For today: Curry vs Oscar

[One_and_Done]

So another silly take from O_and_D about Oscar being unable to shoot threes because the line didn't exist back then, then concluding that Oscar would definitely be unable to make threes and calling Westbrook a better shooter than Oscar because he takes threes and makes them at bad percentage...

What are we even doing here?

It's not about whether he definitely could or couldn't make 3s, it's about the fact he never did it. I can't say Len Bias definitely wouldn't have been a top 25 all-time player, but since he never actually played like it I can't give him credit for it. Just like I can't give Bill Walton credit for games he never played.

At any rate, when the comp has become Demar it's clear that a comparison to Curry is misguided.

Curry never played with 60s shoes, so how do you know he could do it. Curry never played under a coach who would bench him for taking long distance perimeter shots, so how do you know he could do it. Curry never got racist death threats from the KKK and had things thrown at him, so how do you know he could do it. He simply never did those things so you can't give him credit for it.

I'm looking at their skillsets, not their life experiences.

[The Explorer]

It's not about whether he definitely could or couldn't make 3s, it's about the fact he never did it. I can't say Len Bias definitely wouldn't have been a top 25 all-time player, but since he never actually played like it I can't give him credit for it. Just like I can't give Bill Walton credit for games he never played.

At any rate, when the comp has become Demar it's clear that a comparison to Curry is misguided.

Curry never played with 60s shoes, so how do you know he could do it. Curry never played under a coach who would bench him for taking long distance perimeter shots, so how do you know he could do it. Curry never got racist death threats from the KKK and had things thrown at him, so how do you know he could do it. He simply never did those things so you can't give him credit for it.

I'm looking at their skillsets, not their life experiences.

You should look at everything. Life experiences and skillsets go hand-in-hand. How do you not know that? Jimmy Butler started playing basketball as a way to find some stability after being kicked out of his home at age 13. Curry was raised in a 2 parent household with a dad who taught him his NBA experience. Robertson grew up in poverty in racist projects. If you think that has zero impact you are fooling yourself.

[trex_8063]

Obviously I don't think much of the average player in the 60s. The quality was low enough that TJ could have been an all-star back then.

But look at even just the very beginning (starting at 1:00 mark of the clip below).

Watch on YouTube

Curry carries the ball no fewer than four times by 1960s officiating. That's several turnovers on a single fairly routine possession.

How could he (or really anyone from today) be a star back then if they can't even refrain from turning it over every possession?

[One_and_Done]

Curry never played with 60s shoes, so how do you know he could do it. Curry never played under a coach who would bench him for taking long distance perimeter shots, so how do you know he could do it. Curry never got racist death threats from the KKK and had things thrown at him, so how do you know he could do it. He simply never did those things so you can't give him credit for it.

I'm looking at their skillsets, not their life experiences.

You should look at everything. Life experiences and skillsets go hand-in-hand. How do you not know that? Jimmy Butler started playing basketball as a way to find some stability after being kicked out of his home at age 13. Curry was raised in a 2 parent household with a dad who taught him his NBA experience. Robertson grew up in poverty in racist projects. If you think that has zero impact you are fooling yourself.

What would happen if a person was born in a different time with different experiences is just too speculative.

[One_and_Done]

Obviously I don't think much of the average player in the 60s. The quality was low enough that TJ could have been an all-star back then.

But look at even just the very beginning (starting at 1:00 mark of the clip below).

Watch on YouTube

Curry carries the ball no fewer than four times by 1960s officiating. That's several turnovers on a single fairly routine possession.

How could he (or really anyone from today) be a star back then if they can't even refrain from turning it over every possession?

You just tone down your elite handle to primary schooler level. You don't have to deploy your skillset the same way in every situation.

[trex_8063]

You just tone down your elite handle to primary schooler level. You don't have to deploy your skillset the same way in every situation.

We've never seen Steph prove he can dribble effectively in a manner that will not be considered illegal by 1960s rules.

I only give players credit for the skillset they actually possessed. It’s unfair to create hypothetical players who never existed except in my imagination..........Maybe in a parallel timeline those things would all be different.........but that’s not actually what happened and it is unfair of us to rate players on things they never did

Except when it is, apparently.

[One_and_Done]

You just tone down your elite handle to primary schooler level. You don't have to deploy your skillset the same way in every situation.

We've never seen Steph prove he can dribble effectively in a manner that will not be considered illegal by 1960s rules.

I only give players credit for the skillset they actually possessed. It’s unfair to create hypothetical players who never existed except in my imagination..........Maybe in a parallel timeline those things would all be different.........but that’s not actually what happened and it is unfair of us to rate players on things they never did

Except when it is, apparently.

I've never seen Curry crawl on all fours, but because he can walk and run I know he can do it. Dribbling badly is just a subset of dribbling well. It's not complex to do. Now you won't be able to do as much with a more basic dribble, so we can agree it is limiting, but that's a very different point.

[trex_8063]

I've never seen Curry crawl on all fours, but because he can walk and run I know he can do it. Dribbling badly is just a subset of dribbling well. It's not complex to do. Now you won't be able to do as much with a more basic dribble, so we can agree it is limiting, but that's a very different point.

Well, at least we can agree on that much: even could Curry [or whomever] instantly master it, it would indeed be limiting. Dazzling breakdowns off the dribble, step-backs, sharp changes of direction.......these are all things that would be gone.

But I don't think he would master it, not with the instantaneous ease you imply.

It is much more complex than you assume, particularly when it comes to dribbling with any significant speed or forward momentum (can't just shove the ball out in front of you and run to catch up the way any modern player would in the open court). Changing directions with the ball is also now an entirely different animal (hell, changing direction with the shoes and floor-quality of that era would have been a completely different animal, even without the ball in your hands).

You assume he [or any modern guard] can---by sheer will---simply [and easily] override a lifetime worth of muscle memory and instinct, instantly figuring out how to not only do these things, but do them at an elite level, and without ever slipping into old [again: lifetime worth] of habits which would cause the ref to blow the whistle and turn the ball over.

Again: EVEN THOUGH YOU'VE NEVER WITNESSED THEM ATTEMPT ANYTHING OF THE SORT.

And yet you insist---with the cocksure attitude of someone who has absolute proof---that a player PROVEN capable of shooting ~45% from 20' CANNOT under any circumstance possibly shoot 35% [or perhaps even 30%??] from 4' further back.




But secondly, it isn't "dribbling badly" you silly person. Why would they dribble in any other way (when doing so will cause the ball to be turned over)? Why---oh please TELL ME WHY---would they do that?

It is dribbling within the confines of the day; nothing more, nothing less.

[Ol Roy]

Once again, a discussion is derailed by an obsession for absolute certainty (a psychological need) rather than taking the more reasonable approach of viewing things through the lenses of probability.

[The Explorer]

I'm looking at their skillsets, not their life experiences.

You should look at everything. Life experiences and skillsets go hand-in-hand. How do you not know that? Jimmy Butler started playing basketball as a way to find some stability after being kicked out of his home at age 13. Curry was raised in a 2 parent household with a dad who taught him his NBA experience. Robertson grew up in poverty in racist projects. If you think that has zero impact you are fooling yourself.

What would happen if a person was born in a different time with different experiences is just too speculative.

Which is precisely why you cannot dismiss Robertson or any older player in such a comparison. It's too speculative. So don't do it.

[One_and_Done]

You should look at everything. Life experiences and skillsets go hand-in-hand. How do you not know that? Jimmy Butler started playing basketball as a way to find some stability after being kicked out of his home at age 13. Curry was raised in a 2 parent household with a dad who taught him his NBA experience. Robertson grew up in poverty in racist projects. If you think that has zero impact you are fooling yourself.

What would happen if a person was born in a different time with different experiences is just too speculative.

Which is precisely why you cannot dismiss Robertson or any older player in such a comparison. It's too speculative. So don't do it.

I am taking a known thing (skillset), and placing it into a new environment. You are taking an unknown thing (a hypothetical player who never existed), and placing it in a new environment. The former does involve some reasonable speculation, but the latter is what I would call too speculative because both variables are imaginary.

[TT8198]

I think I saw someone else say this in this thread but I think today Cade Cunningham is a fair comp for the Big O as far as his, size skill set, and temperament. I have an infinity for big PGs so Cade is my favorite young player right now and I rarely miss a game. Cade is phenomenal player and played at All NBA level this year on top of being a great leader.

At base level Oscar is better than Cade today that's his floor in todays NBA. He's Cade if Cade ever meets his full potential. Better at finishing at the rim, better in midrange, better free throw %, and a better playmaker. Cade isn't a great 3pt shooter either but he's respectable I think Oscar could at least get to that.

All that to say given my admitted biased towards big PGs ill take a fully realized peak Cade over Steph if only for preference. You can't go wrong either way. I also think Oscar is my of a floor raiser than Steph. We've seen when Steph doesn't have adequate help he either doesn't make the playoffs entirely or flame out early and Oscar carried those Royals teams most of his career.



Sent from my SM-S916U using RealGM mobile app

[theonlyclutch]

I think I saw someone else say this in this thread but I think today Cade Cunningham is a fair comp for the Big O as far as his, size skill set, and temperament. I have an infinity for big PGs so Cade is my favorite young player right now and I rarely miss a game. Cade is phenomenal player and played at All NBA level this year on top of being a great leader.

At base level Oscar is better than Cade today that's his floor in todays NBA. He's Cade if Cade ever meets his full potential. Better at finishing at the rim, better in midrange, better free throw %, and a better playmaker. Cade isn't a great 3pt shooter either but he's respectable I think Oscar could at least get to that.

All that to say given my admitted biased towards big PGs ill take a fully realized peak Cade over Steph if only for preference. You can't go wrong either way. I also think Oscar is my of a floor raiser than Steph. We've seen when Steph doesn't have adequate help he either doesn't make the playoffs entirely or flame out early and Oscar carried those Royals teams most of his career.

Sent from my SM-S916U using RealGM mobile app

What you're basically describing is Luka Doncic/James Harden. While they're incredible players they're also distinctly not at Curry's level when it comes to impact on team success (both statistical and demonstrated).

Curry has achieved boatloads of individual and team success in today's era. Success that Oscar arguably didn't acheive in his own time. Even ignoring that there should be generous uncertainty bands for skills critical to today's era that we don't know how proficient Oscar is (3-point shooting/PnR initiation). There's only one perimeter player in today's era that has surpassed Curry in individual/team success and that's the arguable GOAT. What qualities does Oscar possess to make him the 2nd?

[penbeast0]

I think I saw someone else say this in this thread but I think today Cade Cunningham is a fair comp for the Big O as far as his, size skill set, and temperament. I have an infinity for big PGs so Cade is my favorite young player right now and I rarely miss a game. Cade is phenomenal player and played at All NBA level this year on top of being a great leader.

At base level Oscar is better than Cade today that's his floor in todays NBA. He's Cade if Cade ever meets his full potential. Better at finishing at the rim, better in midrange, better free throw %, and a better playmaker. Cade isn't a great 3pt shooter either but he's respectable I think Oscar could at least get to that.

All that to say given my admitted biased towards big PGs ill take a fully realized peak Cade over Steph if only for preference. You can't go wrong either way. I also think Oscar is my of a floor raiser than Steph. We've seen when Steph doesn't have adequate help he either doesn't make the playoffs entirely or flame out early and Oscar carried those Royals teams most of his career.



Sent from my SM-S916U using RealGM mobile app

Oscar was almost always the most efficient or at worst, one of the most efficient, scoring guards in the league with only Jerry West close for much of his career. That doesn't describe Cade at all. More of a pass first James Harden or LeBron James in terms of modern comps.

[tsherkin]

Oscar was almost always the most efficient or at worst, one of the most efficient, scoring guards in the league with only Jerry West close for much of his career. That doesn't describe Cade at all. More of a pass first James Harden or LeBron James in terms of modern comps.

I think he's probably looking at aesthetic/size more than anything else.

Oscar was considerably better at scoring, for sure, and better about protecting the ball, as best I can tell from watching. Cade has turnover problems, and he is very, very bad finishing in close... and that's somewhat damning in this era and at his size.

[The Explorer]

What would happen if a person was born in a different time with different experiences is just too speculative.

Which is precisely why you cannot dismiss Robertson or any older player in such a comparison. It's too speculative. So don't do it.

I am taking a known thing (skillset), and placing it into a new environment. You are taking an unknown thing (a hypothetical player who never existed), and placing it in a new environment. The former does involve some reasonable speculation, but the latter is what I would call too speculative because both variables are imaginary.

No. You are taking an unknown thing (Curry in the 60s) and placing him in a new environment. How did you even put him in the 60s, by time machine or was he born in the 40s? If it's by time machine you have no idea how he would respond in such an environment as I've already pointed out. If its by birth, his entire life and circumstances and knowledge of basketball changes as he becomes Dell Curry instead of Steph. Either way it's far too speculative to come to any meaningful conclusion. So you cannot speculate either way.

[tsherkin]

Which is precisely why you cannot dismiss Robertson or any older player in such a comparison. It's too speculative. So don't do it.

I am taking a known thing (skillset), and placing it into a new environment. You are taking an unknown thing (a hypothetical player who never existed), and placing it in a new environment. The former does involve some reasonable speculation, but the latter is what I would call too speculative because both variables are imaginary.

No. You are taking an unknown thing (Curry in the 60s) and placing him in a new environment. How did you even put him in the 60s, by time machine or was he born in the 40s? If it's by time machine you have no idea how he would respond in such an environment as I've already pointed out. If its by birth, his entire life and circumstances and knowledge of basketball changes as he becomes Dell Curry instead of Steph. Either way it's far too speculative to come to any meaningful conclusion. So you cannot speculate either way.

Different medical care. Probably doesn't have the same reflex/reaction training he does today, either. Doesn't have the same weight lifting regimen. Buses to games. Different rims. Different courts. Different footwear. He might not overcome his ankle problems. He's probably used more like a conventional PG than as an off-ball threat the way he is now, though there were some small guys who did that back in the day, too. No 3pt line. Tighter ref'g on palming/carrying/traveling. Some of the stuff we accept is legally not a travel would still be called as a travel back then.

Now, he could probably still smash 48% FG on floppy action and kickouts and whatever. But he definitely wouldn't be the same kind of player then as now. And even if he could immediately adjust to the handles of the time, the limitations of how they called the ball would change his mobility dramatically, without question. It would do that for any modern player, making them lean more to straight-line drives (especially since the Euro step, which is 100% not a travel, was sometimes called a travel even into the 80s) and making them a lot less laterally mobile.

Now, you can see Steph's control over the ball, so it isn't hard to envision him crossing people up like Tim Hardaway and stuff, but some of his sharper stuff wouldn't happen and he'd have to watch it a little more.

Of course, the other side of that is that he'd likely be asked to play heavier minutes, which might not go so well for his health. Didn't matter reputation wise too much to someone like West, but 38-42 mpg would definitely shorten his career the way it did to many others over previous decades.

SO many variables, as TheExplorer says. There is no known quantity on which to rest going backwards any more so than going forwards.

[One_and_Done]

Which is precisely why you cannot dismiss Robertson or any older player in such a comparison. It's too speculative. So don't do it.

I am taking a known thing (skillset), and placing it into a new environment. You are taking an unknown thing (a hypothetical player who never existed), and placing it in a new environment. The former does involve some reasonable speculation, but the latter is what I would call too speculative because both variables are imaginary.

No. You are taking an unknown thing (Curry in the 60s) and placing him in a new environment. How did you even put him in the 60s, by time machine or was he born in the 40s? If it's by time machine you have no idea how he would respond in such an environment as I've already pointed out. If its by birth, his entire life and circumstances and knowledge of basketball changes as he becomes Dell Curry instead of Steph. Either way it's far too speculative to come to any meaningful conclusion. So you cannot speculate either way.

That's obviously false. I am taking Curry from today's era, which is a known quantity, and placing him in the 60s (or taking 60s Oscar and placing him in today's game). It's a known quantity being placed into a speculative situation, not a speculative player being placed into a speculative situation. Hope that helps.

This talk of time machines is often not helpful, because in actuality you need sci-fi tech to place any player in another situation (e.g. KG on the Spurs never happened, so relies of sci-fi to work). If it helps you to conceptualise it, just imagine it like a time machine though, but with each player getting a training camp to adapt to the different league and learn how to deploy their skillset in the era they're in.

[70sFan]

That's obviously false. I am taking Curry from today's era, which is a known quantity, and placing him in the 60s (or taking 60s Oscar and placing him in today's game). It's a known quantity being placed into a speculative situation, not a speculative player being placed into a speculative situation. Hope that helps.

It's not true, because you give Curry skills he never showed on the basketball court, while rejecting the same idea for Oscar.

[OhayoKD]

What would happen if a person was born in a different time with different experiences is just too speculative.

Which is precisely why you cannot dismiss Robertson or any older player in such a comparison. It's too speculative. So don't do it.

I am taking a known thing (skillset), and placing it into a new environment. You are taking an unknown thing (a hypothetical player who never existed), and placing it in a new environment. The former does involve some reasonable speculation, but the latter is what I would call too speculative because both variables are imaginary.

This should just be copy and pasted every time someone pushes for the build-a-player approach to force era-relative conclusions in direct comparisons.