For today: Curry vs Oscar

[SpreeS]

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.

I am waiting your TOP players careers CORP updated list.

[jojo4341]

TJ McConnell.

Of course, he's an athletic freak and better passer compared to Oscar.......oh, wait.... (green font implied)

Wait, you said "star" guard.
OK: Russell Westbrook.

Russ isn't a star anymore, and in the year he unjustifiably won MVP he shot 343. from the 3pt line. Russell playing well today relies very much on him being able to hit the 3pt shot to at least some level. Even Westbrick's career 3pt % is over 30%. And while McConnell isn't comfortable spamming 3s, if you leave him wide open he will hit them as his career 345 3pt% attested to.

A little late to the party...but does Ja Morant qualify? To an extent, how about Devin Booker? I realize he CAN shoot the 3, but it's not what he's known for.

[One_and_Done]

Wait, you said "star" guard.
OK: Russell Westbrook.

Russ isn't a star anymore, and in the year he unjustifiably won MVP he shot 343. from the 3pt line. Russell playing well today relies very much on him being able to hit the 3pt shot to at least some level. Even Westbrick's career 3pt % is over 30%. And while McConnell isn't comfortable spamming 3s, if you leave him wide open he will hit them as his career 345 3pt% attested to.

A little late to the party...but does Ja Morant qualify? To an extent, how about Devin Booker? I realize he CAN shoot the 3, but it's not what he's known for.

Booker is a career 354. 3pt shooter. Even Morant has shown some ability from 3, especially in his best seasons.

[tsherkin]

Even Morant has shown some ability from 3, especially in his best seasons.

Ja Morant has shot greater than 30.9% in only 2 seasons. In one of them, he played 57 games, and in the other, 67. In both, he shot 39%+ from the corners on 10%+ of his shooting volume.

Not sure if that really qualifies.

[One_and_Done]

And Oscar's 3pt shooting is 0%. 309 is alot higher than that. It's not a coincidence that when Ja shot a career best 344 from the 3pt line the Grizzlies had their most successful season; it's a big factor determining how impactful Morant is.

[tsherkin]

And Oscar's 3pt shooting is 0%. 309 is alot higher than that. It's not a coincidence that when Ja shot a career best 344 from the 3pt line the Grizzlies had their most successful season; it's a big factor determining how impactful Morant is.

It's certainly relevant to his utility. I'd be careful calling that anything but variance, though, because he's been pretty consistently bad from 3. Those seasons were his first and third in the league, and again, abbreviated heavily by injury. Hard to look at them as reliable indicators of anything. That's no different than saying "Scottie Barnes has shown some ability from 3." And you'd have to be fairly disingenuous to make that an actual argument. In the case of Morant's 2022 season, it's literally based off of hot shooting in a 6-game month. That one month swung his seasonal percentage by about 2%.

[70sFan]

And Oscar's 3pt shooting is 0%. 309 is alot higher than that.

Shaq > Oscar as a 3P shooter confirmed, after all 4.5% is a lot higher than 0%.

[70sFan]

Also:

2022 Grizzlies with Morant (34.4 3P%): 56 wins pace
2023 Grizzlies with Morant (30.7 3P%): 54 wins pace

I am sure the only explaination why the Grizzles finished with a slightly better record is because Morant made a few threes more. It's definitely that, nothing else.

[tsherkin]

And Oscar's 3pt shooting is 0%. 309 is alot higher than that.

Shaq > Oscar as a 3P shooter confirmed, after all 4.5% is a lot higher than 0%.

Heh, yeah. This whole idea that guys who are a known quantity as bad 3pt shooters are better than guys who didn't have the chance to shoot the real 3 but were known for shooting range AND being high-end FT shooters just doesn't make a lick of sense to me.

[One_and_Done]

And Oscar's 3pt shooting is 0%. 309 is alot higher than that.

Shaq > Oscar as a 3P shooter confirmed, after all 4.5% is a lot higher than 0%.

Heh, yeah. This whole idea that guys who are a known quantity as bad 3pt shooters are better than guys who didn't have the chance to shoot the real 3 but were known for shooting range AND being high-end FT shooters just doesn't make a lick of sense to me.

Did Len Bias have an athletic advantage over Steve Kerr for their NBA careers?

[tsherkin]

Shaq > Oscar as a 3P shooter confirmed, after all 4.5% is a lot higher than 0%.

Heh, yeah. This whole idea that guys who are a known quantity as bad 3pt shooters are better than guys who didn't have the chance to shoot the real 3 but were known for shooting range AND being high-end FT shooters just doesn't make a lick of sense to me.

Did Len Bias have an athletic advantage over Steve Kerr for their NBA careers?

Len Bias didn't have an NBA career, but yes, you couldn't author a sane, cogent argument that Bias wasn't more athletic than Steve Kerr prior to his death.

[70sFan]

Shaq > Oscar as a 3P shooter confirmed, after all 4.5% is a lot higher than 0%.

Heh, yeah. This whole idea that guys who are a known quantity as bad 3pt shooters are better than guys who didn't have the chance to shoot the real 3 but were known for shooting range AND being high-end FT shooters just doesn't make a lick of sense to me.

Did Len Bias have an athletic advantage over Steve Kerr for their NBA careers?

Does Shaq have a three point shooting advantage over Oscar Robertson for their NBA careers projecting forward?

[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.

I am waiting your TOP players careers CORP updated list.

At the end of the playoffs.

[One_and_Done]

Heh, yeah. This whole idea that guys who are a known quantity as bad 3pt shooters are better than guys who didn't have the chance to shoot the real 3 but were known for shooting range AND being high-end FT shooters just doesn't make a lick of sense to me.

Did Len Bias have an athletic advantage over Steve Kerr for their NBA careers?

Len Bias didn't have an NBA career, but yes, you couldn't author a sane, cogent argument that Bias wasn't more athletic than Steve Kerr prior to his death.

And do you give Bias credit for being a superior athlete etc and thus rate him above Kerr all-time? Or do you not give him credit because it never happened in actuality. Because these questions about Bias and Walton, etc, are no different in principle to West shooting 3s. Like, if he'd had the chance, maybe he'd have been good at them, and it was not his fault he never got the chance to use that ability, but in reality none of them did it. Bias never played, Walton never stayed healthy, and West never proved he was a reliable in game 3pt shooter. The reasons aren't their fault, but we can't rank guys for things they never did.

[tsherkin]

And do you give Bias credit for being a superior athlete etc and thus rate him above Kerr all-time?

Those questions have no relation to one another. Korleone Young was more athletic than Kerr, but athleticism doesn't make him a better overall player. Same same with Harold Miner and a legion of other players.

The reasons aren't their fault, but we can't rank guys for things they never did.

We can, however, make reasonable inferences.

Oscar was a career 83.8% FT shooter who twice led the league in FT% and was known for his jumpshooting ability. Anecdotally, he occasionally shot from as far as 25 feet. It isn't hard to envision him being a superior 3pt shooter to someone like Russell Westbrook. Not even projecting as elite, just a 33-35% 3pt shot on reasonable volume. That's not a particularly risque proposition.

If that sort of conversation isn't the table, then why bother to participate, if your only contribution will be this approach of yours which denies adaptation to older players (and ignores their foundational abilities) while affording unlimited adaptation to guys like Curry, who never played in the earlier environment with its various travails? That doesn't make any sense.

[One_and_Done]

And do you give Bias credit for being a superior athlete etc and thus rate him above Kerr all-time?

Those questions have no relation to one another. Korleone Young was more athletic than Kerr, but athleticism doesn't make him a better overall player. Same same with Harold Miner and a legion of other players.

The reasons aren't their fault, but we can't rank guys for things they never did.

We can, however, make reasonable inferences.

Oscar was a career 83.8% FT shooter who twice led the league in FT% and was known for his jumpshooting ability. Anecdotally, he occasionally shot from as far as 25 feet. It isn't hard to envision him being a superior 3pt shooter to someone like Russell Westbrook. Not even projecting as elite, just a 33-35% 3pt shot on reasonable volume. That's not a particularly risque proposition.

If that sort of conversation isn't the table, then why bother to participate, if your only contribution will be this approach of yours which denies adaptation to older players (and ignores their foundational abilities) while affording unlimited adaptation to guys like Curry, who never played in the earlier environment with its various travails? That doesn't make any sense.

I can infer Bias would have been an-timer if he'd played based on his skills, which I don't think anyone compares to 'Harold Miner', or that Walton would be top 10 all-time if he'd been healthy but because it never happened you can't rank them like it did. West might have been a better 3pt shooter than Draymond if he'd been given the chance to do it, but it never happened. There's no in-principle reason to grant that assumption to only West and not Walton and Bias.

Similarly, when you talk about 'adapting', why do we need to rank West on the basis that he would adapt and play differently in a different situation, but we won't give that assumption to Sheed or D.Cousins, and rate them based on being born into a situation where they were asked to play more seriously with a better attitude.

These things are all the same in principle, but people selectively decide when to tweak reality based on which guys they like or other subjective reasons. My approach on the other hand is consistent.

[70sFan]

And do you give Bias credit for being a superior athlete etc and thus rate him above Kerr all-time?

Those questions have no relation to one another. Korleone Young was more athletic than Kerr, but athleticism doesn't make him a better overall player. Same same with Harold Miner and a legion of other players.

The reasons aren't their fault, but we can't rank guys for things they never did.

We can, however, make reasonable inferences.

Oscar was a career 83.8% FT shooter who twice led the league in FT% and was known for his jumpshooting ability. Anecdotally, he occasionally shot from as far as 25 feet. It isn't hard to envision him being a superior 3pt shooter to someone like Russell Westbrook. Not even projecting as elite, just a 33-35% 3pt shot on reasonable volume. That's not a particularly risque proposition.

If that sort of conversation isn't the table, then why bother to participate, if your only contribution will be this approach of yours which denies adaptation to older players (and ignores their foundational abilities) while affording unlimited adaptation to guys like Curry, who never played in the earlier environment with its various travails? That doesn't make any sense.

I can infer Bias would have been an-timer if he'd played based on his skills, which I don't think anyone compares to 'Harold Miner', or that Walton would be top 10 all-time if he'd been healthy but because it never happened you can't rank them like it did. West might have been a better 3pt shooter than Draymond if he'd been given the chance to do it, but it never happened. There's no in-principle reason to grant that assumption to only West and not Walton and Bias.

Similarly, when you talk about 'adapting', why do we need to rank West on the basis that he would adapt and play differently in a different situation, but we won't give that assumption to Sheed or D.Cousins, and rate them based on being born into a situation where they were asked to play more seriously with a better attitude.

These things are all the same in principle, but people selectively decide when to tweak reality based on which guys they like or other subjective reasons. My approach on the other hand is consistent.

It is not, because you give modern players skills they never showcased.

[One_and_Done]

Those questions have no relation to one another. Korleone Young was more athletic than Kerr, but athleticism doesn't make him a better overall player. Same same with Harold Miner and a legion of other players.



We can, however, make reasonable inferences.

Oscar was a career 83.8% FT shooter who twice led the league in FT% and was known for his jumpshooting ability. Anecdotally, he occasionally shot from as far as 25 feet. It isn't hard to envision him being a superior 3pt shooter to someone like Russell Westbrook. Not even projecting as elite, just a 33-35% 3pt shot on reasonable volume. That's not a particularly risque proposition.

If that sort of conversation isn't the table, then why bother to participate, if your only contribution will be this approach of yours which denies adaptation to older players (and ignores their foundational abilities) while affording unlimited adaptation to guys like Curry, who never played in the earlier environment with its various travails? That doesn't make any sense.

I can infer Bias would have been an-timer if he'd played based on his skills, which I don't think anyone compares to 'Harold Miner', or that Walton would be top 10 all-time if he'd been healthy but because it never happened you can't rank them like it did. West might have been a better 3pt shooter than Draymond if he'd been given the chance to do it, but it never happened. There's no in-principle reason to grant that assumption to only West and not Walton and Bias.

Similarly, when you talk about 'adapting', why do we need to rank West on the basis that he would adapt and play differently in a different situation, but we won't give that assumption to Sheed or D.Cousins, and rate them based on being born into a situation where they were asked to play more seriously with a better attitude.

These things are all the same in principle, but people selectively decide when to tweak reality based on which guys they like or other subjective reasons. My approach on the other hand is consistent.

It is not, because you give modern players skills they never showcased.

We've discussed at length why I don't agree with that. I also give more weight to how they play in the superior modern league. Even if you didn't, dribbling through the majority of league history was closer to modern dribbling than 60s dribbling, so it'd be more valuable through a larger portion of league history even if you didn't buy backwards compatibility.

[tsherkin]

I can infer Bias would have been an-timer if he'd played based on his skills, which I don't think anyone compares to 'Harold Miner', or that Walton would be top 10 all-time if he'd been healthy but because it never happened you can't rank them like it did. West might have been a better 3pt shooter than Draymond if he'd been given the chance to do it, but it never happened. There's no in-principle reason to grant that assumption to only West and not Walton and Bias.

If by "rank" you're referring in an all-time sense, sure. But that's not really the goal ITT. The actual OP was about who you'd rather build around in today's environment.

Similarly, when you talk about 'adapting', why do we need to rank West on the basis that he would adapt and play differently in a different situation, but we won't give that assumption to Sheed or D.Cousins, and rate them based on being born into a situation where they were asked to play more seriously with a better attitude.

But this isn't really the same thing. If you take guys who were dominant in their time and clearly evidenced their work ethic, then there's basically a 0% chance that they wouldn't work towards adapting into the modern environment (that environment being a concession of this particular discussion space). You have to concede that they weren't blithering idiots, after all.

So for the sake of honest discourse with any real integrity, you have to acknowledge that there would be some level of adaptation. We've seen it from players who crossed boundaries of the sort in their actual careers. Witness Sheed and Al Horford, for example, or Brook Lopez. Even Kobe started to shoot more from 3. Now, there are contextual differences between bigs developing a spot-up jumper from 3 and a guard developing it ATB, for sure, but it isn't hard to look at guys who've shot well from the FT line and were known as jumpshooters and infer that they could develop a semi-reasonable threat from 3pt range.

We've discussed at length why I don't agree with that. I also give more weight to how they play in the superior modern league. Even if you didn't, dribbling through the majority of league history was closer to modern dribbling than 60s dribbling, so it'd be more valuable through a larger portion of league history even if you didn't buy backwards compatibility.

But again, you're failing to consider the ramifications of going backward. There's an inherent assumption that Curry would do better moving backward than these other guys would do moving forward, and there's no guarantee of that because they never did it.

Anyway, the reversal is less relevant to this thread, because it's about operating in the current environment.

So what becomes relevant is a discussion of how Oscar would translate into today's game. A tall, powerfully-built guard with high-end playmaking skills, good shooting and scoring and a strong all-around game. His efficiency in the 60s would be lightly efficient even in today's game, which ignores the ease with which guys score in the more spaced-out environment of the modern league and the developments in screen usage and such. He'd be a nightmare offensive matchup in today's game, likely even WITHOUT the development of a 3pt shot.

[70sFan]

I can infer Bias would have been an-timer if he'd played based on his skills, which I don't think anyone compares to 'Harold Miner', or that Walton would be top 10 all-time if he'd been healthy but because it never happened you can't rank them like it did. West might have been a better 3pt shooter than Draymond if he'd been given the chance to do it, but it never happened. There's no in-principle reason to grant that assumption to only West and not Walton and Bias.

Similarly, when you talk about 'adapting', why do we need to rank West on the basis that he would adapt and play differently in a different situation, but we won't give that assumption to Sheed or D.Cousins, and rate them based on being born into a situation where they were asked to play more seriously with a better attitude.

These things are all the same in principle, but people selectively decide when to tweak reality based on which guys they like or other subjective reasons. My approach on the other hand is consistent.

It is not, because you give modern players skills they never showcased.

We've discussed at length why I don't agree with that. I also give more weight to how they play in the superior modern league. Even if you didn't, dribbling through the majority of league history was closer to modern dribbling than 60s dribbling, so it'd be more valuable through a larger portion of league history even if you didn't buy backwards compatibility.

1950-75 vs 2015-25, don't buy that at all.