 2 look nothing alike.

Now look at Harden v. LeBron. Nothing about watching them suggests that Harden has LeBron's talent or athleticism either; but through craft, shooting ability, and manipulation of the refs, the Beard has become one of the great offensive players of all time as well.

[tsherkin]

Now look at Harden v. LeBron. Nothing about watching them suggests that Harden has LeBron's talent or athleticism either; but through craft, shooting ability, and manipulation of the refs, the Beard has become one of the great offensive players of all time as well.

Harden has a great handle, a strong base, excellent vision and he's pretty specific about he wants to attack as well. He isn't an elite leaper. His first step isn't that impressive, especially now, but he remains pretty effective. He's obviously far off his prime-level impact, but he's still a positive offensive player as a 35 year-old guy on the basis of those tools, which is pretty neat. And Oscar was much better inside the arc as a scorer.

[One_and_Done]

Now look at Harden v. LeBron. Nothing about watching them suggests that Harden has LeBron's talent or athleticism either; but through craft, shooting ability, and manipulation of the refs, the Beard has become one of the great offensive players of all time as well.

Harden has a great handle, a strong base, excellent vision and he's pretty specific about he wants to attack as well. He isn't an elite leaper. His first step isn't that impressive, especially now, but he remains pretty effective. He's obviously far off his prime-level impact, but he's still a positive offensive player as a 35 year-old guy on the basis of those tools, which is pretty neat. And Oscar was much better inside the arc as a scorer.

Harden's moves, range, handle, and control make Oscar look like an amateur. Oscar wasn't doing anything close to what Harden did.

[tsherkin]

Harden's moves, range, handle, and control make Oscar look like an amateur. Oscar wasn't doing anything close to what Harden did.

Sure. Harden overdribbles a lot and he makes much more advanced use of the PnR because that's been available to him as a result of era-related coaching and roster differences. If you gave Oscar that sort of spacing and coaching, he would no doubt look a little different in his approach as well.

The point in raising Harden was that he is an example of a guy who didn't need to be a Jordan-esque athlete and could imprint his impact on the game with a ground-based game and playmaking.

[One_and_Done]

So basically we've reached the stage where the argument is:

- Jordan Poole is a dumb basketball player
- he isn't an elite athlete
- he has handles which would be 100% illegal in the 60s
- he is shooting 51% over 43 3PA this year so that matters, despite being a 33.9% career 3P shooter
- he'd be able to adapt backward to the style of the 60s, which was faster, lower-percentage at the rim due to rules and style differences and less tolerant of his style of dumb, diffident play

And all that to say, he would be an elite player in the 60s. That's what I've gleaned thus far. Are others reading this the same way?

I think this is about you hating Poole, rather than anything to do with modern analogies. If you prefer pick Demar, or recent RJ Barrett. Both those guys would be big stars in the 60s. Heck, Dennis Schroder would be a megastar in the 60s. Or Derrick White.

[Samurai]

Offense only - I like smaller LeBron (2nd half of career) more than big CP3.

Yeah, older LeBron is also a good comparison, though Oscar was always more midrange dependent.

As one of the old dinosaurs that saw Oscar play, I think an older, smaller LeBron would probably be the most similar to Oscar. LeBron takes it hard to the cup more often while Oscar would settle more for the turnaround jumper after backing his man down, but both were darn near impossible to stop when they were determined to do their thing.

[tsherkin]

I think this is about you hating Poole, rather than anything to do with modern analogies.

I don't really think you're qualified to talk about bias, to be perfectly honest. But no, Poole is just a limited, dim player.

If you prefer pick Demar, or recent RJ Barrett. Both those guys would be big stars in the 60s. Heck, Dennis Schroder would be a megastar in the 60s. Or Derrick White.

Demar would be interesting in the 60s, yes. Given the general fandom's lack of understanding of the relevance of efficiency at the time, it's quite possible he would be well-regarded. And indeed, Demar is still actually a pretty good RS player. He'd be grilled mercilessly for being useless in the playoffs, and he'd struggle even harder to get to the rim in the halfcourt with the worse spacing of the time, but he is a proficient mid-range shooter with size who can get out in transition, so he'd likely do well.

"Big star" is a hyperbolic stretch, though. He definitely wouldn't be anywhere near West, Oscar, Wilt or Russell.

Let's say he ports his pure no-three efficiency back to the 60s without complication. Let's say that happens regardless of differences in handle and spacing and so forth, just for simplicity's sake. So now he's a 31.0 PTS100 scorer on 56.6% TS. I doubt he'd maintain his draw rate with his style in the 60s, but there it is.

That's pretty good. Understanding that he isn't any kind of major playmaker and that he isn't a good defender, there's gonna be a limit to how well appreciated he would be.

Barrett would have his problems as well. Barrett, time with Toronto aside, has not been an efficient basketball player in this era. There's a fairly low chance he'd be any kind of consequential star in the 60s. Unless you REALLY wanna lean on less than half a seaons of play to project him backwards.

And Derrick White? That's ridiculous. You can't look at any decent play now and just say "yeah, they'd be big stars in the 60s because I don't like that era."

[70sFan]

You can't look at any decent play now and just say "yeah, they'd be big stars in the 60s because I don't like that era."

That's the whole point of his activity under historical threads.

I think it's better to leave him alone and focus on the thread. Oscar is fairly unique player as he (for the context of an era he played in) was one of the very few offensive players that didn't have any true weakness. Even the ones we are comparing him to have something (like size for Paul or shooting for Penny), but Oscar just didn't have any.

[tsherkin]

That's the whole point of his activity under historical threads.

I think it's better to leave him alone and focus on the thread.

Fair point. I suppose that's basically what penbeast was saying earlier anyhow.

Oscar is fairly unique player as he (for the context of an era he played in) was one of the very few offensive players that didn't have any true weakness. Even the ones we are comparing him to have something (like size for Paul or shooting for Penny), but Oscar just didn't have any.

Yeah, he was pretty complete. He had a strategy, and a bunch of counters and he had physical tools which were well-suited to what he did. We're already stitching guys together to get anything resembling him anyhow. There really isn't a "most similar" single player of whom I can think, for sure.

[DQuinn1575]

If you had to pick one player who is the most similar to Oscar, particularly from nowadays but can be any era, who would it be? Would it be a James Harden/Luka Doncic? or maybe Russell Westbrook? Another name I'm not thinking of?

(Not adding a poll from now, might add later according to options listed)

Oscar was a combination of Durant and Chris Paul. He was an efficient volume scorer, similar to KD, and a great passer and floor general, like CP3.

He was top couple in scoring and true shooting add, while leading the league in assists with the league's top offense multiple times. He might be the best offensive player of all-time.

A 6-5 guard with no 3pt shooting was 'like KD'. KD who is one of the best superstar shooters of all time from any location on the court, and one of the GOAT offball superstars ever. KD who is almost 7 FT tall in reality. That seems like a terrible comparison. If KD is 6-5 he loses almost everything that makes him KD.

As I said, I don't think CP3 is a good comp either, bit come on. KD can't be a serious one. At least someone like Mitch Richmond would be reasonable.

Career adjusted shooting Oscar is 3,519 he was 115 TS+,
KD in a few more games is now at 3,298 , with 113 TS+
Oscar is 3rd all-time NBA behind Kareem & Wilt,
So Oscar was a more efficient scorer relative to his time,
He scored over 29 ppg 7 times versus KD's 4. Career points per game are lower as he scored a lot less in MIL, only in CIN he was over 29 ppg, while KD career is 27.

KD is one of the very few players in history who are in the same neighborhood as Oscar as an efficient high volume scorer.

Oscar led the league in assists 7 times, Chris Paul 5.

So better True Shooting add and more efficient than KD, and led league in assists more times than Chris Paul.

[One_and_Done]

Oscar was a combination of Durant and Chris Paul. He was an efficient volume scorer, similar to KD, and a great passer and floor general, like CP3.

He was top couple in scoring and true shooting add, while leading the league in assists with the league's top offense multiple times. He might be the best offensive player of all-time.

A 6-5 guard with no 3pt shooting was 'like KD'. KD who is one of the best superstar shooters of all time from any location on the court, and one of the GOAT offball superstars ever. KD who is almost 7 FT tall in reality. That seems like a terrible comparison. If KD is 6-5 he loses almost everything that makes him KD.

As I said, I don't think CP3 is a good comp either, bit come on. KD can't be a serious one. At least someone like Mitch Richmond would be reasonable.

Career adjusted shooting Oscar is 3,519 he was 115 TS+,
KD in a few more games is now at 3,298 , with 113 TS+
Oscar is 3rd all-time NBA behind Kareem & Wilt,
So Oscar was a more efficient scorer relative to his time,
He scored over 29 ppg 7 times versus KD's 4. Career points per game are lower as he scored a lot less in MIL, only in CIN he was over 29 ppg, while KD career is 27.

KD is one of the very few players in history who are in the same neighborhood as Oscar as an efficient high volume scorer.

Oscar led the league in assists 7 times, Chris Paul 5.

So better True Shooting add and more efficient than KD, and led league in assists more times than Chris Paul.

Which is why we shouldn't use adjusted shooting.

[DQuinn1575]

A 6-5 guard with no 3pt shooting was 'like KD'. KD who is one of the best superstar shooters of all time from any location on the court, and one of the GOAT offball superstars ever. KD who is almost 7 FT tall in reality. That seems like a terrible comparison. If KD is 6-5 he loses almost everything that makes him KD.

As I said, I don't think CP3 is a good comp either, bit come on. KD can't be a serious one. At least someone like Mitch Richmond would be reasonable.

Career adjusted shooting Oscar is 3,519 he was 115 TS+,
KD in a few more games is now at 3,298 , with 113 TS+
Oscar is 3rd all-time NBA behind Kareem & Wilt,
So Oscar was a more efficient scorer relative to his time,
He scored over 29 ppg 7 times versus KD's 4. Career points per game are lower as he scored a lot less in MIL, only in CIN he was over 29 ppg, while KD career is 27.

KD is one of the very few players in history who are in the same neighborhood as Oscar as an efficient high volume scorer.

Oscar led the league in assists 7 times, Chris Paul 5.

So better True Shooting add and more efficient than KD, and led league in assists more times than Chris Paul.

Which is why we shouldn't use adjusted shooting.

KD's best year in effective FG% was 7th, Oscar was in top seven 6 times.
He was in the top 5 in scoring and field goal % 4 times.

Question was who was Oscar most similar to:

Oscar was:
top 1-5 scorer in league, while being in top 5-10 field goal %
multiple time assist leader

The scoring part is probably most similar to KD, I'm fine if anyone rates KD higher. But if you make a list of most efficient non big scorers you got MJ & KD, and next you probably got Gervin and Oscar. So pick KD 1, Oscar is somewhere in the top 5.
Playmaking, again I'm fine if you rate CP3 as better.

[One_and_Done]

Career adjusted shooting Oscar is 3,519 he was 115 TS+,
KD in a few more games is now at 3,298 , with 113 TS+
Oscar is 3rd all-time NBA behind Kareem & Wilt,
So Oscar was a more efficient scorer relative to his time,
He scored over 29 ppg 7 times versus KD's 4. Career points per game are lower as he scored a lot less in MIL, only in CIN he was over 29 ppg, while KD career is 27.

KD is one of the very few players in history who are in the same neighborhood as Oscar as an efficient high volume scorer.

Oscar led the league in assists 7 times, Chris Paul 5.

So better True Shooting add and more efficient than KD, and led league in assists more times than Chris Paul.

Which is why we shouldn't use adjusted shooting.

KD's best year in effective FG% was 7th, Oscar was in top seven 6 times.
He was in the top 5 in scoring and field goal % 4 times.

Question was who was Oscar most similar to:

Oscar was:
top 1-5 scorer in league, while being in top 5-10 field goal %
multiple time assist leader

The scoring part is probably most similar to KD, I'm fine if anyone rates KD higher. But if you make a list of most efficient non big scorers you got MJ & KD, and next you probably got Gervin and Oscar. So pick KD 1, Oscar is somewhere in the top 5.
Playmaking, again I'm fine if you rate CP3 as better.

If a player was +1 TS% in 1955, doesn't mean they will be plus 1 today. In fact there's no chance they would be.

If you look at Oscar and see a modern KD, you probably need to look closer. They are nothing alike.

[tsherkin]

Career adjusted shooting Oscar is 3,519 he was 115 TS+,
KD in a few more games is now at 3,298 , with 113 TS+
Oscar is 3rd all-time NBA behind Kareem & Wilt,
So Oscar was a more efficient scorer relative to his time,
He scored over 29 ppg 7 times versus KD's 4. Career points per game are lower as he scored a lot less in MIL, only in CIN he was over 29 ppg, while KD career is 27.

KD is one of the very few players in history who are in the same neighborhood as Oscar as an efficient high volume scorer.

Oscar led the league in assists 7 times, Chris Paul 5.

So better True Shooting add and more efficient than KD, and led league in assists more times than Chris Paul.

Which is why we shouldn't use adjusted shooting.

KD's best year in effective FG% was 7th, Oscar was in top seven 6 times.
He was in the top 5 in scoring and field goal % 4 times.

Question was who was Oscar most similar to:

Oscar was:
top 1-5 scorer in league, while being in top 5-10 field goal %
multiple time assist leader

The scoring part is probably most similar to KD, I'm fine if anyone rates KD higher. But if you make a list of most efficient non big scorers you got MJ & KD, and next you probably got Gervin and Oscar. So pick KD 1, Oscar is somewhere in the top 5.
Playmaking, again I'm fine if you rate CP3 as better.

I can see the reason there's pushback against including KD at all.

Robertson wasn't the same kind of perimeter shooter. Hell, he only hit 85%+ at the line 4 times. This current year would be the only time KD HASN'T shot 85%+ at the line, and he has shot 90%+ on 4 occasions. 3pt shooting we can leave aside because it didn't really exist in Oscar's time, but he heavily emphasized shots around the foul line and in general, getting as close as he could before shooting.

Hard to evaluate handles with two very divergent eras of officiating, but Oscar was a very effective on-ball guy. He wasn't the size of a big playing a smaller man's role, but he did have a size advantage over his positional peers. Again, not quite the same as how the Sonics were using Durant as a 2 in his rookie year or how he's generally been a 6'11 / 7'0 small forward the bulk of his career, but plying size as an advantage is something shared. Oscar also had more of a power game, whereas Durant wields length more readily.

Durant's also a 108 2P+ guy on his career. Oscar, 111. And it is worth mentioning that he was a 57.1% TS guy in the 60s... which is an insane deviation from league average. He had 3 seasons at or above 58% TS, which would have been above league average in both 2023 and 2024. That's food for thought, man. He could score with the best of them.

Now, if you look at them on a per-possession basis, the scoring volume doesn't really line up to favor Oscar. Hell, even PER36 instead of his career average of 42.2 mpg, he drops down from 25.7, 7.5 and 9.5 to 21.9, 6.4 and 8.1. So it's worth mentioning that the scoring rate isn't really the same. And then if you adjusted some for pace, the scoring would probably drop a bit again. Of course, if you adjusted for era, those assists might go up.

I don't think KD is a particularly good example for very many reasons. It doesn't click apart from "a highly efficient volume scorer." The aesthetics don't match at all, the body types are divergent. The physical tools leveraged differ considerably and KD is an ATG shooter on a level very, very few guys can match. Like, he may actually be the greatest shooter in league history when you look at his combination of mid-range and 3pt shooting, even if there are a couple of guys notably better from 3. And he is definitely one of the greatest scorers in league history. Of course, once you start to look at Oscar, even though his volume doesn't translate, he held up pretty well in the playoffs, and that resilience matters too. He lost, what, 0.6% TS and like 2% FG, but shot almost 90% at the line while maintaining roughly comparable volume with Cinci? That's pretty excellent.

Anyway. Like I said, there are too many differences for me to get behind the inclusion of KD. Oscar was a power guard who liked to push people around and battled for every inch closer he could bully out of the defense. That isn't KD at all. Surface-level similarities only.