Oscar Today vs Curry in the 60's

[cpower]

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.

umm no you cant just transfer 3s into long 2s. that makes no sense. Steph as one of the best scorers of all time would adjust to the game and attacking the paint more. That means a lot more close basket and he is one of the best finishing guards in league history. Also he would be training hard on long 2s which will up the % from 46 to 49%..

[penbeast0]

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.

For what it's worth, Russell wasn't primarily a rim roller offensively. Maybe in his first 5 years but then they moved him to the high post as KC Jones became the primary PG because KC didn't really have much in the way of playmaking chops so he was more of a passing hub from that point on with most of his points coming as a trailer on the break or off offensive rebounds. So basically a Jokic/Sabonis role but without the scoring.

[tsherkin]

umm no you cant just transfer 3s into long 2s. that makes no sense.

Yes, I'm aware. But that was a concession of the first portion of the discussion. And again, it's asinine to project 61% TS with him losing 4,000 points from 3s.

Steph as one of the best scorers of all time would adjust to the game and attacking the paint more.

Possible. Also instantly means considerably less health, though. Particularly in that decade. It was rough on guards, and Steph wasn't exactly healthy to begin with.

Also he would be training hard on long 2s which will up the % from 46 to 49%..

Entirely supposition, not a guarantee at all.

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.

Yes, yes, you whine about granting players skills they never had all the time. We know. But in this case, that's what you're doing with Steph. You're failing to account for the differences in how those shots would be contested in that era compared to now. No corner spacers, everyone in the paint unless you're in transition. Look at any video of Jerry West trying to shoot from 16 feet and see how close up on him his man is because there's a shot blocker right there in the middle of the key, waiting.

It'd be a VERY different environment. Steph would still do pretty well because he could literally just bomb from 25 feet and shoot league average, but there's not going to be a seamless redistribution of his shots without lost efficacy in that era.

[One_and_Done]

umm no you cant just transfer 3s into long 2s. that makes no sense.

Yes, I'm aware. But that was a concession of the first portion of the discussion. And again, it's asinine to project 61% TS with him losing 4,000 points from 3s.

Steph as one of the best scorers of all time would adjust to the game and attacking the paint more.

Possible. Also instantly means considerably less health, though. Particularly in that decade. It was rough on guards, and Steph wasn't exactly healthy to begin with.

Also he would be training hard on long 2s which will up the % from 46 to 49%..

Entirely supposition, not a guarantee at all.

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.

Yes, yes, you whine about granting players skills they never had all the time. We know. But in this case, that's what you're doing with Steph. You're failing to account for the differences in how those shots would be contested in that era compared to now. No corner spacers, everyone in the paint unless you're in transition. Look at any video of Jerry West trying to shoot from 16 feet and see how close up on him his man is because there's a shot blocker right there in the middle of the key, waiting.

It'd be a VERY different environment. Steph would still do pretty well because he could literally just bomb from 25 feet and shoot league average, but there's not going to be a seamless redistribution of his shots without lost efficacy in that era.

There would be trade offs, sure, but he's still more efficient from long range than the average player is from anywhere, so that's going to warp things regardless.

He's also going to be guarded by worse players, so if anything he'll be even more efficient.

[cpower]

umm no you cant just transfer 3s into long 2s. that makes no sense.

Yes, I'm aware. But that was a concession of the first portion of the discussion. And again, it's asinine to project 61% TS with him losing 4,000 points from 3s.

Steph as one of the best scorers of all time would adjust to the game and attacking the paint more.

Possible. Also instantly means considerably less health, though. Particularly in that decade. It was rough on guards, and Steph wasn't exactly healthy to begin with.

Also he would be training hard on long 2s which will up the % from 46 to 49%..

Entirely supposition, not a guarantee at all.

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.

Yes, yes, you whine about granting players skills they never had all the time. We know. But in this case, that's what you're doing with Steph. You're failing to account for the differences in how those shots would be contested in that era compared to now. No corner spacers, everyone in the paint unless you're in transition. Look at any video of Jerry West trying to shoot from 16 feet and see how close up on him his man is because there's a shot blocker right there in the middle of the key, waiting.

It'd be a VERY different environment. Steph would still do pretty well because he could literally just bomb from 25 feet and shoot league average, but there's not going to be a seamless redistribution of his shots without lost efficacy in that era.

if Michael Jordan can shoot 52% from midrange (10-16 ft) there is zero doubt that Steph Curry the best shooter of all time can make 50% of those shots under years of training

[tsherkin]

There would be trade offs, sure, but he's still more efficient from long range than the average player is from anywhere, so that's going to warp things regardless.

Yes, there we certainly agree. Like I said, he could bomb from deep at his career 3P% and still shoot approximately league-average FG% because he's such an adept perimeter shooter. And of course he'd still be getting some shots in transition, the odd bucket in close, some closer shots, etc. I outlined it earlier, but even a rudimentary adjustment would have him as something like a +4% rTS guy in the mid-60s.

He's also going to be guarded by worse players, so if anything he'll be even more efficient.

I mean, this matters a lot less than you think it does. He's not an elite burst athlete and his on-ball mobility takes a massive dive with the 60s dribbling rules. Plus, with the large difference in spacing, it's a totally different environment to navigate for a perimeter player. There are some sets the team could run which would help, like that down screen the Royals used to run so Oscar could get a nice FT line jumper, as well as your classic zipper cuts and pin down action and what-not, and of course Steph is a deadly C+S guy. You know, all those classic sets that were great into the early 2000s and stuff, for sure.

Steph would be great as a scorer as long as he could stay healthy, but it's just not a seamless transition, nor a simple issue of redistributing his shots into closer ranges. There'd have to be dedicated strategy to it, and the percentages would likely go down some for various reasons. But he'd still be a nightmare to guard.

[tsherkin]

if Michael Jordan can shoot 52% from midrange (10-16 ft) there is zero doubt that Steph Curry the best shooter of all time can make 50% of those shots under years of training

Jordan's 3 inches taller with considerably more strength and vertical. It's not really a comparable situation at all. That's actually a TERRIBLE point of comparison.

[Cavsfansince84]

if Michael Jordan can shoot 52% from midrange (10-16 ft) there is zero doubt that Steph Curry the best shooter of all time can make 50% of those shots under years of training

2 things worth noting:
1. Guys aren't just passed the ball and allowed to shoot however they like from 10-16 ft during a game. MJ had to work for those shots a lot of the time.
2. MJ was an 80's/90's player and this is the 60's we are talking about which makes it harder on guards to get separation and decent spacing.

[OhayoKD]

This thread shows why it's very important that this community continues to have posters constantly reminding everyone older eras and players were worse.

[DQuinn1575]

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.

A 84%+ FT shooter who scored 30+ ppg in college and finished in the top 10 in fg% in the NBA and led league in assists every year would have a 3 point shot if he played today.

[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.

A 84%+ FT shooter who scored 30+ ppg in college and finished in the top 10 in fg% in the NBA and led league in assists every year would have a 3 point shot if he played today.

And Len Bias would have been a great player if he lived. I rank guys on the skillset they actually demonstrated in the NBA, not what I imagine they could have done if their circumstances had been different.

[DQuinn1575]

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.

A 84%+ FT shooter who scored 30+ ppg in college and finished in the top 10 in fg% in the NBA and led league in assists every year would have a 3 point shot if he played today.

And Len Bias would have been a great player if he lived. I rank guys on the skillset they actually demonstrated in the NBA, not what I imagine they could have done if their circumstances had been different.

okay then, Oscar would score 30+ a game on 1 of the best True shooting ever while leading the league in assists virtually every year, be a top notch rebounder, and never when he played be called a negative defender. All while leadindga team to the top offensive rating in the league almost every year.
There you go, those are the skills he demonstrated.

[tsherkin]

This thread shows why it's very important that this community continues to have posters constantly reminding everyone older eras and players were worse.

I think this thread shows that people who crap on the older eras basically need to pipe down, because contextual differences are still important and we should have more respect for the guys who built the platform off of which later players have launched.

[One_and_Done]

A 84%+ FT shooter who scored 30+ ppg in college and finished in the top 10 in fg% in the NBA and led league in assists every year would have a 3 point shot if he played today.

And Len Bias would have been a great player if he lived. I rank guys on the skillset they actually demonstrated in the NBA, not what I imagine they could have done if their circumstances had been different.

okay then, Oscar would score 30+ a game on 1 of the best True shooting ever while leading the league in assists virtually every year, be a top notch rebounder, and never when he played be called a negative defender. All while leadindga team to the top offensive rating in the league almost every year.
There you go, those are the skills he demonstrated.

I said the skills he demonstrated, not the results he achieved. His demonstrated skillset would be woefully inadequate today. At least as far as being a star goes. He achieved what he did in the 60s because it was a barely professional proto-league with weak opponents.

[70sFan]

And Len Bias would have been a great player if he lived. I rank guys on the skillset they actually demonstrated in the NBA, not what I imagine they could have done if their circumstances had been different.

okay then, Oscar would score 30+ a game on 1 of the best True shooting ever while leading the league in assists virtually every year, be a top notch rebounder, and never when he played be called a negative defender. All while leadindga team to the top offensive rating in the league almost every year.
There you go, those are the skills he demonstrated.

I said the skills he demonstrated, not the results he achieved. His demonstrated skillset would be woefully inadequate today. At least as far as being a star goes. He achieved what he did in the 60s because it was a barely professional proto-league with weak opponents.

Which isn't the case with Kareem, Gilmore, Julius and any other old player you like. In their cases, they would translate because they achieved everything in the exact same barely professional league.

[One_and_Done]

okay then, Oscar would score 30+ a game on 1 of the best True shooting ever while leading the league in assists virtually every year, be a top notch rebounder, and never when he played be called a negative defender. All while leadindga team to the top offensive rating in the league almost every year.
There you go, those are the skills he demonstrated.

I said the skills he demonstrated, not the results he achieved. His demonstrated skillset would be woefully inadequate today. At least as far as being a star goes. He achieved what he did in the 60s because it was a barely professional proto-league with weak opponents.

Which isn't the case with Kareem, Gilmore, Julius and any other old player you like. In their cases, they would translate because they achieved everything in the exact same barely professional league.

They have different skillsets, so that tracks.

In today's league 3pt shooting at the guard spot is pretty essential for a guard, as is a modern handle. At the 5 spot your skills are much more translatable. Erving's career also barely overlapped with Oscar, and his skillset was very different.

[70sFan]

I said the skills he demonstrated, not the results he achieved. His demonstrated skillset would be woefully inadequate today. At least as far as being a star goes. He achieved what he did in the 60s because it was a barely professional proto-league with weak opponents.

Which isn't the case with Kareem, Gilmore, Julius and any other old player you like. In their cases, they would translate because they achieved everything in the exact same barely professional league.

They have different skillsets, so that tracks.

In today's league 3pt shooting at the guard spot is pretty essential for a guard, as is a modern handle. At the 5 spot your skills are much more translatable. Erving's career also barely overlapped with Oscar, and his skillset was very different.

Julius doesn't have modern handle or 3p shot. Julius was actually far worse in both regards than Oscar.

Julius peaked in 1976, which is two years after Oscar's retirement and 5 years after Oscar had his last prime season.

It is also not about bigmen skillset, because you don't use the same logic for centers from the 1960s. So please, stop pretending...

[eminence]

Zyon Pullin over Oscar all-time imo.

[capfan33]

Which isn't the case with Kareem, Gilmore, Julius and any other old player you like. In their cases, they would translate because they achieved everything in the exact same barely professional league.

They have different skillsets, so that tracks.

In today's league 3pt shooting at the guard spot is pretty essential for a guard, as is a modern handle. At the 5 spot your skills are much more translatable. Erving's career also barely overlapped with Oscar, and his skillset was very different.

Julius doesn't have modern handle or 3p shot. Julius was actually far worse in both regards than Oscar.

Julius peaked in 1976, which is two years after Oscar's retirement and 5 years after Oscar had his last prime season.

It is also not about bigmen skillset, because you don't use the same logic for centers from the 1960s. So please, stop pretending...

Yea while I agree with OaD on this topic generally, Julius Erving is a strange player to hang your hat on as somehow being able to supersede era translation given his somewhat limited skillset even for the time he played in. I honestly think there's decent chance Oscar would be better modernly.

Erving more than either West or Oscar benefitted from being a relative athletic freakshow on the perimeter in an era where there simply weren't as many. Modernly he wouldn't have nearly as big an advantage in that regard.

[One_and_Done]

We disagree on some of these points is all, but as they don't relate to Oscar I'm not going to get bogged down in them. As far as Oscar goes, modern guards need 3pt shooting and a modern handle to be stars.