JJ Redick vs Jerry West

[penbeast0]

This has some flaws. Humanity hasn't evolved physically, sure... but we HAVE changed the selection process we use for NBA athletes. They ARE noticeably more athletic. That's not really a debatable point. We have specifically gone after taller, more athletic guys for decades now, so of course the base population has changed in terms of its athletic ability (in the NBA). Not because of a shift in humanity, but because the way GMs select players has changed, with purpose.

So we have taller, more athletic players with better skill development. That's... kind of inevitable, really. Built on the back of what came before. Strategy, skill development, so much based on pioneers who showed us what could be done. What was possible, etc. But there is progression, and that makes a difference.

But yeah. Humanity didn't evolve; the NBA population sample did.

Not sure the NBA sample did except for the introduction of foreign born players which was a huge boost for this century. If you were 6'5 or bigger in the USA and not built like a football lineman, someone would introduce you to basketball. If you were athletic and tall, you probably took to it. As they used to say, "You can't teach tall."

What changed is the development of players. Not so much skills as the skills were always developed in accordance with the rules of the era, but (a) weights and flexibility training, (b) diet and health issues, and (c) PEDs (legal and otherwise). The change in equipment, particularly shoes but many other lesser things as well, should also be mentioned, as should medical advances (other than PEDs).

But even in the 50s, every city block had a basketball court and virtually every rural school as well. The American version of the population sample hasn't changed that greatly.

[tsherkin]

Not sure the NBA sample did except for the introduction of foreign born players which was a huge boost for this century. If you were 6'5 or bigger in the USA and not built like a football lineman, someone would introduce you to basketball. If you were athletic and tall, you probably took to it. As they used to say, "You can't teach tall."

The introduction of foreign players is a major thing, yes.

What changed is the development of players. Not so much skills as the skills were always developed in accordance with the rules of the era, but (a) weights and flexibility training, (b) diet and health issues, and (c) PEDs (legal and otherwise). The change in equipment, particularly shoes but many other lesser things as well, should also be mentioned, as should medical advances (other than PEDs).

That is certainly also true, yes.

But even in the 50s, every city block had a basketball court and virtually every rural school as well. The American version of the population sample hasn't changed that greatly.

I specifically didn't say "American" for a reason

[Dr Positivity]

West would kill Redick in any era of basketball. The style of play and talent comp between Knicks team West played in finals and Lakers team Redick played is not really that bad considering 40 years. I mean DeBusschere and Reed is actually a better shooting frontcourt than Odom and Gasol.

Redick however might be Sharman in the 50s.

[Warspite]

Yeah, and the game hasn't evolved? Technology hasn't improved, and players don't build upon the experience and knowledge of past generations?

You could argue that basketball has evolved exactly like cars, down to the rubber on the ground.

It'd be a pretty bad argument... athletics vs technology?

Imagine someone arguing that if you took the equivalent of JJ Reddick in boxing and then saying he'd go back 60 years and he'd be more "evolved" than Muhammad Ali, George Foreman and Joe Frazier. As a boxing fan that hits me as how utterly insane that would be - are we going to argue that somehow boxing is less analogous than cars for basketball athletes?

Not at all comparable to how we would compare a modern car to an older car, or we can use computers as a more clear example.

I think using other fields is a decent analogy. Like, the average physics major today at most universities know more about physics than Isaac Newton, doesn't make them a better physicist that Newton. Or Turing and computers for example. The former is what people actually care about, the latter is dependent on many factors completely out of someone's control.

Yet 80% of college graduates cant pass the 9th grade entrance exam from 1905.


"Raw skill/talent in conjunction with work ethic, are fundamentally different from what someone accomplishes."

I disagree 100% Your accomplishments are the sum of your talent and work ethic.

[MyUniBroDavis]

It'd be a pretty bad argument... athletics vs technology?

Imagine someone arguing that if you took the equivalent of JJ Reddick in boxing and then saying he'd go back 60 years and he'd be more "evolved" than Muhammad Ali, George Foreman and Joe Frazier. As a boxing fan that hits me as how utterly insane that would be - are we going to argue that somehow boxing is less analogous than cars for basketball athletes?

Not at all comparable to how we would compare a modern car to an older car, or we can use computers as a more clear example.

I think using other fields is a decent analogy. Like, the average physics major today at most universities know more about physics than Isaac Newton, doesn't make them a better physicist that Newton. Or Turing and computers for example. The former is what people actually care about, the latter is dependent on many factors completely out of someone's control.

Yet 80% of college graduates cant pass the 9th grade entrance exam from 1905.


"Raw skill/talent in conjunction with work ethic, are fundamentally different from what someone accomplishes."

I disagree 100% Your accomplishments are the sum of your talent and work ethic.

100% of college graduates in 1905 couldnt pass a 7th grade science final today lol

[capfan33]

It'd be a pretty bad argument... athletics vs technology?

Imagine someone arguing that if you took the equivalent of JJ Reddick in boxing and then saying he'd go back 60 years and he'd be more "evolved" than Muhammad Ali, George Foreman and Joe Frazier. As a boxing fan that hits me as how utterly insane that would be - are we going to argue that somehow boxing is less analogous than cars for basketball athletes?

Not at all comparable to how we would compare a modern car to an older car, or we can use computers as a more clear example.

I think using other fields is a decent analogy. Like, the average physics major today at most universities know more about physics than Isaac Newton, doesn't make them a better physicist that Newton. Or Turing and computers for example. The former is what people actually care about, the latter is dependent on many factors completely out of someone's control.

Yet 80% of college graduates cant pass the 9th grade entrance exam from 1905.


"Raw skill/talent in conjunction with work ethic, are fundamentally different from what someone accomplishes."

I disagree 100% Your accomplishments are the sum of your talent and work ethic.

Honestly not sure what the bolded even means, I hope that college students today aren't expected to know what would have been standard over 100 years ago. As a society we have more relevant questions to ask our students than to ask about bushels of wheat and the like. Moreover, the implication of that statement is that students today are dumber than students 100 years ago in absolute terms, which we all know isn't true.

And I think your somewhat misconstruing my statement which is understandable, I could have been more clear.

It is semantics to an extent, but what I'm trying to say is that, looking at what Newton or Turing did without context isn't that impressive, physics and computers today have advanced way beyond the foundation they created. But people recognize that to have created the foundation in the 1st place, to be a pioneer, is incredibly impressive.

They don't care that the accomplishments by themselves aren't that impressive compared to todays top physicists, but to have created it in the 1st place is a signifier of exceptional ability given the constraints Newton was working within. That's what I meant. I'm not saying working hard/talent doesn't equal accomplishments. What I'm saying is that the exact nature/substance of those accomplishments is highly dependent on, you know, whether you were born in 1600 or 2000 just to name 1 factor.

[HeartBreakKid]

I think using other fields is a decent analogy. Like, the average physics major today at most universities know more about physics than Isaac Newton, doesn't make them a better physicist that Newton. Or Turing and computers for example. The former is what people actually care about, the latter is dependent on many factors completely out of someone's control.

Yet 80% of college graduates cant pass the 9th grade entrance exam from 1905.


"Raw skill/talent in conjunction with work ethic, are fundamentally different from what someone accomplishes."

I disagree 100% Your accomplishments are the sum of your talent and work ethic.

100% of college graduates in 1905 couldnt pass a 7th grade science final today lol

I mean if they took a 7th grade science course they obviously would. A bit hard to pass an exam for something you never studied for.

To put things in perspective Albert Einstein was a recent college graduate by 1905. I am pretty sure if Albert Einstein was alive today he would probably a college professor by the time he was 18.

How good would most modern college graduates do in Animal Husbandry? I reckon not well.

[HeartBreakKid]

I think using other fields is a decent analogy. Like, the average physics major today at most universities know more about physics than Isaac Newton, doesn't make them a better physicist that Newton. Or Turing and computers for example. The former is what people actually care about, the latter is dependent on many factors completely out of someone's control.

Yet 80% of college graduates cant pass the 9th grade entrance exam from 1905.


"Raw skill/talent in conjunction with work ethic, are fundamentally different from what someone accomplishes."

I disagree 100% Your accomplishments are the sum of your talent and work ethic.

Honestly not sure what the bolded even means, I hope that college students today aren't expected to know what would have been standard over 100 years ago. As a society we have more relevant questions to ask our students than to ask about bushels of wheat and the like. Moreover, the implication of that statement is that students today are dumber than students 100 years ago in absolute terms, which we all know isn't true.

And I think your somewhat misconstruing my statement which is understandable, I could have been more clear.

It is semantics to an extent, but what I'm trying to say is that, looking at what Newton or Turing did without context isn't that impressive, physics and computers today have advanced way beyond the foundation they created. But people recognize that to have created the foundation in the 1st place, to be a pioneer, is incredibly impressive.

They don't care that the accomplishments by themselves aren't that impressive compared to todays top physicists, but to have created it in the 1st place is a signifier of exceptional ability given the constraints Newton was working within. That's what I meant. I'm not saying working hard/talent doesn't equal accomplishments. What I'm saying is that the exact nature/substance of those accomplishments is highly dependent on, you know, whether you were born in 1600 or 2000 just to name 1 factor.

I don't even get what he's trying to say.

People who come from poor communities without natural resources don't do well in standardized exams either, I guess they're all naturally dumb. It's scary that in 2022 he is indirectly saying standardized tests are a representation of intelligence.

[MyUniBroDavis]

Yet 80% of college graduates cant pass the 9th grade entrance exam from 1905.


"Raw skill/talent in conjunction with work ethic, are fundamentally different from what someone accomplishes."

I disagree 100% Your accomplishments are the sum of your talent and work ethic.

100% of college graduates in 1905 couldnt pass a 7th grade science final today lol

I mean if they took a 7th grade science course they obviously would. A bit hard to pass an exam for something you never studied for.

To put things in perspective Albert Einstein was a recent college graduate by 1905. I am pretty sure if Albert Einstein was alive today he would probably a college professor by the time he was 18.

How good would most modern college graduates do in Animal Husbandry? I reckon not well.

I mean that’s kind of the point tho isn’t it lol

My interpretation of his original point was some sort of a “well maybe players weren’t worse back then”

I do think that certain skills/positions have progressed more than others maybe, but Perimeter play and especially guard play has progressed much more, and I do think the average NBA guard in the early 1960s arent nearly as good as the average D1 guard at a good school

I don’t see why everyone has a problem with reddick saying essentially they are better than players 40 years ago and in 40 years players will be better than they are now to be honest, players are great for their time, certain guys can transcend in their era and play in any era, and I think it’s valid that most people evaluate it by looking at players for their time, but I think it’s silly to think there hasn’t been a massive improvement in level of play from 1960 to 2020

[70sFan]

After finishing masters from technical physics this year, I think people don't realize how advanced physics already was in 1905. People already were taught what is taught in school, you have to study physics at university level to learn things that weren't known back then.

[HeartBreakKid]

After finishing masters from technical physics this year, I think people don't realize how advanced physics already was in 1905. People already were taught what is taught in school, you have to study physics at university level to learn things that weren't known back then.

Math oriented subjects would translate the easiest.

[HeartBreakKid]

100% of college graduates in 1905 couldnt pass a 7th grade science final today lol

I mean if they took a 7th grade science course they obviously would. A bit hard to pass an exam for something you never studied for.

To put things in perspective Albert Einstein was a recent college graduate by 1905. I am pretty sure if Albert Einstein was alive today he would probably a college professor by the time he was 18.

How good would most modern college graduates do in Animal Husbandry? I reckon not well.

I mean that’s kind of the point tho isn’t it lol

My interpretation of his original point was some sort of a “well maybe players weren’t worse back then”

I do think that certain skills/positions have progressed more than others maybe, but Perimeter play and especially guard play has progressed much more, and I do think the average NBA guard in the early 1960s arent nearly as good as the average D1 guard at a good school

I don’t see why everyone has a problem with reddick saying essentially they are better than players 40 years ago and in 40 years players will be better than they are now to be honest, players are great for their time, certain guys can transcend in their era and play in any era, and I think it’s valid that most people evaluate it by looking at players for their time, but I think it’s silly to think there hasn’t been a massive improvement in level of play from 1960 to 2020

How would people from 1905 failing a 7th grade exam be analogous to West vs Reddick? They would simply be failing a course that they never studied for which would happen to everyone.

Most college graduates today would fail a 7th grade exam without any studying - do you and warspite think most adults remember that stuff? It's just a poor example.


The last paragraph is a strawman argument. No one is saying the level of play is lower now than it was 60 years ago. People are arguing against the terrible examples being brought up. College exams and cars are not good analogies for basketball.

Saying that JJ Reddick would be great in the 1960s and then citing that Isaac Newton wouldn't know a lot about physics compared to today's society is a terrible use of logic for a multitude of reasons. That is clearly what is being argued.

[MyUniBroDavis]

I mean if they took a 7th grade science course they obviously would. A bit hard to pass an exam for something you never studied for.

To put things in perspective Albert Einstein was a recent college graduate by 1905. I am pretty sure if Albert Einstein was alive today he would probably a college professor by the time he was 18.

How good would most modern college graduates do in Animal Husbandry? I reckon not well.

I mean that’s kind of the point tho isn’t it lol

My interpretation of his original point was some sort of a “well maybe players weren’t worse back then”

I do think that certain skills/positions have progressed more than others maybe, but Perimeter play and especially guard play has progressed much more, and I do think the average NBA guard in the early 1960s arent nearly as good as the average D1 guard at a good school

I don’t see why everyone has a problem with reddick saying essentially they are better than players 40 years ago and in 40 years players will be better than they are now to be honest, players are great for their time, certain guys can transcend in their era and play in any era, and I think it’s valid that most people evaluate it by looking at players for their time, but I think it’s silly to think there hasn’t been a massive improvement in level of play from 1960 to 2020

How would people from 1905 failing a 7th grade exam be analogous to West vs Reddick? They would simply be failing a course that they never studied for which would happen to everyone.

Most college graduates today would fail a 7th grade exam without any studying - do you and warspite think most adults remember that stuff? It's just a poor example.


The last paragraph is a strawman argument. No one is saying the level of play is lower now than it was 60 years ago.

I made a snarky response to a dumb point I’m sorry I didn’t think my comment through all the way lmfao, I’m not the one that made the original point

The last paragraph is pretty valid I think, people are absolutely getting mad and talking about how players are worse today because everyone is soft and has no heart, I didn’t say “I don’t understand why realgmers are ___” did I

In any case I think we definately disagree on how big the jump is, you have it as a 1960s teams losing their two best players are a bit better than G-league level, I honestly think a 1960s team without their two best players with a week to adjust get blown out horrendously

Wasn’t warspite defending the 1960s?

[70sFan]

After finishing masters from technical physics this year, I think people don't realize how advanced physics already was in 1905. People already were taught what is taught in school, you have to study physics at university level to learn things that weren't known back then.

Math oriented subjects would translate the easiest.

True and to understand general relativity or quantum mechanics at the basic level, you need 19th century math, nothing more. The bigger problem is related to interpretations of these theories, but everybody have problems with that at the beginning.

As you go deeper, you can get into nuances that are beyond the reach of 1900s students, but 99.9% of society have no idea about it anyway. Only fully professional physicists go beyond what 1900s students could understand without significant improvement of their knowledge... and again, those students would be capable of learning new things.

[Warspite]

I mean that’s kind of the point tho isn’t it lol

My interpretation of his original point was some sort of a “well maybe players weren’t worse back then”

I do think that certain skills/positions have progressed more than others maybe, but Perimeter play and especially guard play has progressed much more, and I do think the average NBA guard in the early 1960s arent nearly as good as the average D1 guard at a good school

I don’t see why everyone has a problem with reddick saying essentially they are better than players 40 years ago and in 40 years players will be better than they are now to be honest, players are great for their time, certain guys can transcend in their era and play in any era, and I think it’s valid that most people evaluate it by looking at players for their time, but I think it’s silly to think there hasn’t been a massive improvement in level of play from 1960 to 2020

How would people from 1905 failing a 7th grade exam be analogous to West vs Reddick? They would simply be failing a course that they never studied for which would happen to everyone.

Most college graduates today would fail a 7th grade exam without any studying - do you and warspite think most adults remember that stuff? It's just a poor example.


The last paragraph is a strawman argument. No one is saying the level of play is lower now than it was 60 years ago.

I made a snarky response to a dumb point I’m sorry I didn’t think my comment through all the way lmfao, I’m not the one that made the original point

The last paragraph is pretty valid I think, people are absolutely getting mad and talking about how players are worse today because everyone is soft and has no heart, I didn’t say “I don’t understand why realgmers are ___” did I

In any case I think we definately disagree on how big the jump is, you have it as a 1960s teams losing their two best players are a bit better than G-league level, I honestly think a 1960s team without their two best players with a week to adjust get blown out horrendously

Wasn’t warspite defending the 1960s?

Education is just a horrible example. Most colleges today teach 1970-1990 middle school classes with reports being written on what many would consider elementary school level. I have no doubt that one needs more education as time goes on simply because one is learning less and less as they are being taught. IMHO someone with a 1995 high school diploma has as much education as a college graduate born after1995.

"We used to teach Russian, French and German in high school and now we teach English in college."

I just find it extremely hard to believe that in a country where 40% of all military age men are too obese for military service that these same men have physically evolved to the point that elite athletes from just a generation or 2 ago couldn't compete with non-elites of today. I don't recall any men born in the 1930s and 40s stepping on my neighborhood courts and playing when I was in high school. I see men my age outplaying these kids today and I wonder if sports even have a future.
I played high school ball
I played high school kids in my 20s, 30s, 40s and 50s. Im not half the player I was but color me unimpressed by the mutant X men of today.

[picko]

Jerry West was the best white American player in the NBA for much of his career and, perhaps surprisingly, JJ Redick was one of the top handful of white American players at his peak. That is to say, that Redick is perhaps more exceptional within that demographic than you might initially anticipate.

If you were to replicate the 1960s era NBA with modern NBA players - so no foreign athletes, overwhelmingly white, 10-12 teams - it's not a stretch to suggest that Redick would be a regular All-Star. It's worth remembering that in order to come up with the 70 to 100 white Americans necessary to replicate the 1960s you'd need to source talent from the G-League or elsewhere in the US. There isn't even close to enough in the current NBA.

Of course, that isn't going to be sufficient to supplant West. There is no evidence that Redick could have the same rebounding or playmaking or defensive impact that West had. Redick wasn't even doing those things at collegiate level. Redick would, however, be a very high scoring guard throughout that earlier era.

[70sFan]

Jerry West was the best white American player in the NBA for much of his career and, perhaps surprisingly, JJ Redick was one of the top handful of white American players at his peak. That is to say, that Redick is perhaps more exceptional within that demographic than you might initially anticipate.

If you were to replicate the 1960s era NBA with modern NBA players - so no foreign athletes, overwhelmingly white, 10-12 teams - it's not a stretch to suggest that Redick would be a regular All-Star. It's worth remembering that in order to come up with the 70 to 100 white Americans necessary to replicate the 1960s you'd need to source talent from the G-League or elsewhere in the US. There isn't even close to enough in the current NBA.

Of course, that isn't going to be sufficient to supplant West. There is no evidence that Redick could have the same rebounding or playmaking or defensive impact that West had. Redick wasn't even doing those things at collegiate level. Redick would, however, be a very high scoring guard throughout that earlier era.

The league was half black by 1965 and the number of black players increased in the late 1960s. These were West's best years.

Would you use identical reasoning for Redick in the 1980s vs Larry Bird? Because the difference in talent pool is basically minimal between the late 1960s and mid 1980s. Do you view Redick as a regular all-star during Bird's peak years?

[MyUniBroDavis]

How would people from 1905 failing a 7th grade exam be analogous to West vs Reddick? They would simply be failing a course that they never studied for which would happen to everyone.

Most college graduates today would fail a 7th grade exam without any studying - do you and warspite think most adults remember that stuff? It's just a poor example.


The last paragraph is a strawman argument. No one is saying the level of play is lower now than it was 60 years ago.

I made a snarky response to a dumb point I’m sorry I didn’t think my comment through all the way lmfao, I’m not the one that made the original point

The last paragraph is pretty valid I think, people are absolutely getting mad and talking about how players are worse today because everyone is soft and has no heart, I didn’t say “I don’t understand why realgmers are ___” did I

In any case I think we definately disagree on how big the jump is, you have it as a 1960s teams losing their two best players are a bit better than G-league level, I honestly think a 1960s team without their two best players with a week to adjust get blown out horrendously

Wasn’t warspite defending the 1960s?

Education is just a horrible example. Most colleges today teach 1970-1990 middle school classes with reports being written on what many would consider elementary school level. I have no doubt that one needs more education as time goes on simply because one is learning less and less as they are being taught. IMHO someone with a 1995 high school diploma has as much education as a college graduate born after1995.

"We used to teach Russian, French and German in high school and now we teach English in college."

I just find it extremely hard to believe that in a country where 40% of all military age men are too obese for military service that these same men have physically evolved to the point that elite athletes from just a generation or 2 ago couldn't compete with non-elites of today. I don't recall any men born in the 1930s and 40s stepping on my neighborhood courts and playing when I was in high school. I see men my age outplaying these kids today and I wonder if sports even have a future.
I played high school ball
I played high school kids in my 20s, 30s, 40s and 50s. Im not half the player I was but color me unimpressed by the mutant X men of today.

Ok no we are not about to say players are worse today lmao

Using guys that play pickup or highschool ball as evidence is a pretty bad example, it’s like me saying bob cousy is a D2 level player from his highlight reel

Most high schools don’t have some sort of state of the art 100% super advanced training, and a lot of athletics are genetic related. Most of top tier athleticism is genetic related if they aren’t like unable to get food or anything, training helps but outside of just jumping around a lot growing up, Lebron born in 1960 is still a GOAT tier athlete, as is wilt born today, you don’t like see wilts vertical going up to 65 inches.

Otoh on average there is a difference, for example I remember west was called a great leaper for being able to reach 16 inches above the rim, given his true measurements (6ft4.5 barefoot 6ft9 wingspan) that’s a below average nba shooting guard according to draft express, (his wingspan and height both are slightly above average as a shooting guard).

I don’t think there’s such an athletic gap that the top athletic guys of back then don’t compare to the guys of today, I think there’s an athletic gap that the average player in the 1960s clearly isn’t athletic as the average player in 2020,

Otoh vs typical high school players, grown man strength>>>, but typical high school players are kind of trash lol.

The gap between 1960s vs modern basketball is much more skill based than athleticism based, I think athleticism has increased but as a whole, outside of maybe footwork in the post, there are so many things that 1950-70 basketball was just inferior at and most of them relate to guard play

Yes, a lot of this is due to rules, so 1960s guards didnt develop their handles like the modern guys do, and shooting form was just not really perfected yet, and it’s hard to ignore that modern guards definately are more creative around the rim and look a lot less awkward finishing

I think that the gaps between positions havent uniformly increased for sure, the average point guard today has a much larger gap between the average point guard in 1960 than center.

It’s just if you break down guard play into categories or whatever, it’s hard to see where modern guys don’t completely blow 1960s guys out of the water in general, like shooting is probably the area where it’s the closest ironically (I’d say finishing but honestly that pops out more than them shooting set shots, and ball handling is just like a chasm)

This isn’t to say reddick over west, I mean reddicks a catch and shoot guy and I didn’t watch him at duke because 2007 to know if he was way different

Like players are just better today than during the early periods of the nba, this shows up the most in guard play. Basketball is a game where you emulate the past players and improve or attempt to improve upon them, We can argue about the gap but that they’re better isn’t debatable

If we’re talking about west’s athleticism, we just can’t really say anything definitive

he was athletic relative to his peers, we can’t say much more than that unless we’re gonna start calling 50 year eye test comparisons to today valid, and his max vert given his frame was below average. On film he looks fine, calling him an awkward White dude who could just shoot is wrong, as would calling him some sort of generational genetic freak in an absolute sense would be as well, but it’s hard to make any solid conclusions from it, especially since people didn’t do crazy dunks back then, palming rules made it harder to go top speed as much, etc etc. I think one must take those considerations into account, but then quotes about his athleticism being decades old and in comparison to substantially worse competition (I’m curious why it’s assumed the field will be the same? I feel people are glancing over this, it would be suprising if as many people wanted to play basketball born in the 1940s than in the 2000s, and there’s gonna be more people trying to go for a job that has an average salary of 4 million than 150k

[Johnlac1]

West would kill Redick in any era of basketball. The style of play and talent comp between Knicks team West played in finals and Lakers team Redick played is not really that bad considering 40 years. I mean DeBusschere and Reed is actually a better shooting frontcourt than Odom and Gasol.

Redick however might be Sharman in the 50s.

I don't think he's as good of an athlete as Sharman. He's a better shooter and gets his shot off quicker, but he's not as good all-around as Sharman. He'd be a mediocre athlete sixty years ago.

[Johnlac1]

Jerry West was the best white American player in the NBA for much of his career and, perhaps surprisingly, JJ Redick was one of the top handful of white American players at his peak. That is to say, that Redick is perhaps more exceptional within that demographic than you might initially anticipate.

If you were to replicate the 1960s era NBA with modern NBA players - so no foreign athletes, overwhelmingly white, 10-12 teams - it's not a stretch to suggest that Redick would be a regular All-Star. It's worth remembering that in order to come up with the 70 to 100 white Americans necessary to replicate the 1960s you'd need to source talent from the G-League or elsewhere in the US. There isn't even close to enough in the current NBA.

Of course, that isn't going to be sufficient to supplant West. There is no evidence that Redick could have the same rebounding or playmaking or defensive impact that West had. Redick wasn't even doing those things at collegiate level. Redick would, however, be a very high scoring guard throughout that earlier era.

Redick would be just a mediocre athlete sixty years ago. The only think he's got going for him is he can get his shot off quickly and accurately.
But there was no three point shot in the sixties so that takes away some of his worth. So since most teams worked to get ball close to the basket, strictly jump shooting Redick would not be that valuable. Defensively he'd still have problems.