Oscar Today vs Curry in the 60's

[70sFan]

Mmm? Yeah, he doesn't reach 2016 Harden, but the 10.6 3PA/g Luka took in 2024 are pretty close to any other season of Harden's. And he shot 38.2% that season. "Didn't touch" is a little aggressive, especially since we're talking about a single season.

2016 is just 6th Harden season in terms of 3PA/g:

2019: 13.2 on 36.8%
2020: 12.4 on 35.5%
2018: 10.0 on 36.7%

Harden was also inconsistent in the postseason, but this 2019 season is a clear tier ahead of what Luka did when you take into account both RS and the playoffs.

[tsherkin]

2016 is just 6th Harden season in terms of 3PA/g:

Yup. I screwed up and was actually looking at his 2PA/g, lmao.

My bad.

[OhayoKD]

Diet and exercise have always and continue to be mostly dependent on the player, regardless of era. Careful eating and obsessive training are not brand new inventions. One problem with dogmatic modernism is that is leads people to dismiss the top tier athletes within just a couple of generations, even though human evolution doesn't work that way, and (whether people want to admit it or not), while advancements are more noticeable across the broad talent pool, they remain largely on the margins for the best individuals.

You are expressing incredible confidence in what is an entirely baseless assertion. There is more to athleticism than leaping, weight, and height you know? Even Wilt isn't the peak of athleticism unless you ignore stuff like fluidity of movement and the higher the bar for "skill" becomes (with broadening access to trying to achieve it), the less likely it is for an exceptional individual to stay exceptional.

While it may be comforting to think the best are always the best, there's simply no reason to actually think it's true.

I notice that the athletic discounts given to players tend to be proportional to the amount of nice, pretty, color footage available. Sounds like a perception bias.

Some folk's conceptions of time are really weird. The 60s and 70s were not long ago! I wonder if some have a psychological need to believe they could whoop their dads and granddads. Like, most people grew up eating at the same table, although processed food has become worse over the years. If anything, general physical activity has declined. This idea of magical food and exercise advancements is really funny. There simply isn't going to be that much variation over such a miniscule time horizon.

Professional or potentially professional athletes are vastly more active now from a younger age. "Most people' is not relevant unfortunately. Nor is your personal concept of time. The fluidity stuff has been measured to have grown vastly even over the last 20 years. Not everyone here operates on vibes like you do.

Now, if this is all just about lateral agility drills, I'm sure they have progressed as the game has become more horizontal than vertical, but I wouldn't make a mountain out of that.

I do think the continued existence of Luka and Jokic makes this conversation a bit ridiculous.

I find it interesting how you keep bringing up 2 vastly more athletic and skilled iterations of Larry Bird as evidence for this conversation being "a little ridiculous". Luka was playing high-level basketball at a younger age than any of these players from "not long ago" and would accordingly be the most skilled player in any of these "not long ago eras" where it was literally impossible for a Luka or a Jokic to emerge. Maybe that's why you end up with Larry Bird as a flagbearer. A true testament to how much worse players were "not so long ago".

[One_and_Done]

In terms of the developmental cycle of the league, the 60s and 70s were eons ago. The 60s was a barely professional bush league, where players mostly needed part time jobs, and a fraction of the talent was entering the talent pool. No overseas players, the effects of segregation were still massive, lack of financial investment and incentives, etc. It was not far removed from a time when the second best player in basketball, Bob Kurland, chose not to join the pro-leagues... because he could make more money as a salesman.

Even though both periods are only 20 years apart, the talent level in 2005 was much closer to today than 1965 was to 1985. By 1985 they were effectively playing a different sport.

[Ol Roy]

I find it interesting how you keep bringing up 2 vastly more athletic and skilled iterations of Larry Bird as evidence for this conversation being "a little ridiculous". Luka was playing high-level basketball at a younger age than any of these players from "not long ago" and would accordingly be the most skilled player in any of these "not long ago eras" where it was literally impossible for a Luka or a Jokic to emerge. Maybe that's why you end up with Larry Bird as a flagbearer. A true testament to how much worse players were "not so long ago".

The discussion is about Oscar. I haven't brought up Bird.

But since you did, I don't see Luka or Jokic being especially more skilled or athletic than Bird.

Rather than trying to make this extreme modernist narrative fit, it seems more plausible to conclude that there is always room for a Larry Bird to coexist in a league with a Michael Jordan and a Hakeem Olajuwon and for a Jokic to coexist in a league with an Anthony Edwards and a Victor Wembanyama.

I think if we were to apply your notions to other sports, the flaws would really become apparent. If someone was to suggest Lawrence Taylor and Reggie White (contemporaries of Bird and Jordan) wouldn't dominate the NFL today, they'd be laughed out of every room.

[Ol Roy]

Amusing that the first RealGM news link under this thread is about Luka's efforts to get back into professional basketball shape after slacking off for several years.

It's cool that he has all these helpers. Oscar and Larry never put themselved in this situation. They were self-motivating, took their training very seriously (serving as models for peers and youth alike), and were in fantastic shape as a result.

https://basketball.realgm.com/wiretap/281523/Luka-Doncic-Details-Mindset-Committing-To-Improved-Training-Regimen

The program began with extensive testing in Madrid following the Lakers' first-round playoff elimination, including blood work, MRIs, and force plate assessments to measure balance and movement patterns. Doncic then took a full month away from basketball to allow complete physical recovery, instead playing pickleball and padel for cross-training.

His current routine features 90-minute morning sessions combining weight training, agility work, and shooting drills. The workouts emphasize eccentric force development and deceleration, targeting Doncic's ability to change speeds and stop abruptly on court.

"Just visually, I would say my whole body looks better," Doncic said during the interview.

Doncic follows a gluten-free, low-sugar diet with at least 250 grams of protein daily. He practices intermittent fasting six days per week, consuming two meals and one protein shake after completing his morning workout.

"Not everything is jumping high," Doncic explained. "I think I'm very athletic in other stuff. Balancing, controlling my body, what I do when I stop, slowing down."

Doncic referenced legendary players who maintained elite performance through rigorous training habits.

"MJ and Kobe, you know, they really did a lot in their careers," Doncic said. "They sacrificed a lot."

[Cavsfansince84]

The discussion is about Oscar. I haven't brought up Bird.

But since you did, I don't see Luka or Jokic being especially more skilled or athletic than Bird.

Rather than trying to make this extreme modernist narrative fit, it seems more plausible to conclude that there is always room for a Larry Bird to coexist in a league with a Michael Jordan and a Hakeem Olajuwon and for a Jokic to coexist in a league with an Anthony Edwards and a Victor Wembanyama.

I think if we were to apply your notions to other sports, the flaws would really become apparent. If someone was to suggest Lawrence Taylor and Reggie White (contemporaries of Bird and Jordan) wouldn't dominate the NFL today, they'd be laughed out of every room.

Personally I think a lot of it in online discussion is related to dribbling in how players from the 60's and 70's are perceived now. A lot of people just can't get past how they had to dribble and think it also means lack of athleticism relative to today but there's so many extra moves and things that have become normal between 1970 and now that its like playing a different sport in terms of what guys are allowed to do. Nowadays, a guy can pick his dribble up anywhere in the paint and not have to worry about being called for traveling and we've seen this in countless videos where guys take 4+ steps without traveling getting called or palming or anything like that.

[One_and_Done]

The discussion is about Oscar. I haven't brought up Bird.

But since you did, I don't see Luka or Jokic being especially more skilled or athletic than Bird.

Rather than trying to make this extreme modernist narrative fit, it seems more plausible to conclude that there is always room for a Larry Bird to coexist in a league with a Michael Jordan and a Hakeem Olajuwon and for a Jokic to coexist in a league with an Anthony Edwards and a Victor Wembanyama.

I think if we were to apply your notions to other sports, the flaws would really become apparent. If someone was to suggest Lawrence Taylor and Reggie White (contemporaries of Bird and Jordan) wouldn't dominate the NFL today, they'd be laughed out of every room.

Personally I think a lot of it in online discussion is related to dribbling in how players from the 60's and 70's are perceived now. A lot of people just can't get past how they had to dribble and think it also means lack of athleticism relative to today but there's so many extra moves and things that have become normal between 1970 and now that its like playing a different sport in terms of what guys are allowed to do. Nowadays, a guy can pick his dribble up anywhere in the paint and not have to worry about being called for traveling and we've seen this in countless videos where guys take 4+ steps without traveling getting called or palming or anything like that.

If you were playing a different sport, that's not a good argument for how you would succeed in this other modern sport you are being rated against.

Maybe the solution is just to rank peaks from 1970 onwards, kind of like the Thinking Basketball series did, because the fact that someone couldn't do something due to it being a different sport is not great evidence that they could do it in this new sport.

[Cavsfansince84]

One_and_Done I've previously told you I had put you on block and wished no further interactions with you on these boards. For some reason you and Ohayo keep sending me replies though. This is pointless because I don't see or read them but they for w/e reason they show up in my notifications.

[theonlyclutch]

No, but I do feel the earlier analogies to Lebron/Westbrook should come with evidence that Oscar is on that sort of outlier level as an athlete (something we don't lack for say, Russell/Wilt). Alternately, if the closest comp is now Luka-but-smaller then that's not an athletic profile which will blow the doors off the modern NBA.

Is Oscar smaller than Luka? Maybe a little bit, but I think we all know that Luka isn't 6'7 without shoes. Oscar was legitimate 6'5 with 230 lean body.

Oscar also had notable physical advantages over Luka - he was definitely faster for example.

Is Russell Westbrook also Luka-sized?



If Oscar is Luka-sized then Magic must be larger than Jokic



And before you cry shrinkage, here's how Oscar looks vs Kareem back when the latter played as a Laker:



Contrast with how Luka looks vs Boban, who is himself around Kareem's height:



Luka & Jokic



Point closed.

[One_and_Done]

One_and_Done I've previously told you I had put you on block and wished no further interactions with you on these boards. For some reason you and Ohayo keep sending me replies though. This is pointless because I don't see or read them but they for w/e reason they show up in my notifications.

It's not pointless, because I'm not replying to you, I'm speaking to your readers. I'm sorry that the ignore function isn't muting notifications for you, but the points you are making don't suddenly become immune to contestation because you have me on ignore.

FYI, you're also expecting too much if you think I carry around a list of people who say they have me on ignore, and take special care not to reply to them. I may have had a big effect on you, but it's not mutual I'm sorry to say. I am not going to remember you have me on ignore, and nor should I have to. Alot of people probably have me on ignore, and to be honest you don't stand out. I honestly have no idea who you are, or what led to you blocking me. You could be random poster 99 as far as I'm concerned. I tend to focus on the arguments people are making, not the individuals.

[OhayoKD]

One_and_Done I've previously told you I had put you on block and wished no further interactions with you on these boards. For some reason you and Ohayo keep sending me replies though. This is pointless because I don't see or read them but they for w/e reason they show up in my notifications.

This is a public board cavs, and when people like yourself push made up nonsense like "bird is a jokic level athlete" and "Bill Russell had no peak" it's important someone reminds everyone it's nonsense, for posterity. You reading it or not doesn't really matter to me

[70sFan]

No, but I do feel the earlier analogies to Lebron/Westbrook should come with evidence that Oscar is on that sort of outlier level as an athlete (something we don't lack for say, Russell/Wilt). Alternately, if the closest comp is now Luka-but-smaller then that's not an athletic profile which will blow the doors off the modern NBA.

Is Oscar smaller than Luka? Maybe a little bit, but I think we all know that Luka isn't 6'7 without shoes. Oscar was legitimate 6'5 with 230 lean body.

Oscar also had notable physical advantages over Luka - he was definitely faster for example.

Is Russell Westbrook also Luka-sized?



If Oscar is Luka-sized then Magic must be larger than Jokic



And before you cry shrinkage, here's how Oscar looks vs Kareem back when the latter played as a Laker:



Contrast with how Luka looks vs Boban, who is himself around Kareem's height:



Luka & Jokic



Point closed.

You know that I can find photos with ridiculous angles showing anything, right?

This is the actual measurement data:

Luka Doncic: 6'6.25 without shoes
Oscar Robertson: 6'4.75

There is 1.5 inch difference between them.

If you genuinely believe that Oscar was close to Westbrook in height during playing days then you are ridiculous. Oscar looks much bigger than Westbrook in the photo you provided even as an old man.

[theonlyclutch]

Is Oscar smaller than Luka? Maybe a little bit, but I think we all know that Luka isn't 6'7 without shoes. Oscar was legitimate 6'5 with 230 lean body.

Oscar also had notable physical advantages over Luka - he was definitely faster for example.

Is Russell Westbrook also Luka-sized?



If Oscar is Luka-sized then Magic must be larger than Jokic



And before you cry shrinkage, here's how Oscar looks vs Kareem back when the latter played as a Laker:



Contrast with how Luka looks vs Boban, who is himself around Kareem's height:



Luka & Jokic



Point closed.

You know that I can find photos with ridiculous angles showing anything, right?

This is the actual measurement data:

Luka Doncic: 6'6.25 without shoes
Oscar Robertson: 6'4.75

There is 1.5 inch difference between them.

If you genuinely believe that Oscar was close to Westbrook in height during playing days then you are ridiculous. Oscar looks much bigger than Westbrook in the photo you provided even as an old man.

Only if we count retirement-related horizontal expansion as 'bigger'.



Two people standing on the same horizontal plane is totally a 'ridiculous angle', but hey keep spouting off it's really entertaining.

[tsherkin]

It's cool that he has all these helpers. Oscar and Larry never put themselved in this situation. They were self-motivating, took their training very seriously (serving as models for peers and youth alike), and were in fantastic shape as a result.

Yes and no. There's a limit to how much I want to prop up Bird in this manner after the whole "ruined his back doing a new driveway for his mom instead of hiring someone else" thing a half-decade into his career. Or messing up his hand in a bar fight, etc, etc. Bird had his own issues which got in the way of his physical well-being. Surely motivated to work out, but different routes, same destination, you know? Personal choices and health.

[Verticality]

I find these fights distasteful from both sides. I think we can say newer players are often advantaged but it does not always have truth. As three-point line is very big for Steph Curry I think it is okay to speculate he is not so incredible if it's taken away.

[tsherkin]

I think we can say newer players are often advantaged but it does not always have truth.

It's pretty much always true when you go that far back. There are large differences in equipment, travel, medicine, even basic things like how they train certain skills, level of tactical development on the court, floor geometry as a result, etc, etc. There are large differences in rules, too. So yeah, it's pretty clear that there is a large world of difference between now and 60, 65 years ago.

That isn't to say we should disrespect the modern guys for succeeding and thriving in this environment at all, of course; there are tons of great players today, and they've adapted very well to their own environment. It's just that I think some people tire of the way the older guys are disrespected for playing the games they could play, the way they could play it, you know? And there's a lot of disrespect for and dismissal of older players, even guys who had the tools to succeed in today's game, especially if given any sort of time to train in modern methodologies/strategies, etc.

[KembaWalker]

I think if you looked at the environment kids are coming up in now at places like IMG Academy where they have full time coaching/sports psychologists/nutritionists/world class gyms with all the recovery equipment from 6th-12th grade and compared it to what resources Oscar Robertson came up with at Crispus Attucks high school in the 50s you'd be wondering how the heck the gap in skills and athleticism isn't 100x bigger than it is now

[Warspite]

Someone mentioned Luka a few pages back. I think he's an excellent modern comp for Oscar. Oscar looks a bit more athletic and is probably a slightly better pure shooter and better defensively. Luka definitely has more range on his jumper. But being oversized PG's, playing deliberate offensively and posting up smaller guys a ton makes them similar.

I watched a ECF game between the Royals and Celtics. Oscar trapped Cousy on the wing about 16ft from the basket. Cousy reversed the ball and it swung around to the opposite baseline where Sam Jones took a 18ft jumper. The shot was blocked by Oscar who had recovered from one side to other. I have seen Rodman do the same but I was shocked by the athleticism. His ability to guard Russell in the post was equally impressive. The man was strong, wide and could leap.

[Cavsfansince84]

Something the whole 60's vs modern nba sort of reminds me of is comparing tennis players of today to back when they had wooden rackets. The tennis itself looks much more impressive because of the speed and accuracy that shots can be hit with today but if you are comparing players you have to take into account how much harder it is to hit a ball cleanly with a wooden racket and generate something like topspin on it. I don't think a player of today could pick up a wooden racket and come close to competing back in the 60's or 70's. So that's how I view the era difference in the nba. If a guy from today tried to play back then they would have to completely rewire their brain/muscle memory just to be able to dribble the ball up the court without a turnover. Also in terms of how fouls are called on both ends.