Kevin Durant vs Oscar Robertson

[One_and_Done]

'Best shooter of his era' Oscar had a career TS% of 568. His career best was 588. KD had a TS% of 631 from 2010 to 23. His average over that time was better by far than the best single year Oscar ever had, and he did it while scoring vastly more points per possession than him. It's not close who as better at scoring.

KD was putting those numbers up against modern players and defensive schemes too, not semi-professionals in a nascent league like Oscar.

[kcktiny]

Oblivious.

[70sFan]

If there was a player for whom we had literally zero footage, then my view is that we would be unable to rate that player at all.

Thankfully that is not the case with Oscar.

When I hear “the footage doesn’t do him justice”, it’s the same as someone telling me that we don’t actually have any video footage to prove the guy was as good as people said he was.

So now you manipulate my post to make you sound smart? I said that HIGHLIGHTS don't do him justice, because:

1. We just don't have enough footage to make a true "highlights" for 1960s players.

2. Players like Oscar are better when you watch full games than highlights. It should be obvious for a Duncan fan that there are players who just don't impress the audience with short highlight reels, but are immensely impactful.

This consistent approach to evidence is very important, in fields other than just sport. In history for example, oral evidence is basically treated as worthless by serious historians. That’s because the Chinese whispers effect can lead to the truth being distorted even in real time, never mind over generations. I could give a number of more modern examples, but I’d probably offend people on one side of the religious/political divide.

The human mind is a funny thing, and nostalgia can warp memories so that a guy seems better than he was.

So you spent so much time talking about things nobody argues against, good for you.

We do have Oscar footage and you can watch them whenever you want. Nobody says to you that you should rank players you've never watched or that you should rely on the stories.

I remember the first time I went back and rewatched Jordan’s games, and how deeply disappointed I was. I showed a friend of mine, who was a big NBA fan growing up in the 90s, and after several hours of watching game footage he had to admit he was wrong. There was absolutely no way Jordan would be the GOAT if he played today.

I must say, if someone watches Jordan games and is disappointed, then either he had in mind some kind of ridiculous mythological picture of Jordan in his mind, or he just doesn't understand what he's looking at. Jordan is extremely impressive on the tape, regardless of the era.

With Osar I’m basically being told not to trust my eyes, and that if we just had more footage then he would look more amazing than I could believe.

Nice strawman, nobody said anything like that to you. In contrary, I literally posted the game footage just a post ago.

I watched the footage of Oscar that was linked above. I’m not seeing anything different to what I had previously seen. He looks like a guy who would be able to play today, but who has average athleticism by today’s standard, sub-par dribbling, etc, though he does throw some nice passes in this stretch.

Oscar was old and dealt with injuries in 1972, he was far more athletic in his prime. The dribbling was forced by the rules, which you of course know but keep playing dumb.

However, he doesn’t stand out in the 1972 league in the way his own team mate Kareem does. Kareem looks great out there.

You should watch more 1972 LAL vs MIL matchups and see how this amazing players struggled immensely with Wilt man defense and West help D. Maybe you'd start to understand how silly your view is.

Oscar looks like a good player, but not a historical outlier, and his lack of 3pt shot would basically relegate him to a bench role (especially with his poor handle).

You don't know if Oscar lacked 3P shot. You don't know how Oscar handles would look like under different rules. You have no idea about any of these things, so please be intellectually honest at least this time and stop pretending that you are saying that for any other reason than trashing old players.

[One_and_Done]

Yeh, I disagree. On the facts, but also on your methodology.

2 guys apply for a job as an engineer. One has 20 years experience as an engineer, and a doctorate in Engineering. The other worked at as a foreman on a construction site, because his family couldn't afford to send him to study engineering. It's a sad story, and I understand the reason he didn't get the opportunity to learn that essential skill... but I'm obviously hiring the first guy. We have actual proof he could work as an engineer, not a theory that if we sent him to Uni maybe he'd pick it up.

I appreciate what Oscar did in his era. He was a fundamentally sound and controlled guard, ahead of his time. Today though, he'd be nothing special. Not all players skillsets translate as well, or are as objectively valuable.

[70sFan]

I absolutely love your ridiculous analogies that have no use in our discussion, you are very good at making them.

[One_and_Done]

A 3pt shot and a modern handle are as much of a prerequisite to being a star guard today as a degree is to an engineer. If you don't have them you're going to fail. The analogy seems apt to me.

[tsherkin]

A 3pt shot and a modern handle are as much of a prerequisite to being a star guard today as a degree is to an engineer. If you don't have them you're going to fail. The analogy seems apt to me.

So you overrate handles a lot. Most players use pretty basic ball-handling to do what they do, especially if they have a good shot, and/or if they have a decent post game. You don't really need a lot more than a basic crossover in either direction, and the ability to do some fairly simple hesitation moves. The sorts of things you can teach an 8 year-old as they hit the start of an 8-18 program. And Oscar exhibited a lot of the basics to begin with, inside the parameters of the ball handling rules. You let him palm and carry, he can add a bit more, no question. Does he look like Kyrie? No, of course not. Does he look like Steph? Also no. But that's not a prerequisite in any way, shape or form.

MOST possessions don't involve a lot of really zany chains of dribble moves. It's typically quite basic stuff, more about the right timing than anything else. And you consistently overlook this when you talk about ball handling in the context of older players, which is odd to me. The same principles apply, but guys can stall the ball and pull a hesi, sure, and that can add some dynamics. And they don't have to do the hunch dribble while shielding with their body the way that was so common in the 60s, no doubt.

A 3pt shot is at least a legitimate question. It's very likely that a guy who shot that well at the line and from mid-range would do at least basically well from 3, but it's not a perfectly linear transition, to be sure. That said, if a guy like Brook Lopez or Rasheed Wallace or Al Horford could do it, then there's a pretty reasonable chance that Oscar could do it. But that's at least ANY sort of question.

The handles part, however, you overplay pretty badly. Like, the necessary handles for the league aren't that complex. It's certainly not something a guy like Oscar couldn't learn enough to make a functional part of his game. And you're going to say something daft like "but I don't attribute skills they didn't have to players moving forward," even though you'll do it in reverse for no good reason, but as someone who has done developmental coaching... I have taught people who aren't even 10 years old how to dribble in an effective manner. Oscar would be fine.

[One_and_Done]

A 3pt shot and a modern handle are as much of a prerequisite to being a star guard today as a degree is to an engineer. If you don't have them you're going to fail. The analogy seems apt to me.

So you overrate handles a lot. Most players use pretty basic ball-handling to do what they do, especially if they have a good shot, and/or if they have a decent post game. You don't really need a lot more than a basic crossover in either direction, and the ability to do some fairly simple hesitation moves. The sorts of things you can teach an 8 year-old as they hit the start of an 8-18 program. And Oscar exhibited a lot of the basics to begin with, inside the parameters of the ball handling rules. You let him palm and carry, he can add a bit more, no question. Does he look like Kyrie? No, of course not. Does he look like Steph? Also no. But that's not a prerequisite in any way, shape or form.

MOST possessions don't involve a lot of really zany chains of dribble moves. It's typically quite basic stuff, more about the right timing than anything else. And you consistently overlook this when you talk about ball handling in the context of older players, which is odd to me. The same principles apply, but guys can stall the ball and pull a hesi, sure, and that can add some dynamics. And they don't have to do the hunch dribble while shielding with their body the way that was so common in the 60s, no doubt.

A 3pt shot is at least a legitimate question. It's very likely that a guy who shot that well at the line and from mid-range would do at least basically well from 3, but it's not a perfectly linear transition, to be sure. That said, if a guy like Brook Lopez or Rasheed Wallace or Al Horford could do it, then there's a pretty reasonable chance that Oscar could do it. But that's at least ANY sort of question.

The handles part, however, you overplay pretty badly. Like, the necessary handles for the league aren't that complex. It's certainly not something a guy like Oscar couldn't learn enough to make a functional part of his game. And you're going to say something daft like "but I don't attribute skills they didn't have to players moving forward," even though you'll do it in reverse for no good reason, but as someone who has done developmental coaching... I have taught people who aren't even 10 years old how to dribble in an effective manner. Oscar would be fine.

Do you need a handle to be a 2 guard in today's NBA? No. Most 2 guards are 3&D guys anyway. Do you need a superior handle to be a lead guard in today's NBA? Pretty much.

Nobody said Oscar couldn't play today. He'd be a fine 3rd guard off the bench.

[tsherkin]

Do you need a handle to be a 2 guard in today's NBA? No. Most 2 guards are 3&D guys anyway. Do you need a superior handle to be a lead guard in today's NBA? Pretty much.

No, you really don't. It's mostly quite a basic of stuff which most guys use. This is something you continuously fail to acknowledge. Most guys don't need to do anything super advanced to get clear. There are varying degrees of efficacy at deceleration and stuff, but Oscar had all the mid-range stuff he'd have ever needed in today's game anyway. And screen usage today, with fairly simple handles to navigate them, covers the rest. You VASTLY overstate the complexity of ball-handling required to be a lead guard in today's environment.

Nobody said Oscar couldn't play today. He'd be a fine 3rd guard off the bench.

This isn't a valid stance, man, and I think you know that.

[One_and_Done]

We disagree. If he just lacked an elite handle thar would be one thing, but the combination of no 3 or handle is a problem. What team wants to start a shooting guard who can't shoot 3s and who also isn't an elite ballhandler? None IMO.

[theonlyclutch]

A 3pt shot and a modern handle are as much of a prerequisite to being a star guard today as a degree is to an engineer. If you don't have them you're going to fail. The analogy seems apt to me.

The handles part, however, you overplay pretty badly. Like, the necessary handles for the league aren't that complex. It's certainly not something a guy like Oscar couldn't learn enough to make a functional part of his game. And you're going to say something daft like "but I don't attribute skills they didn't have to players moving forward," even though you'll do it in reverse for no good reason, but as someone who has done developmental coaching... I have taught people who aren't even 10 years old how to dribble in an effective manner. Oscar would be fine.

You've taught 10 year olds how to dribble effectively against NBA-level defenders? Why are you on RealGM instead of an NBA franchise somewhere?

It should be obvious that having 'effective' handles at a modern NBA lead guard level is a high, high bar in a way that it isn't at lower levels of basketball. Guys like Jimmer and Reddick had no issues getting to their spots off-the-dribble in NCAA, but that didn't translate into effectiveness at the NBA level. If learning the necessary handles to become an NBA lead guard 'aren't that complex' then we wouldn't see stuff like that happen all the time..

Watch on YouTube

Watch on YouTube

[penbeast0]

Do you need a handle to be a 2 guard in today's NBA? No. Most 2 guards are 3&D guys anyway. Do you need a superior handle to be a lead guard in today's NBA? Pretty much.

Nobody said Oscar couldn't play today. He'd be a fine 3rd guard off the bench.

And Kyrie might be a decent 3rd guard in the 60s despite his illegal handles and overreliance on shooting far away from the basket. Or he might not be able to adjust and end up a playground legend type like Pee Wee Kirkland, unable to adjust to the league as it was.

After all, he's never showed he can play in a league that doesn't allow carries, travels, and gather steps.

[70sFan]

A 3pt shot and a modern handle are as much of a prerequisite to being a star guard today as a degree is to an engineer. If you don't have them you're going to fail. The analogy seems apt to me.

The handles part, however, you overplay pretty badly. Like, the necessary handles for the league aren't that complex. It's certainly not something a guy like Oscar couldn't learn enough to make a functional part of his game. And you're going to say something daft like "but I don't attribute skills they didn't have to players moving forward," even though you'll do it in reverse for no good reason, but as someone who has done developmental coaching... I have taught people who aren't even 10 years old how to dribble in an effective manner. Oscar would be fine.

You've taught 10 year olds how to dribble effectively against NBA-level defenders? Why are you on RealGM instead of an NBA franchise somewhere?

It should be obvious that having 'effective' handles at a modern NBA lead guard level is a high, high bar in a way that it isn't at lower levels of basketball. Guys like Jimmer and Reddick had no issues getting to their spots off-the-dribble in NCAA, but that didn't translate into effectiveness at the NBA level. If learning the necessary handles to become an NBA lead guard 'aren't that complex' then we wouldn't see stuff like that happen all the time..

Watch on YouTube

Watch on YouTube

Do you think that handles are the reason why Jimmer never became a lead guard? Is this your serious opinion?

[FrodoBaggins]

Oscar on offense would be like a 6'6" in shoes CP3 with a mid-post iso game like Pierce/Dirk.

[tsherkin]

You've taught 10 year olds how to dribble effectively against NBA-level defenders?

No. I said I taught children how to dribble in an effective manner. The technical skills involved in dribbling. At an NBA level, you need to have a certain level of acceleration and deceleration to make it really work at an elite level. But the actual specific dribbling maneuvers they use are generally short and relatively simple. Like, Shai's the king of using simple stutters and stuff to create the change in weight distribution and momentum he needs to blow past guys. Harden is another one, although he likes to lull his defender with a bunch of hypnotizing through-the-legs dribbles which don't do too much before he makes his actual move.

Obviously, my 8 year-olds weren't dribbling at the same speed or whatever, but the basic moves were largely there. Certainly by the time they were in their pre-teens. The decision-making wasn't as sharp as the older guys, but the mechanics on the basic moves were certainly there.

That's more to illustrate that Oscar could certainly learn how to do the moves. How he would learn to apply them and to what level that would take him would be up to him, but he was crossing guys up in the 60s with restrictive rules, so I suspect he'd be fine in today's game.

Guys like Jimmer and Reddick had no issues getting to their spots off-the-dribble in NCAA, but that didn't translate into effectiveness at the NBA level.

That had a lot more to do with athleticism than it did with handles.

[f4p]

I have Oscar as top 12/13, KD as more like 20-23. He's accomplished next to nothing since 2019 while missing around half his rs games.

Well to be fair, Oscar accomplished less than next to nothing since time started. Then got carried by Kareem to a title then was part of some bad upsets, resulting in him having one of the worst championships vs expected championship numbers ever. I might still take Oscar for overall offensive dominance of his era but KD got to the finals young, had his own era relative super team, and was probably a toe away from knocking off the eventual champs in 2021 essentially by himself with 2 of the best playoff games we’ve seen in games 5 and 7.

[f4p]

All-time, I would tend to take Oscar. Era-relative, too. His archetype is generally more valuable, and he was a monster scorer with hugely deviant efficiency in his own time. Also has a ring as #2, also has an MVP. Architected the best offense in the league for most of a decade.

I am a fan of Durant, but Oscar was better in his day.

I think this is partly that it’s just easier to stand out in a less developed league. Especially in terms of something like TS Add where the 60s basically had no idea what a good shot was so any pioneer in efficiency was going to stand way way out. Like being the first guy to try to hit home runs basically.

[f4p]

KD and it's not close. Oscar is a product of his own era to a large degree. In today's league he wouldn't even be an all-star.

Thank you for the extremely predictable and uninformative post that does nothing to create decent discussion.

How is it less informative than the 1st and 2nd reply on this page?

I'm happy to elaborate of course. Do you want me to explain in more detail? I thought my reasons would be obvious, and so needed no further explanation.

Why would your reasons be obvious? While you have a point that your post was no less informative than the first 2, it’s probably that you’ve established a pattern of statements with no additional evidence so people notice it more. Elaboration is really the point of a board like this so I don’t know why you would hold back.

[tsherkin]

I think this is partly that it’s just easier to stand out in a less developed league. Especially in terms of something like TS Add where the 60s basically had no idea what a good shot was so any pioneer in efficiency was going to stand way way out. Like being the first guy to try to hit home runs basically.

Yes, the degree to which he stood out almost certainly had to do with the league environment. But we're still talking about a tall guard with a powerful build, good athleticism and very strong fundamental skills. He literally wrote the book on it. So again, like I said earlier, I wouldn't expect him to be a +9.5% rTS guy like he was in 64, or +9.1 as he was a year later, because league efficiency was horrendous. They played super fast, took a whole pile of dumb shots and the paint was packed tight, so it was brutal trying to finish well.

But Oscar was a smart, methodical dude with a good jumper, good post game, good transition game, strong at the FT line and very good at drawing fouls. Excellent passer. And of course the specific box score averages are influenced by the insane MPG of the 60s, so that's fine. He'd be fine in many eras after his own.

Anyway, translation across era isn't really what informed my selection. Era-relative dominance, comparable accolades, broader game than just his scoring. Also did a quality job integrating with another star en route to a title, etc, etc.

KD would have stood out quite nicely as a scorer, but he's much less useful than the guys who do that and are also higher-quality playmakers, which is part of why I value a guy like Oscar more in the absence of really screaming differences in individual success and accolades.

[Cavsfansince84]

I have Oscar as top 12/13, KD as more like 20-23. He's accomplished next to nothing since 2019 while missing around half his rs games.

Well to be fair, Oscar accomplished less than next to nothing since time started. Then got carried by Kareem to a title then was part of some bad upsets, resulting in him having one of the worst championships vs expected championship numbers ever. I might still take Oscar for overall offensive dominance of his era but KD got to the finals young, had his own era relative super team, and was probably a toe away from knocking off the eventual champs in 2021 essentially by himself with 2 of the best playoff games we’ve seen in games 5 and 7.

I mean I sort of agree that Oscar's team results pre Kareem weren't that great either though he took the Celtics to decisive games twice when they won it all. He then did really well as a #2 even at a very advanced age for that time and I would say came within injuries of possibly winning 3 titles in a 4 year span. I don't think its right to say he got carried by Kareem though anymore than Magic got carried by him in 1980 except Oscar was likely better than Magic. The Bucks went from losing 4-1 in the edf to trouncing everyone in 71. The only thing we can say about KD since 2019 is 'what if his toe hadn't been on the line' and they still had two more series to win after that.