For today: Curry vs Oscar

[tsherkin]

I think I was being generous with the Demar comp tbh:
https://youtu.be/H0-Iz6fQRAE?si=-ypWJ6Lr5CVdUaZn

Not sure what about that video made you decide he looks worse than Demar, tbh.

Obviously we're seeing different things. The guy I'm watching doesn't look special at all.

You're seeing him take foul-line pull-ups in a fairly limited sequence. Efficacy doesn't always have to come from overwhelming athletic dominance. You can't really tell much of anything from that video, tbh. Great outlet passer and in transition as well, great post-up guard. Great mid-range shooter. Had about as good a handle as you were allowed to in the 60s. Good rebounder in traffic. Had a nice tempo-change dribble drive. He had a very deliberate and patient game.

You might not find that impressive, but I would count that a failing.

[One_and_Done]

Not sure what about that video made you decide he looks worse than Demar, tbh.

Obviously we're seeing different things. The guy I'm watching doesn't look special at all.

You're seeing him take foul-line pull-ups in a fairly limited sequence. Efficacy doesn't always have to come from overwhelming athletic dominance. You can't really tell much of anything from that video, tbh. Great outlet passer and in transition as well, great post-up guard. Great mid-range shooter. Had about as good a handle as you were allowed to in the 60s. Good rebounder in traffic. Had a nice tempo-change dribble drive. He had a very deliberate and patient game.

You might not find that impressive, but I would count that a failing.

I'm talking about footage of Oscar in general. Happy to link more. If anyone has seen footage of him looking better, feel free to post it.

[tsherkin]

Obviously we're seeing different things. The guy I'm watching doesn't look special at all.

You're seeing him take foul-line pull-ups in a fairly limited sequence. Efficacy doesn't always have to come from overwhelming athletic dominance. You can't really tell much of anything from that video, tbh. Great outlet passer and in transition as well, great post-up guard. Great mid-range shooter. Had about as good a handle as you were allowed to in the 60s. Good rebounder in traffic. Had a nice tempo-change dribble drive. He had a very deliberate and patient game.

You might not find that impressive, but I would count that a failing.

I'm talking about footage of Oscar in general. Happy to link more. If anyone has seen footage of him looking better, feel free to post it.

Again, though, I think my remarks stand. He isn't what you'd call an especially exciting player... but neither was Tim Duncan. Not just coincidentally, also known as a guy who built his game around very strong fundamentals and a general absence of flash.

[One_and_Done]

You're seeing him take foul-line pull-ups in a fairly limited sequence. Efficacy doesn't always have to come from overwhelming athletic dominance. You can't really tell much of anything from that video, tbh. Great outlet passer and in transition as well, great post-up guard. Great mid-range shooter. Had about as good a handle as you were allowed to in the 60s. Good rebounder in traffic. Had a nice tempo-change dribble drive. He had a very deliberate and patient game.

You might not find that impressive, but I would count that a failing.

I'm talking about footage of Oscar in general. Happy to link more. If anyone has seen footage of him looking better, feel free to post it.

Again, though, I think my remarks stand. He isn't what you'd call an especially exciting player... but neither was Tim Duncan. Not just coincidentally, also known as a guy who built his game around very strong fundamentals and a general absence of flash.

Duncan plays a position where you don't need speed or hops as much. Oscar plays a position where athleticism, shake, 3pt shooting, dribbling, body control, etc, is essential. I see none of that in the footage of Oscar that is available, not at an elite level certainty.

[tsherkin]

Duncan plays a position where you don't need speed or hops as much. Oscar plays a position where athleticism, shake, 3pt shooting, dribbling, body control, etc, is essential. I see none of that in the footage of Oscar that is available, not at an elite level certainty.

I think a lot of that is assumption based on common archetype. I think we've seen a bunch of guys who very much don't stun with athleticism, nor particularly long chains of advanced ball-handling manevuers, do just fine. I see the body control in Oscar just fine. I see his use of his body, his shot-making ability (particularly given his diet of shots) and his change of pace action all looks fine to me.

Essentially, I think you're overselling athleticism, flashy handles and 3pt shooting, while flatly ignoring a whole pile of Oscar's strengths.

[One_and_Done]

Duncan plays a position where you don't need speed or hops as much. Oscar plays a position where athleticism, shake, 3pt shooting, dribbling, body control, etc, is essential. I see none of that in the footage of Oscar that is available, not at an elite level certainty.

I think a lot of that is assumption based on common archetype. I think we've seen a bunch of guys who very much don't stun with athleticism, nor particularly long chains of advanced ball-handling manevuers, do just fine. I see the body control in Oscar just fine. I see his use of his body, his shot-making ability (particularly given his diet of shots) and his change of pace action all looks fine to me.

Essentially, I think you're overselling athleticism, flashy handles and 3pt shooting, while flatly ignoring a whole pile of Oscar's strengths.

He'd be fine today. Just fine. But not a star.

[tsherkin]

He'd be fine today. Just fine. But not a star.

Nah, he'd definitely be a star today.

[Ol Roy]

We have Jokic and Doncic lumbering around dominating, Harden and Paul still being very effective playmakers despite losing their athleticism, and we're debating whether Oscar has enough physical ability to be a star (let alone superstar) today?

More tired absurdities.

[One_and_Done]

We have Jokic and Doncic lumbering around dominating, Harden and Paul still being very effective playmakers despite losing their athleticism, and we're debating whether Oscar has enough physical ability to be a star (let alone superstar) today?

More tired absurdities.

Oscar's game looks absolutely nothing like any of those 4 players.

[Ol Roy]

We have Jokic and Doncic lumbering around dominating, Harden and Paul still being very effective playmakers despite losing their athleticism, and we're debating whether Oscar has enough physical ability to be a star (let alone superstar) today?

More tired absurdities.

Oscar's game looks absolutely nothing like any of those 4 players.

And to conclude that Oscar's game looks "absolutely nothing" like those four, I'm sure you're drawing upon the handicapped player you've created. After all, someone with a 0% 3P rate can't really be compared to anyone but a rim runner, right?

"Given his lack of a proven 3pt shot he'd likely come off thr bench for most teams."

You talk a lot about imaginary players, but the lengths you go to stay within your certainty paradigm creates handicapped players that would not actually exist in reality. Oscar Robertson in 2025 would not be bound to the artificial constraints of a RealGM poster who thinks routine adaption from elite players is "too speculative" and on par with Len Bias cheating death.

What is actually *likely* is that Robertson would be a fine 3P shooter today based on what we know about shooting. A certainty? No. There are few certainties in life, even in some of the most serious matters like criminal justice and medicine, and the standard of certainty is an asinine way to analyze sports. Forget historical players. Players today are analyzed and projected based on probabilities and educated inferences. "But DeMar DeRozan" isn't a probability. It's not even a valid argument, just cherry picking in the extreme.

There are exactly zero people in the professional sports world who think like you do. You are on an island, which should invite introspection of your ideas, but it evidently doesn't.

[One_and_Done]

Even the non-3pt shooting aspects of Oscar's game look nothing like any of those 4 players.

But you are entitled to use your methodology of rating players on how you imagine they'd have played, and I will rate them based on the skillsets they actually had.

[70sFan]

I'm linking it because the way some people are talking I have to wonder if they've seen Oscar play. He looks worse than Demar if we're being at all honest.

You base it on 2 minutes video?

No. But I can post a 10 minute one if you like.

I think some people here don't base players abilities on random few minutes montages (cause yes, we don't have true highlights from the 1960s). I know it's a crazy idea that you watch games when you want to learn anything about talked player, but some posters truly do that, it's not impossible.

I don't blame you that you don't watch 1960s games though, based on your players characterization you likely haven't been watching even 21st century basketball, so I shouldn't expect that.

[Ol Roy]

Even the non-3pt shooting aspects of Oscar's game look nothing like any of those 4 players.

But you are entitled to use your methodology of rating players on how you imagine they'd have played, and I will rate them based on the skillsets they actually had.

I do rate players based on the skillsets they actually had. Shooting is a skill.

When people apply for jobs, they list their skills on their resume, especially those relevant and applicable to the position they are applying for, even though they may not have direct experience with the exact tasks that the position will entail. The employer doesn't assume that considering prior related skills from applicants is too speculative, or that they should only hire people who have already worked at their company in that position. Again, I try to highlight the absurdity of your methods.

I don't rate Oscar Robertson as a three-pointer shooter. But when the exercise begs an answer of how his shooting would translate, I make a commonsense attempt to answer that.

You assert that positing any adaptation is too speculative. At that point, you should recuse yourself from the thought exercise entirely.

But instead, you then create a handicapped player and assess how that player with artificial constraints would perform. That works in a video game where you turn skill sliders off. It doesn't work in the real world of practice and training. "N/A" is for dropdown menus, not people. 2025 Oscar Robertson wouldn't be tagged with a shock collar that zaps him any time he attempts a shot from behind the arc. Eliminating "speculation" doesn't actually provide a rational answer to how real people in real life would translate. It's a copout under the guise of a method.

Your supposed strenuous opposition to speculation (even though you will turn around and speculate when it suits you) should, as I said, lead you to recuse yourself from cross-era comparisons, because it is by definition speculative. Instead, these are the threads you love to derail the most. And it's evident to all that your real agenda is to crap on older players. And there is nothing wrong with that, it's just objectionable that every thread has to be consumed with debating your faulty methodology and axioms instead of the pros and cons of the players themselves.

[One_and_Done]

You base it on 2 minutes video?

No. But I can post a 10 minute one if you like.

I think some people here don't base players abilities on random few minutes montages (cause yes, we don't have true highlights from the 1960s). I know it's a crazy idea that you watch games when you want to learn anything about talked player, but some posters truly do that, it's not impossible.

I don't blame you that you don't watch 1960s games though, based on your players characterization you likely haven't been watching even 21st century basketball, so I shouldn't expect that.

Based on your posts I'm not sure you are watching the same games the rest of us are. I have no idea how anyone can watch footage of Oscar and think a reasonable comp for him is Lebron. You might as well compare Jokic to Bogut because they are both white and play the 5.

[One_and_Done]

Even the non-3pt shooting aspects of Oscar's game look nothing like any of those 4 players.

But you are entitled to use your methodology of rating players on how you imagine they'd have played, and I will rate them based on the skillsets they actually had.

I do rate players based on the skillsets they actually had. Shooting is a skill.

When people apply for jobs, they list their skills on their resume, especially those relevant and applicable to the position they are applying for, even though they may not have direct experience with the exact tasks that the position will entail. The employer doesn't assume that considering prior related skills from applicants is too speculative, or that they should only hire people who have already worked at their company in that position. Again, I try to highlight the absurdity of your methods.

I don't rate Oscar Robertson as a three-pointer shooter. But when the exercise begs an answer of how his shooting would translate, I make a commonsense attempt to answer that.

You assert that positing any adaptation is too speculative. At that point, you should recuse yourself from the thought exercise entirely.

But instead, you then create a handicapped player and assess how that player with artificial constraints would perform. That works in a video game where you turn skill sliders off. It doesn't work in the real world of practice and training. "N/A" is for dropdown menus, not people. 2025 Oscar Robertson wouldn't be tagged with a shock collar that zaps him any time he attempts a shot from behind the arc. Eliminating "speculation" doesn't actually provide a rational answer to how real people in real life would translate. It's a copout under the guise of a method.

Your supposed strenuous opposition to speculation (even though you will turn around and speculate when it suits you) should, as I said, lead you to recuse yourself from cross-era comparisons, because it is by definition speculative. Instead, these are the threads you love to derail the most. And it's evident to all that your real agenda is to crap on older players. And there is nothing wrong with that, it's just objectionable that every thread has to be consumed with debating your faulty methodology and axioms instead of the pros and cons of the players themselves.

If someone's resume says they were an expert at building typewriters, I wouldn't assume that means they can build computers.

You need to stop taking people disagreeing with you so personally. I have the same feeling of bemusement when people on here compare old guys like Oscar to Lebron. If Oscar wasn't 'a legend', and scouts were told this guy played in a local YMCA team who could only afford old shoes and dodgy cameras, they'd look at this footage and say he wasn't a top level prospect.

If people favouring old timers aren't going to recuse themselves, it's unclear why those who don't should. It's just an attempt to claim one view is more valid than the other. I feel the opposite.

[70sFan]

No. But I can post a 10 minute one if you like.

I think some people here don't base players abilities on random few minutes montages (cause yes, we don't have true highlights from the 1960s). I know it's a crazy idea that you watch games when you want to learn anything about talked player, but some posters truly do that, it's not impossible.

I don't blame you that you don't watch 1960s games though, based on your players characterization you likely haven't been watching even 21st century basketball, so I shouldn't expect that.

Based on your posts I'm not sure you are watching the same games the rest of us are. I have no idea how anyone can watch footage of Oscar and think a reasonable comp for him is Lebron. You might as well compare Jokic to Bogut because they are both white and play the 5.

Thankfully I am not the one who compares James with Oscar. I am also not someone who says Kobe Bryant doesn't have much of an off-ball game.

I certainly don't watch the same games you do, because I actually watch games unlike you.

[Outside]

I think some people here don't base players abilities on random few minutes montages (cause yes, we don't have true highlights from the 1960s). I know it's a crazy idea that you watch games when you want to learn anything about talked player, but some posters truly do that, it's not impossible.

I don't blame you that you don't watch 1960s games though, based on your players characterization you likely haven't been watching even 21st century basketball, so I shouldn't expect that.

Based on your posts I'm not sure you are watching the same games the rest of us are. I have no idea how anyone can watch footage of Oscar and think a reasonable comp for him is Lebron. You might as well compare Jokic to Bogut because they are both white and play the 5.

Thankfully I am not the one who compares James with Oscar. I am also not someone who says Kobe Bryant doesn't have much of an off-ball game.

I certainly don't watch the same games you do, because I actually watch games unlike you.

AFAIK, I'm the one who compared Oscar's game to LeBron regarding the comparison that this thread is supposed to be about, and I stand by that. When compared to Curry, Oscar was much more like LeBron in that he used his size, strength, and skill to do whatever he wanted to do on the court. Curry, on the other hand, doesn't overpower anyone with size and strength.

I'm not equating Oscar and LeBron, but certain aspects of their games are similar, and I thought that it was useful to point that out regarding the Curry v Oscar comparison. But nuance like that has gotten lost here because the thread has been turned into nonsensical arguments about prior eras and others spending all their time rebutting those arguments instead of actually discussing the thread topic.

[penbeast0]

If someone's resume says they were an expert at building typewriters, I wouldn't assume that means they can build computers.

You need to stop taking people disagreeing with you so personally. I have the same feeling of bemusement when people on here compare old guys like Oscar to Lebron. If Oscar wasn't 'a legend', and scouts were told this guy played in a local YMCA team who could only afford old shoes and dodgy cameras, they'd look at this footage and say he wasn't a top level prospect.

If people favouring old timers aren't going to recuse themselves, it's unclear why those who don't should. It's just an attempt to claim one view is more valid than the other. I feel the opposite.

If someone's resume said they were an expert on computer hardware, you assume they'd be able to repair a typewriter.

I don't think anyone currently posting here favors older players, just you assume all older players were plumbers and milkmen to quote J.J.Reddick (or all except the obvious 7'+ offensive scorers like Wilt and Kareem). As the Reddick quote shows, you aren't alone in this assumption but those of us who watched older players and saw them dominate the league have different assumptions than you do.

[Cavsfansince84]

If someone's resume said they were an expert on computer hardware, you assume they'd be able to repair a typewriter.

I don't think anyone currently posting here favors older players, just you assume all older players were plumbers and milkmen to quote J.J.Reddick (or all except the obvious 7'+ offensive scorers like Wilt and Kareem). As the Reddick quote shows, you aren't alone in this assumption but those of us who watched older players and saw them dominate the league have different assumptions than you do.

I agree though I also think its kind of silly how almost every single 'how good would player x be today' thread gets dragged down into this same kind of argument with OneandDone. Not that I think he's a terrible poster or needs a ban or anything but it's just so self defeating to even try and debate this stuff with him. We've all seen it done countless times and it accomplishes nothing with him because he's so set in his views on older players.

[One_and_Done]

If someone's resume says they were an expert at building typewriters, I wouldn't assume that means they can build computers.

You need to stop taking people disagreeing with you so personally. I have the same feeling of bemusement when people on here compare old guys like Oscar to Lebron. If Oscar wasn't 'a legend', and scouts were told this guy played in a local YMCA team who could only afford old shoes and dodgy cameras, they'd look at this footage and say he wasn't a top level prospect.

If people favouring old timers aren't going to recuse themselves, it's unclear why those who don't should. It's just an attempt to claim one view is more valid than the other. I feel the opposite.

If someone's resume said they were an expert on computer hardware, you assume they'd be able to repair a typewriter.

I don't think anyone currently posting here favors older players, just you assume all older players were plumbers and milkmen to quote J.J.Reddick (or all except the obvious 7'+ offensive scorers like Wilt and Kareem). As the Reddick quote shows, you aren't alone in this assumption but those of us who watched older players and saw them dominate the league have different assumptions than you do.

You actually got it backwards and made my argument for me. It's not unreasonable to think a computer hardware expert can fix a typewriter, but it's preposterous to assume the reverse. The former is backwards compatibility, and why it's generally easier to do so. The latter is forwards compatibility, which is dubious.