Oscar Today vs Curry in the 60's

[Djoker]

Every debate these days seemingly transitions into debating how X player would fit in Y era. And so I thought of this.

Who would be the better player if Oscar played today and Curry played in the 60's? Curry wouldn't be able to shoot 3's back then, the dribbling rules were strict and the game was super physical. Oscar on the other hand would also no doubt be like a fish out of water. But honestly I think there's definitely an argument that he adapts better than Curry does.

[tsherkin]

Hmmm.

Curry wouldn't be leading the league in scoring in the 60s, and he'd probably have much worse health problems given the differences in medical care and training and all that. He'd likely be played as more of a natural point, at which he was pretty good, but certainly not game-changing. He certainly had the speed and shooting ability to be a good scorer in-era, and he is an excellent off-ball guy, so he'd likely still be pretty good, but he'd also probably be averaging 65 games a year and have maybe more like a 12-year career with an abrupt decline as his body gave out, I imagine. Not due to the "physical play," just the inability of the in-era training regimens to help him manage his ankles and all that. And probably also spending more of his time under what would be the arc, because he'd have to drive more, run PnR more, etc, etc. But he'd also have more transition opportunities, which is nice.

Oscar had size, and more than enough athleticism for today's game. Wouldn't be elite, but his game wasn't based around that anyway. If you manage his minutes, he looks more like a 25/6/8 guy in-era, and that's probably not far off what he might be today. He'd need a 3, or he'd have some struggles, but he had power at size and knew how to use his body, and a very complete offensive game. Good range, good drive, decent handle for the time (would likely improve some when suddenly allowed to carry and palm every possession) and he was an excellent FT shooter, very clever at getting to the line.

Not likely an MVP in this era, but he'd put up some nice numbers in a helio-ish role. Dumbasses with athleticism go so far, and we're seeing what smaller guys with power and shooting touch can do with someone like Brunson. Oscar was bigger and more athletic than Jalen, so I figure he'd probably be in a similar-ish tier at worst.


Always super tough to project. With Curry, it's easy to see how much worse off he'd be for several reasons. With Oscar, it's a little tougher to envision how he'd perform in this environment. But I like to think well of him; dude IS the only guy besides Russell or Wilt to win an MVP in the 60s.

[giordunk]

Oscar today, his mold is a perfect lead guard in today's game a la Luka, SGA, Cade. On defense you can comfortably stick him 1 through 3 depending on the matchup. If the shots not falling he's a dynamic enough player to contribute in other ways on the floor. He had good shooting percentages so no reason to believe he won't at least be an average/above average shooter from 3.

Curry would still tear everyone up, his value wouldn't be as gamebreaking because he doesn't get the extra point on the 3 pointer, but it's still an absolute threat to have someone that can consistently make long jump shots. You throw Curry in a time machine and if 60s defenders saw someone pulling up from past half court and hitting consistently... I'd be scared.

[Cavsfansince84]

I'm gonna say that I think Oscar would be significantly better in today's league than Steph would be in the 60's. Like 20% better.

[tsherkin]

Oscar today, his mold is a perfect lead guard in today's game a la Luka, SGA, Cade. On defense you can comfortably stick him 1 through 3 depending on the matchup. If the shots not falling he's a dynamic enough player to contribute in other ways on the floor. He had good shooting percentages so no reason to believe he won't at least be an average/above average shooter from 3.

Dunno if I want him on 1s in this league. He didn't have what would today be considered elite lateral quicks. With some adjustment, he'd learn how to play D inside the team scheme well enough, but he wasn't exactly a top-notch defender in his own time.

Offensively, I suppose it all comes down to how he'd learn to leverage the PnR.

Curry would still tear everyone up, his value greatly diminished by only shooting two pointers, but it's still an absolute threat to have someone that can consistently bomb long jump shots. You throw Curry in a time machine and if 60s defenders saw someone pulling up from past half court and hitting consistently... I'd be scared.

Near-zero chance he pulls up from anywhere near out there without the incentive of the extra point. I know they didn't shoot sexy percentages at the time, and that he'd probably be just fine bombing away at like 40-whatever percent on his longer jumpers, but his coaches would beat him raw if he was pulling up anywhere near halfcourt.

[KembaWalker]

give me the most open minded basketball coach in the world in the 60s and tie him to a chair and force him to watch a Steph Curry shooting workout, he'd have a few performances that make LSU Maravich look small time, and then it would get interesting once they start trying to adapt. assuming this is a time machine scenario Curry could teach them enough actions to keep them ahead of the curve for a while

[Ol Roy]

Oscar seemed to be a bit of a physical freak who packed on muscle by virtue of his genetics. Sort of a comparable size and frame to Wes Unseld (before he got fatter). I can't find any evidence that he lifted weights, but he grew into a really built upper and lower body.

With today's lifting programs I could see him leaning into a strength advantage as a scorer even more, sort of like Zion Williamson (who I know lifts weights). And without giants patrolling the paint these days, why not?

Add in what by all accounts were fundamentally sound playmaking skills, and a fundamentally sound shot, and I could definitely see him being better than Luka.

As for Curry in the 60s, you have to assume he'd be right with Jerry West as the top shooter in the game. Not having the three hurts, of course. The main question is health, and the secondary question is what kind of effort he'd put in on defense, as to whether he'd be as good or better than Jerry and Oscar.

[tsherkin]

give me the most open minded basketball coach in the world in the 60s and tie him to a chair and force him to watch a Steph Curry shooting workout, he'd have a few performances that make LSU Maravich look small time, and then it would get interesting once they start trying to adapt. assuming this is a time machine scenario Curry could teach them enough actions to keep them ahead of the curve for a while

League average TS% was what, 47.9% in 1965? If you use that as a representative element, before you start considering health, handles and footwork... Steph has made 4,058 3s in his career. Without those, his career TS% goes from 62.5% to 52.5%.

So assuming that he'd be able to still just move around and take jumpers and stuff, that's still a pretty efficient player. Not game-breakingly so, but still a good player. And D out on the perimeter wouldn't be as tight, so he wouldn't have to get away with some of the stepback footwork from today which is dicey by 60s travel standards. The thing is, Steph shoots 52.4% inside the arc on his career, and 54.9% over the past decade. Odds of that happening in the 60s are pretty low, so it's likely that his efficiency erodes even further. Still, he's like a 46-47% shooter in each of the zones from 3-10, 10-16 and 16-23, so it's more likely that his finishing around the rim would suffer, for fairly obvious reasons. Dunno exactly how that'd change, don't have a TON of shooting data for the time. Jerry West, a noted slasher, shot 47.4% from the field on his career, mixing jumpers and slashing, but his efficiency was a product of his ability to draw fouls. Given Steph's proficiency with his shot, if you translate that back, he probably WOULD shoot over 47% from the field, even if you knock his rim FG% down to like 58% or whatever it might be in the 60s. It'd erode his efficiency a little beneath that 52.5%, but on about 15% of his shooting volume. So straight adjustment down to 58% actually only change's Steph's raw FG% by 1%, because he takes over half his shots from above the 3pt line, and shoots about league-average for 1965 from 3 (42.3% on his career, league-average raw FG% in 1965 was 42.6%).

(EDIT: this change drops his adjusted TS% down to... 52.4%, for reference)

Sooooooo....

Yeah. He'd probably still be pretty good. One of the better scorers in the league, even just bombing from deep. Nothing like he is today, but still quite good.

[KembaWalker]

give me the most open minded basketball coach in the world in the 60s and tie him to a chair and force him to watch a Steph Curry shooting workout, he'd have a few performances that make LSU Maravich look small time, and then it would get interesting once they start trying to adapt. assuming this is a time machine scenario Curry could teach them enough actions to keep them ahead of the curve for a while

League average TS% was what, 47.9% in 1965? If you use that as a representative element, before you start considering health, handles and footwork... Steph has made 4,058 3s in his career. Without those, his career TS% goes from 62.5% to 52.5%.

So assuming that he'd be able to still just move around and take jumpers and stuff, that's still a pretty efficient player. Not game-breakingly so, but still a good player. And D out on the perimeter wouldn't be as tight, so he wouldn't have to get away with some of the stepback footwork from today which is dicey by 60s travel standards. The thing is, Steph shoots 52.4% inside the arc on his career, and 54.9% over the past decade. Odds of that happening in the 60s are pretty low, so it's likely that his efficiency erodes even further. Still, he's like a 46-47% shooter in each of the zones from 3-10, 10-16 and 16-23, so it's more likely that his finishing around the rim would suffer, for fairly obvious reasons. Dunno exactly how that'd change, don't have a TON of shooting data for the time. Jerry West, a noted slasher, shot 47.4% from the field on his career, mixing jumpers and slashing, but his efficiency was a product of his ability to draw fouls. Given Steph's proficiency with his shot, if you translate that back, he probably WOULD shoot over 47% from the field, even if you knock his rim FG% down to like 58% or whatever it might be in the 60s. It'd erode his efficiency a little beneath that 52.5%, but on about 15% of his shooting volume. So straight adjustment down to 58% actually only change's Steph's raw FG% by 1%, because he takes over half his shots from above the 3pt line, and shoots about league-average for 1965 from 3 (42.3% on his career, league-average raw FG% in 1965 was 42.6%).

(EDIT: this change drops his adjusted TS% down to... 52.4%, for reference)

Sooooooo....

Yeah. He'd probably still be pretty good. One of the better scorers in the league, even just bombing from deep. Nothing like he is today, but still quite good.

i also think if Steph was to change up his routines to train the same kind of shots from 15-20' instead of probably spending 75% of his shooting drill time instead of full NBA 3 distance (or longer) he could probably add a couple percentage pts from those spots over a large sample size

[tsherkin]

i also think if Steph was to change up his routines to train the same kind of shots from 15-20' instead of probably spending 75% of his shooting drill time instead of full NBA 3 distance (or longer) he could probably add a couple percentage pts from those spots over a large sample size

Maybe. It's a bit different, though, because it's easier to get uncontested looks from further out, especially in a league which has no real reason to expend extra effort there. Closer to the basket, it's FAR easier for the shot blockers of the time to affect his shot as a smaller guy, and he's got more to worry about from his primary defender, and all that. Remember, he's already shooting Dirk-level nonsense percentages from those closer places, albeit in small volume, so it's not likely he'd add too much from there when you put it all together.

Still, if he was something like a +4% rTS guy on maybe 25 ppg, that'd still be nasty enough.

[One_and_Done]

Curry would fare alot better than Oscar.

[penbeast0]

Curry would fare alot better than Oscar.

Because?

It's a hard call for most people to assume any player would automatically be better than the best guard in the world (Oscar or West) in a radically different environment that takes away the player's (Curry) primary weapon. He would be a great shooter; that can easily be extrapolated from the fact that he's a great midrange shooter today. So, best guess is Jerry West (best shooter in game equivalent) with less foul draw and less defense (because West was among the greats at those two attributes when playing and Curry has never been).

Of course, he might be too fragile without modern weight, medical, equipment, (and possibly PEDs). But probably not because players who make themselves great are probably going to be great regardless of era with a very few exceptions.

[One_and_Done]

I mean, the biggest reason is that I think the talent in the 60s was terrible overall, and work from there. Curry is going to be better in large part because of how much worse his opponents are.

But the biggest reason is his long range shooting would remain a cheat code, even without a 3pt line. It goes in more efficiently than the average 60s shot, so you have to guard it all the way out there, which changes the game and opens up the floor.

Oscar on the other hand comes to an era where his athletic ability is no longer an outlier, or even top class, and he lacks a 3pt shot too. Arguably he'd be a 3rd guard without a 3.

[cpower]

give me the most open minded basketball coach in the world in the 60s and tie him to a chair and force him to watch a Steph Curry shooting workout, he'd have a few performances that make LSU Maravich look small time, and then it would get interesting once they start trying to adapt. assuming this is a time machine scenario Curry could teach them enough actions to keep them ahead of the curve for a while

League average TS% was what, 47.9% in 1965? If you use that as a representative element, before you start considering health, handles and footwork... Steph has made 4,058 3s in his career. Without those, his career TS% goes from 62.5% to 52.5%.

So assuming that he'd be able to still just move around and take jumpers and stuff, that's still a pretty efficient player. Not game-breakingly so, but still a good player. And D out on the perimeter wouldn't be as tight, so he wouldn't have to get away with some of the stepback footwork from today which is dicey by 60s travel standards. The thing is, Steph shoots 52.4% inside the arc on his career, and 54.9% over the past decade. Odds of that happening in the 60s are pretty low, so it's likely that his efficiency erodes even further. Still, he's like a 46-47% shooter in each of the zones from 3-10, 10-16 and 16-23, so it's more likely that his finishing around the rim would suffer, for fairly obvious reasons. Dunno exactly how that'd change, don't have a TON of shooting data for the time. Jerry West, a noted slasher, shot 47.4% from the field on his career, mixing jumpers and slashing, but his efficiency was a product of his ability to draw fouls. Given Steph's proficiency with his shot, if you translate that back, he probably WOULD shoot over 47% from the field, even if you knock his rim FG% down to like 58% or whatever it might be in the 60s. It'd erode his efficiency a little beneath that 52.5%, but on about 15% of his shooting volume. So straight adjustment down to 58% actually only change's Steph's raw FG% by 1%, because he takes over half his shots from above the 3pt line, and shoots about league-average for 1965 from 3 (42.3% on his career, league-average raw FG% in 1965 was 42.6%).

(EDIT: this change drops his adjusted TS% down to... 52.4%, for reference)

Sooooooo....

Yeah. He'd probably still be pretty good. One of the better scorers in the league, even just bombing from deep. Nothing like he is today, but still quite good.

i am pretty sure you calculated it wrong. Steph career TS% without three is 61.6%....how does he become a 53%TS player with elite mid range J, elite finish and best FT shooter of all time?

[tsherkin]

i am pretty sure you calculated it wrong. Steph career TS% without three is 61.6%....how does he become a 53%TS player with elite mid range J, elite finish and best FT shooter of all time?

What? No, I did the calculation fine. If all his threes were translated into 2s, he'd have lost 4058 points (1 point per 3PM). So he'd go from 25,386 points to 21,328 with the same number of FTA and FGA, which would significantly reduce his TS%. The idea that he'd lose only 0.9% off his TS% while reducing his 3pt shooting isn't accurate.

There is a separate discussion of what would happen if he redistributed some of his shooting volume into the zones where he shoots a little better than his raw 3P%, of course, but even a 5% upshift in his FG% is going to affect things only so much because he's losing out on thousands of extra points from 3 and isn't an elite FTr guy, FT% notwithstanding.

[One_and_Done]

i am pretty sure you calculated it wrong. Steph career TS% without three is 61.6%....how does he become a 53%TS player with elite mid range J, elite finish and best FT shooter of all time?

What? No, I did the calculation fine. If all his threes were translated into 2s, he'd have lost 4058 points (1 point per 3PM). So he'd go from 25,386 points to 21,328 with the same number of FTA and FGA, which would significantly reduce his TS%. The idea that he'd lose only 0.9% off his TS% while reducing his 3pt shooting isn't accurate.

There is a separate discussion of what would happen if he redistributed some of his shooting volume into the zones where he shoots a little better than his raw 3P%, of course, but even a 5% upshift in his FG% is going to affect things only so much because he's losing out on thousands of extra points from 3 and isn't an elite FTr guy, FT% notwithstanding.

On the other hand, not only can he redistribute his shots to make them optimal to the period, but he's also being guarded by much worse players which should make him even more efficient.

[tsherkin]

On the other hand, not only can he redistribute his shots to make them optimal to the period, but he's also being guarded by much worse players which should make him even more efficient.

So now we're back to your hypocrisy. You're affording a change to a player who didn't do these things, but because it's happening in reverse, you're okay with it.

Him redistributing his shots means he has to deal with his defenders in different ways, using older ball-handling rules and subjecting himself to the proximity of shot blockers on a considerably higher proportion of his scoring possessions. It's not a guarantee that he would be able to optimize his shot distribution and maintain his percentages at all. The floor geometry was a lot different back then, particularly with no corner spacing and everyone packing the paint.

[One_and_Done]

On the other hand, not only can he redistribute his shots to make them optimal to the period, but he's also being guarded by much worse players which should make him even more efficient.

So now we're back to your hypocrisy. You're affording a change to a player who didn't do these things, but because it's happening in reverse, you're okay with it.

Him redistributing his shots means he has to deal with his defenders in different ways, using older ball-handling rules and subjecting himself to the proximity of shot blockers on a considerably higher proportion of his scoring possessions. It's not a guarantee that he would be able to optimize his shot distribution and maintain his percentages at all. The floor geometry was a lot different back then, particularly with no corner spacing and everyone packing the paint.

No, as I have said a thousand times before, I grant players the actual skillset they had. They are free to deploy said skillset in whatever way is optimal. I grant old timey players the same luxury, e.g. I assume Russell would be a rim roller today.

[tsherkin]

No, as I have said a thousand times before, I grant players the actual skillset they had. They are free to deploy said skillset in whatever way is optimal. I grant old timey players the same luxury, e.g. I assume Russell would be a rim roller today.

Yes, but this is still horsecrap, because that's not how it works. Steph's shooting percentages in those zones is HEAVILY rooted in the threat of his 3, the low volume of shots he takes and the floor spacing in the modern era, as well as his ability to use ball handling maneuvers which would be entirely illegal.

So you can say the same incorrect nonsense a thousand more times, but it doesn't apply here.

[One_and_Done]

No, as I have said a thousand times before, I grant players the actual skillset they had. They are free to deploy said skillset in whatever way is optimal. I grant old timey players the same luxury, e.g. I assume Russell would be a rim roller today.

Yes, but this is still horsecrap, because that's not how it works. Steph's shooting percentages in those zones is HEAVILY rooted in the threat of his 3, the low volume of shots he takes and the floor spacing in the modern era, as well as his ability to use ball handling maneuvers which would be entirely illegal.

So you can say the same incorrect nonsense a thousand more times, but it doesn't apply here.

We don't know what a players exact percentage would be if we moved them to a different situation, that applies to trading a player today too, but we know what their actual skillset was and we can debate it from there. This is always a somewhat subjective exercise, but granting players skills they never had is where I think it gets too subjective.