Oscar Today vs Curry in the 60's

[theonlyclutch]

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.

They have been given plenty of respect, more than they arguably deserve in this thread already.

If some are gonna assume that the median level of NBA basketball in the 60s (top-to-bottom, i.e role players) is even close to now given everything that has transpired with the league in the meantime then there's not much point in debating the ability of players from that era to time-travel here (and vice versa) other than "agree-to-disagree" given the starting points of the posters are so different.

[penbeast0]

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.

They have been given plenty of respect, more than they arguably deserve in this thread already.

If some are gonna assume that the median level of NBA basketball in the 60s (top-to-bottom, i.e role players) is even close to now given everything that has transpired with the league in the meantime then there's not much point in debating the ability of players from that era to time-travel here (and vice versa) other than "agree-to-disagree" given the starting points of the posters are so different.

I don't think anyone is assuming that the median level of NBA basketball is equivalent. But Oscar's advantage over those median level players was at the level of prime LeBron, he and Jerry West separated themselves from the rest of the guards that played significant time in the 60s by a huge margin (Sam Jones and Hal Greer would be the next two). Then you add in that you are taking Curry's main weapon away; like saying Kyrie can't dribble but can only catch and shoot. And still people are giving Curry's midrange scoring abilities a ton of credit and assuming he can adapt; just probably not quite at the level of Oscar Robertson or Jerry West. More at the level of a Rick Barry.

I also don't think people are assuming time travel which would significantly nerf Curry's abilities. He's spent a lifetime and millions of hours of practice training certain habits of dribbling, of going to the basket, of catching the ball on the move, that if you time travelled him they would betray him into a lot of carry and travel calls. Plus with canvas sneakers and often uneven floors, leaping and cutting with modern abandon would probably get him injured quite quickly. Instead, we are assuming Curry grew up playing 60s basketball with all the equivalent skills and training that other top players received and maximizes his game for that era.

[theonlyclutch]

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.

They have been given plenty of respect, more than they arguably deserve in this thread already.

If some are gonna assume that the median level of NBA basketball in the 60s (top-to-bottom, i.e role players) is even close to now given everything that has transpired with the league in the meantime then there's not much point in debating the ability of players from that era to time-travel here (and vice versa) other than "agree-to-disagree" given the starting points of the posters are so different.

I don't think anyone is assuming that the median level of NBA basketball is equivalent. But Oscar's advantage over those median level players was at the level of prime LeBron, he and Jerry West separated themselves from the rest of the guards that played significant time in the 60s by a huge margin (Sam Jones and Hal Greer would be the next two). Then you add in that you are taking Curry's main weapon away; like saying Kyrie can't dribble but can only catch and shoot. And still people are giving Curry's midrange scoring abilities a ton of credit and assuming he can adapt; just probably not quite at the level of Oscar Robertson or Jerry West. More at the level of a Rick Barry.

I also don't think people are assuming time travel which would significantly nerf Curry's abilities. He's spent a lifetime and millions of hours of practice training certain habits of dribbling, of going to the basket, of catching the ball on the move, that if you time travelled him they would betray him into a lot of carry and travel calls. Plus with canvas sneakers and often uneven floors, leaping and cutting with modern abandon would probably get him injured quite quickly. Instead, we are assuming Curry grew up playing 60s basketball with all the equivalent skills and training that other top players received and maximizes his game for that era.

The fact that you're invoking Jerry West as a peer to Oscar (a valid view shared by many) already punches a hole in the "Oscar's advantage over those median level players was at the level of prime LeBron" narrative, when prime Lebron has a great statistical case as the best player in the league (many of those seasons clear-cut) for a period of like 10 straight years, with no contemporary peers even coming close. Oscar couldn't even clearly separate himself as the best perimeter player in era (in an 8-team league rather than a 30-team league, no less), and even if he did, still has to contend with playing in the same era as Mr. 11 rings and Mr. 100 points.

And then, if we're assuming Curry grows up playing 60s basketball, then what parts of "Curry" are we allowed to keep here? His hair-trigger shooting motion (along with the accuracy) ? His superb conditioning (by modern standards let alone 60s)? His mindset to continuously move off-ball? Handwave enough of those away as "modern era" and the end result of that is just...not Steph Curry.

[capfan33]

I want to write a more extensive write-up on era translation at some point, but just for the sake of argument, when I've thought of modern-day comparisons for Oscar and West, I think Westbrook is a decent baseline comparison for Oscar. Nowhere near as explosive, but very strong and sturdy, he'd be a mismatch for most guards, especially with modern "medicine" probably adding a good 15-20 pounds to his frame.

And his old-man backdown game would still be very effective today, and if he gets a switch, I think he's quick enough to take bigs off the dribble. I'm not worried about his ball-handling. He clearly had great fundamentals and was a top-tier ballhandler for his time. He wouldn't be Kyrie today, but more than good enough to be a high-volume starting point guard. I do have questions about his 3-point shooting simply because of that weird one-handed set shot he had; he was a good free-throw shooter and ofc money from mid-range, so giving the benefit of the doubt, I think he'd be fine albeit not elite. Defensively, about neutral like he was back then.

Overall, to me, that profiles as around a top 25 player today. Maybe close to 15 in his best years.

[penbeast0]

They have been given plenty of respect, more than they arguably deserve in this thread already.

If some are gonna assume that the median level of NBA basketball in the 60s (top-to-bottom, i.e role players) is even close to now given everything that has transpired with the league in the meantime then there's not much point in debating the ability of players from that era to time-travel here (and vice versa) other than "agree-to-disagree" given the starting points of the posters are so different.

I don't think anyone is assuming that the median level of NBA basketball is equivalent. But Oscar's advantage over those median level players was at the level of prime LeBron, he and Jerry West separated themselves from the rest of the guards that played significant time in the 60s by a huge margin (Sam Jones and Hal Greer would be the next two). Then you add in that you are taking Curry's main weapon away; like saying Kyrie can't dribble but can only catch and shoot. And still people are giving Curry's midrange scoring abilities a ton of credit and assuming he can adapt; just probably not quite at the level of Oscar Robertson or Jerry West. More at the level of a Rick Barry.

I also don't think people are assuming time travel which would significantly nerf Curry's abilities. He's spent a lifetime and millions of hours of practice training certain habits of dribbling, of going to the basket, of catching the ball on the move, that if you time travelled him they would betray him into a lot of carry and travel calls. Plus with canvas sneakers and often uneven floors, leaping and cutting with modern abandon would probably get him injured quite quickly. Instead, we are assuming Curry grew up playing 60s basketball with all the equivalent skills and training that other top players received and maximizes his game for that era.

The fact that you're invoking Jerry West as a peer to Oscar (a valid view shared by many) already punches a hole in the "Oscar's advantage over those median level players was at the level of prime LeBron" narrative, when prime Lebron has a great statistical case as the best player in the league (many of those seasons clear-cut) for a period of like 10 straight years, with no contemporary peers even coming close. Oscar couldn't even clearly separate himself as the best perimeter player in era (in an 8-team league rather than a 30-team league, no less), and even if he did, still has to contend with playing in the same era as Mr. 11 rings and Mr. 100 points.

And then, if we're assuming Curry grows up playing 60s basketball, then what parts of "Curry" are we allowed to keep here? His hair-trigger shooting motion (along with the accuracy) ? His superb conditioning (by modern standards let alone 60s)? His mindset to continuously move off-ball? Handwave enough of those away as "modern era" and the end result of that is just...not Steph Curry.

There are 4 players in the 1960s that are truly generational talents, Wilt, Russell, Oscar, and West. They are head and shoulders above everyone else. The 5th best player is probably Bob Pettit, 5th best scorer probably Rick Barry. That's a huge dropoff. There is only 1 in the 50s (Mikan and only for the early years), thereare only 2 in the 70s if you believe in ABA Dr. J, he and Kareem, 3 in the 80s if you include Kareem, etc. The 60s has the most generational talents of any generation despite its smaller league, Even if you keep all the mentioned attributes of Curry, but relative to the training, equipment, etc. of the 1960s, he's still not at the level of those 4 without a 3 point line.

[eminence]

I do generally feel prime Oscar/West get overrated relative to their own leagues (guilty of it myself at times). They weren't *that* much better than guys like prime Pettit/Thurmond/Frazier.

[Cavsfansince84]

I do generally feel prime Oscar/West get overrated relative to their own leagues (guilty of it myself at times). They weren't *that* much better than guys like prime Pettit/Thurmond/Frazier.

Don't really agree except that I think Pettit tends to get overlooked a lot in these kinds of discussions. I think he is awfully close to being a generational player himself and probably should be above someone like Barkley all time but I think the fact that the 60's already has 4 legends makes it harder for people to give him his due. Frazier I agree on too but the thing with him is that his prime was semi short and Reed kind of overshadowed him to some degree in his own day.

[tsherkin]

I do generally feel prime Oscar/West get overrated relative to their own leagues (guilty of it myself at times). They weren't *that* much better than guys like prime Pettit/Thurmond/Frazier.

Offensively, they certainly were. Oscar was literally leading the best offenses of the era, for example, and both of them lapped everyone but Wilt as scorers in the 60s. Pettit was good, but he also wasn't a 115 TS+ guy in the 60s, but rather 109. Oscar, on the other hand, was a 118 TS+ guy in the 60s, and West 113 after a slow start (64-69, he was a 117 TS+ guy). And of course, both were obviously superior playmakers to Pettit or Thurmond. And while Nate and Walt were both excellent defenders, West was himself a high-end defender. They make up some ground on Oscar there, for sure, but Thurmond was also not a particularly impressive offensive player save for raw volume, and was actually a 94 TS+ guy on fairly limp volume in the 60s. Crazy rebounder, though.

Oscar's the only non-Wilt/Russ guy to win an MVP in the 60s. He averaged a triple double in his second season, and cumulatively over his first 5. Crazy team impact, etc, etc, etc. In the 60s in particular, I think he did everything he need to in order to set himself well apart from everyone but the top 2 guys. West started a little slower but got to a similar level. And obviously he was a playoff monster who ultimately nabbed a title. And of course, he's infamous for being the only dude to win Finals MVP from the losing team, heh.

Frazier isn't suuuuuper relevant, because he didn't even exist until 67-68 and we're discussing the 60s here (though tbf, that means I shouldn't mention West's title). And I don't know how much you want to weight Warriors Thurmond. They were doing pretty well with him on the team, but they won without him, replacing him with Clifford Ray and remaining an elite defense which crushed the glass. Superficial comments, to be sure, but food for deeper thought.

[eminence]

I do generally feel prime Oscar/West get overrated relative to their own leagues (guilty of it myself at times). They weren't *that* much better than guys like prime Pettit/Thurmond/Frazier.

Don't really agree except that I think Pettit tends to get overlooked a lot in these kinds of discussions. I think he is awfully close to being a generational player himself and probably should be above someone like Barkley all time but I think the fact that the 60's already has 4 legends makes it harder for people to give him his due. Frazier I agree on too but the thing with him is that his prime was semi short and Reed kind of overshadowed him to some degree in his own day.

I didn't mean career, but that in any given season there was *usually* some other player who was comparable to them instead of them being a super clear 3rd/4th best guy (maybe 2nd in a down Wilt season). West in particular only had two seasons in the 60s ('65/'66) where he was top 4 in MVP voting. '70-'72 with 2nd place finishes.

[One_and_Done]

I want to write a more extensive write-up on era translation at some point, but just for the sake of argument, when I've thought of modern-day comparisons for Oscar and West, I think Westbrook is a decent baseline comparison for Oscar. Nowhere near as explosive, but very strong and sturdy, he'd be a mismatch for most guards, especially with modern "medicine" probably adding a good 15-20 pounds to his frame.

And his old-man backdown game would still be very effective today, and if he gets a switch, I think he's quick enough to take bigs off the dribble. I'm not worried about his ball-handling. He clearly had great fundamentals and was a top-tier ballhandler for his time. He wouldn't be Kyrie today, but more than good enough to be a high-volume starting point guard. I do have questions about his 3-point shooting simply because of that weird one-handed set shot he had; he was a good free-throw shooter and ofc money from mid-range, so giving the benefit of the doubt, I think he'd be fine albeit not elite. Defensively, about neutral like he was back then.

Overall, to me, that profiles as around a top 25 player today. Maybe close to 15 in his best years.

If you've watched footage of Oscar, and come away with the view he has similar athleticism to Westbrook, then you are watching different footage to me. I don't even like Westbrook, but in his prime he was an elite athlete for his position. Oscar wouldn't be elite at all today. He'd be fine, but there's nothing on tape that resembles Westbrook type athleticism.

Of course, Oscar fans will probably claim it was because of his shoes, or because he was a deliberate player who played under control, etc. All I can judge on is what we see on the tape. Oscar looks strong, but the hops, burst and explosion of Westbrook is nowhere to be seen.

[tsherkin]

I want to write a more extensive write-up on era translation at some point, but just for the sake of argument, when I've thought of modern-day comparisons for Oscar and West, I think Westbrook is a decent baseline comparison for Oscar. Nowhere near as explosive, but very strong and sturdy, he'd be a mismatch for most guards, especially with modern "medicine" probably adding a good 15-20 pounds to his frame.

And his old-man backdown game would still be very effective today, and if he gets a switch, I think he's quick enough to take bigs off the dribble. I'm not worried about his ball-handling. He clearly had great fundamentals and was a top-tier ballhandler for his time. He wouldn't be Kyrie today, but more than good enough to be a high-volume starting point guard. I do have questions about his 3-point shooting simply because of that weird one-handed set shot he had; he was a good free-throw shooter and ofc money from mid-range, so giving the benefit of the doubt, I think he'd be fine albeit not elite. Defensively, about neutral like he was back then.

Overall, to me, that profiles as around a top 25 player today. Maybe close to 15 in his best years.

If you've watched footage of Oscar, and come away with the view he has similar athleticism to Westbrook, then you are watching different footage to me. I don't even like Westbrook, but in his prime he was an elite athlete for his position. Oscar wouldn't be elite at all today. He'd be fine, but there's nothing on tape that resembles Westbrook type athleticism.

You should probably read his WHOLE post before responding next time. He did explicitly say "no where near as explosive, but very strong and sturdy," remember?

[One_and_Done]

I want to write a more extensive write-up on era translation at some point, but just for the sake of argument, when I've thought of modern-day comparisons for Oscar and West, I think Westbrook is a decent baseline comparison for Oscar. Nowhere near as explosive, but very strong and sturdy, he'd be a mismatch for most guards, especially with modern "medicine" probably adding a good 15-20 pounds to his frame.

And his old-man backdown game would still be very effective today, and if he gets a switch, I think he's quick enough to take bigs off the dribble. I'm not worried about his ball-handling. He clearly had great fundamentals and was a top-tier ballhandler for his time. He wouldn't be Kyrie today, but more than good enough to be a high-volume starting point guard. I do have questions about his 3-point shooting simply because of that weird one-handed set shot he had; he was a good free-throw shooter and ofc money from mid-range, so giving the benefit of the doubt, I think he'd be fine albeit not elite. Defensively, about neutral like he was back then.

Overall, to me, that profiles as around a top 25 player today. Maybe close to 15 in his best years.

If you've watched footage of Oscar, and come away with the view he has similar athleticism to Westbrook, then you are watching different footage to me. I don't even like Westbrook, but in his prime he was an elite athlete for his position. Oscar wouldn't be elite at all today. He'd be fine, but there's nothing on tape that resembles Westbrook type athleticism.

You should probably read his WHOLE post before responding next time. He did explicitly say "no where near as explosive, but very strong and sturdy," remember?

That's like saying 'he's like a Ferrari without an engine'. It's not a useful comparison.

[tsherkin]

That's like saying 'he's like a Ferrari without an engine'. It's not a useful comparison.

I'm disinclined to agree. He's got size and strength. Oscar has even more size. And he's got an all-around game, which is probably MORE what he was talking about than anything else, because I agree that aesthetically they aren't too similar. Westbrook's a cannonball blazing towards the rim, and Oscar was a considerably more cerebral player. But he rebounded well, he was a high-volume playmaker and he was a volume scorer (and a better one than Westbrook, at that). So, a box score-filling large guard. Russ is only, what, 6'4, but he's a solid dude, very strong, which helps him a lot.

It's probably not phrased super well, but I can see any kind of parallels.

[One_and_Done]

Sounds like we're actually agreeing, because Westbrook without the speed, hops, etc, is basically a bench guard. That's what Oscar would likely be today, especially given the lack of 3pt shot or handle.

[capfan33]

It's a loose comparison as they don't play similarly, the only reason I bring up Westbrook is he's one of the only guards I know of that has a similar physical profile. So it at least gives an idea of what Oscar on the court would look like physically, and moreover, Oscar does have a few advantages over Westbrook in terms of mid-range shooting and decision-making, which I think would translate even modernly. And Oscar was solid athletically, albeit not comparable to one of the greatest athletes ever in Westbrook.

[penbeast0]

More like a fundamental rather than flashy version of Magic with a very serious personality. And One_and_Done, do you also think Magic would be a bench guard in the modern NBA because if anything Oscar was probably more physically gifted though I think Magic was the better player.

Or is Magic on the good side of your "most guys before this time couldn't play today and most guys after it could" line in the sand?

[One_and_Done]

More like a fundamental rather than flashy version of Magic with a very serious personality. And One_and_Done, do you also think Magic would be a bench guard in the modern NBA because if anything Oscar was probably more physically gifted though I think Magic was the better player.

Or is Magic on the good side of your "most guys before this time couldn't play today and most guys after it could" line in the sand?

'Magic without the flash' is another of these 'like a Ferrari without the engine' type of analogies. You're taking away literally the most fundamental aspect of the player, which negates the whole comp.

I don't know what footage of Oscar you're watching, but his passing bears no resemblance to Magic Johnson, who was maybe the GOAT passer.

I think Magic would be a star today. The one concern is his 3pt shot. I think I've been convinced he had enough of a 3pt shot that he'd be fine, but his weird form would limit him a little. There'd be adjustments with how you deploy him today obviously.

I don't understand the point of comparing Oscar to Magic, a player who bears almost no resemblance to him stylistically or even physically. Magic was a vastly better and more talented player.

[penbeast0]

Oscar had similar court vision, similar forward size, shot the ball from the same areas of the court as Magic's early period before he really started working on his 3 point shot, probably better handles for his day, and probably a more aggressive mentality.

Flash was not, nor would it ever be, the best part of Magic or any other great's game. Playmaking, scoring, and even rebounding were what Magic great, not how pretty he looks on a highlight reel. Pete Maravich and Jason WIlliams played with more flash than Magic, neither approached him as a player.

[One_and_Done]

Oscar had similar court vision, similar forward size, shot the ball from the same areas of the court as Magic's early period before he really started working on his 3 point shot, probably better handles for his day, and probably a more aggressive mentality.

Flash was not, nor would it ever be, the best part of Magic or any other great's game. Playmaking, scoring, and even rebounding were what Magic great, not how pretty he looks on a highlight reel. Pete Maravich and Jason WIlliams played with more flash than Magic, neither approached him as a player.

You've lost me at the first half of your first sentence. I have not seen any evidence whatever that Oscar's court vision remotely resembled that of Magic Johnson. If you have footage of Oscar passing like Magic, I'd love to see it.

[Warspite]

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?

He has to face weak side help from Russell, Wilt or Thurmond for about 40% of his games.

When healthy Curry is battling with West and Greer for best guard in the league. His issues will be health and the simple fact that guard play is pretty weak or an afterthought for coaches. Some of the places he plays in will have lower ceilings prohibiting high arc shots. I do wonder how he will deal with the travel, 1960s phobias and no video/shoes/modern training and having to sell cars or unclog toilets in the offseason.

Oscar is somewhere between a rich mans Jaosn Kidd or a poor mans LBJ. Just depends on the team needs. I do question Oscar being able to communicate with this super soft, entitled, narcissistic generation. Im having trouble myself dealing with these kids and Oscar is generations behind. He was born in the Great Depression and lived WWII/jim crow. He knows what going without and sacrifice means. His demeaner was barely tolerable in 65 in 2025 he would come off stronger than a Marine drill Sargent.