For today: Curry vs Oscar

[The Explorer]

I am taking a known thing (skillset), and placing it into a new environment. You are taking an unknown thing (a hypothetical player who never existed), and placing it in a new environment. The former does involve some reasonable speculation, but the latter is what I would call too speculative because both variables are imaginary.

No. You are taking an unknown thing (Curry in the 60s) and placing him in a new environment. How did you even put him in the 60s, by time machine or was he born in the 40s? If it's by time machine you have no idea how he would respond in such an environment as I've already pointed out. If its by birth, his entire life and circumstances and knowledge of basketball changes as he becomes Dell Curry instead of Steph. Either way it's far too speculative to come to any meaningful conclusion. So you cannot speculate either way.

That's obviously false. I am taking Curry from today's era, which is a known quantity, and placing him in the 60s (or taking 60s Oscar and placing him in today's game). It's a known quantity being placed into a speculative situation, not a speculative player being placed into a speculative situation. Hope that helps.

This talk of time machines is often not helpful, because in actuality you need sci-fi tech to place any player in another situation (e.g. KG on the Spurs never happened, so relies of sci-fi to work). If it helps you to conceptualise it, just imagine it like a time machine though, but with each player getting a training camp to adapt to the different league and learn how to deploy their skillset in the era they're in.

You’re claiming it’s less speculative to drop a fully developed 21st-century player—with modern training, medicine, diet, tech, strategy, and rules knowledge—into the 1960s, a completely alien environment where none of that existed… and you're pretending that's a "known quantity"? That's not logical—it's wishful thinking.

The second you take Curry out of the context that shaped his skillset, he's no longer a "known quantity." He becomes speculative by definition. The assumption that his skillset seamlessly translates to a totally different era—without adjusting for the countless factors that shaped it—is just as hypothetical as any scenario involving a player developed in a different time.

You can’t keep the benefits of modernity when sending a player to the past while stripping them away from older players coming forward. You’re not simply moving a player, you’re rewriting history. And once you do that, you’ve entered the exact speculative territory you claimed to avoid.

[OhayoKD]

No. You are taking an unknown thing (Curry in the 60s) and placing him in a new environment. How did you even put him in the 60s, by time machine or was he born in the 40s? If it's by time machine you have no idea how he would respond in such an environment as I've already pointed out. If its by birth, his entire life and circumstances and knowledge of basketball changes as he becomes Dell Curry instead of Steph. Either way it's far too speculative to come to any meaningful conclusion. So you cannot speculate either way.

That's obviously false. I am taking Curry from today's era, which is a known quantity, and placing him in the 60s (or taking 60s Oscar and placing him in today's game). It's a known quantity being placed into a speculative situation, not a speculative player being placed into a speculative situation. Hope that helps.

This talk of time machines is often not helpful, because in actuality you need sci-fi tech to place any player in another situation (e.g. KG on the Spurs never happened, so relies of sci-fi to work). If it helps you to conceptualise it, just imagine it like a time machine though, but with each player getting a training camp to adapt to the different league and learn how to deploy their skillset in the era they're in.

You can’t keep the benefits of modernity when sending a player to the past while stripping them away from older players coming forward. You’re not simply moving a player, you’re rewriting history. And once you do that, you’ve entered the exact speculative territory you claimed to avoid.

Nothing is being stripped away. You have to actually have the thing in the first place for that verb to make sense. You are speculating on skills that have to be developed, not the existence of avenues to develop that skill many others have access to.

The time machine method is far less speculative and does not require changing the player while offering the benefit of direct comparison. The only reason people are unironically equating it with the 'random birth" method is to manufacture equality. The products of a more developed system are more to stand out more in a less developed one than vice versa. The flipside is the products of a less developed one will find it easier to dominate their own period than the more developed products.

If you are unwilling to concede the former then very clearly the objective of this "fairness" is to put the past on an undeserved pedestal.

[eminence]

I’m a pretty big Oscar fan. And it’s Steph, not close.

Going any other guard (slim argument for player) for this era over Steph is just trying to be too clever. He was easily the best guard of the era, why get fancy and choose a guard that isn’t him?

[lessthanjake]

I’d conceptualize Oscar Robertson in today’s NBA as being pretty similar to Jimmy Butler, but just increase the passing ability further and make him able to sustain a bit of a higher scoring and ball-handling load. And maybe dial down the defense a bit. So I think on balance he’d be better than Butler, but at least be a similar genre of player. Which is pretty good, since Butler has been a fantastic player, so a similar-but-better-and-higher-offensive-load Butler would be a great player.

However, I don’t think you’d want him above Curry for today’s NBA. Curry’s game just fits this era better. I think it’s a tough lift for a superstar from another era to be better than a superstar in their own era, if the guy in his own era really fits the demands of his era like a glove. The other guy would just have to be so much better at basketball in general that it overcomes a gap in era fit. And I don’t think Oscar was really a superior basketball player to Curry in general, so that’s not a conclusion I can get to. For what it’s worth, though, I’d probably say Oscar would be better in Oscar’s era than Steph would be in that era.

[70sFan]

Nothing is being stripped away. You have to actually have the thing in the first place for that verb to make sense. You are speculating on skills that have to be developed, not the existence of avenues to develop that skill many others have access to.

I hope you are aware that One_and_Done does exactly the same - he speculates on skills that have to be developed. Why is it so hard to understand this?

The products of a more developed system are more to stand out more in a less developed one than vice versa.

Basketball rules haven't become more developed, they just became different with time. This discussion isn't about era strength, but the rules that shaped basketball product. Absolutely no criteria can produce the conclusion that one set of rules is more developed than the other one.

If you are unwilling to concede the former then very clearly the objective of this "fairness" is to put the past on an undeserved pedestal.

People are unwilling to agree with One_and_Done because he arbitrarily decides who can develop new skills under different contexts, not because they are unwilling to state that one era is stronger than the other.

[70sFan]

I’d conceptualize Oscar Robertson in today’s NBA as being pretty similar to Jimmy Butler, but just increase the passing ability further and make him able to sustain a bit of a higher scoring and ball-handling load. And maybe dial down the defense a bit. So I think on balance he’d be better than Butler, but at least be a similar genre of player. Which is pretty good, since Butler has been a fantastic player, so a similar-but-better-and-higher-offensive-load Butler would be a great player.

However, I don’t think you’d want him above Curry for today’s NBA. Curry’s game just fits this era better. I think it’s a tough lift for a superstar from another era to be better than a superstar in their own era, if the guy in his own era really fits the demands of his era like a glove. The other guy would just have to be so much better at basketball in general that it overcomes a gap in era fit. And I don’t think Oscar was really a superior basketball player to Curry in general, so that’s not a conclusion I can get to. For what it’s worth, though, I’d probably say Oscar would be better in Oscar’s era than Steph would be in that era.

I see some similarities in scoring game of the two, but overall Oscar and Butler are nothing alike. Butler plays mostly in two main roles - off-ball cutter/weakside creator and high post isolation scorer. Oscar was the primary ball-handler and decision maker with unusually high P&R load for the 1960s player. Butler is one of the weakest shooters among perimeter stars of his era, while Oscar was one of the best shooters of his era. Oscar was a methodological mismatch hunter, Butler plays off others a lot more.

[lessthanjake]

I’d conceptualize Oscar Robertson in today’s NBA as being pretty similar to Jimmy Butler, but just increase the passing ability further and make him able to sustain a bit of a higher scoring and ball-handling load. And maybe dial down the defense a bit. So I think on balance he’d be better than Butler, but at least be a similar genre of player. Which is pretty good, since Butler has been a fantastic player, so a similar-but-better-and-higher-offensive-load Butler would be a great player.

However, I don’t think you’d want him above Curry for today’s NBA. Curry’s game just fits this era better. I think it’s a tough lift for a superstar from another era to be better than a superstar in their own era, if the guy in his own era really fits the demands of his era like a glove. The other guy would just have to be so much better at basketball in general that it overcomes a gap in era fit. And I don’t think Oscar was really a superior basketball player to Curry in general, so that’s not a conclusion I can get to. For what it’s worth, though, I’d probably say Oscar would be better in Oscar’s era than Steph would be in that era.

I see some similarities in scoring game of the two, but overall Oscar and Butler are nothing alike. Butler plays mostly in two main roles - off-ball cutter/weakside creator and high post isolation scorer. Oscar was the primary ball-handler and decision maker with unusually high P&R load for the 1960s player. Butler is one of the weakest shooters among perimeter stars of his era, while Oscar was one of the best shooters of his era. Oscar was a methodological mismatch hunter, Butler plays off others a lot more.

Yeah, these are all fair points. I was mostly thinking about their scoring games, including specifically how I think Oscar would be able to use his body to get himself looks. But yeah, there’s also some shades of Luka in terms of Oscar being a pretty big-bodied guy who runs a lot of P&R and hunts mismatches, while not being a guy who jumps out of the gym. Luka is even bigger than Oscar and spams P&Rs more than anyone from the 1960s did IMO and obviously P&Rs are played a bit different now because of how much space there is, so that analogy isn’t perfect either. But I think there’s parallels to Oscar to be seen with both of those guys. Perhaps we’d say that in today’s era Oscar would be probably play a similar style to Luka while having a body and scoring game similar to Butler but with better shooting (at least from the mid-range—his three-point ability is hard to really know for sure, since the three-point line didn’t exist in his era), and while being somewhere between the two in terms of ability on defense. That’s probably the best analogy I can come up with. And, of course, that sounds like it’d be a really good player! But I do think Curry is just so well-suited to this era that Oscar wouldn’t be as good (not that you’re responding to that part of my post, so this isn’t arguing with you).

[tsherkin]

But I do think Curry is just so well-suited to this era that Oscar wouldn’t be as good (not that you’re responding to that part of my post, so this isn’t arguing with you).

I think the underpinning question between the two ultimately becomes, how do you wait Steph's gravity and shooting versus Oscar's playmaking in terms of overall offensive value, right? Because Oscar would be a good scorer in today's game. Pending his adaptation to 3, maybe a great one, but that's hard to tell. But his playmaking would remain high-end, so if he was turned into a helio guy, it would become interesting to see what he could accomplish in that regard relative to what Steph does.

[One_and_Done]

Jimmy Butler is better than Oscar too.

[One_and_Done]

No. You are taking an unknown thing (Curry in the 60s) and placing him in a new environment. How did you even put him in the 60s, by time machine or was he born in the 40s? If it's by time machine you have no idea how he would respond in such an environment as I've already pointed out. If its by birth, his entire life and circumstances and knowledge of basketball changes as he becomes Dell Curry instead of Steph. Either way it's far too speculative to come to any meaningful conclusion. So you cannot speculate either way.

That's obviously false. I am taking Curry from today's era, which is a known quantity, and placing him in the 60s (or taking 60s Oscar and placing him in today's game). It's a known quantity being placed into a speculative situation, not a speculative player being placed into a speculative situation. Hope that helps.

This talk of time machines is often not helpful, because in actuality you need sci-fi tech to place any player in another situation (e.g. KG on the Spurs never happened, so relies of sci-fi to work). If it helps you to conceptualise it, just imagine it like a time machine though, but with each player getting a training camp to adapt to the different league and learn how to deploy their skillset in the era they're in.

You’re claiming it’s less speculative to drop a fully developed 21st-century player—with modern training, medicine, diet, tech, strategy, and rules knowledge—into the 1960s, a completely alien environment where none of that existed… and you're pretending that's a "known quantity"? That's not logical—it's wishful thinking.

The second you take Curry out of the context that shaped his skillset, he's no longer a "known quantity." He becomes speculative by definition. The assumption that his skillset seamlessly translates to a totally different era—without adjusting for the countless factors that shaped it—is just as hypothetical as any scenario involving a player developed in a different time.

You can’t keep the benefits of modernity when sending a player to the past while stripping them away from older players coming forward. You’re not simply moving a player, you’re rewriting history. And once you do that, you’ve entered the exact speculative territory you claimed to avoid.

Some things are less speculative than others. I explained this in some detail.

Next people will be arguing Tim Duncan couldn't play in the 60s because we never saw him throw an elbow, and thus he would lack the 'grit' needed. The thing is anyone can throw an elbow, just like any modern ball handler can do simplistic 60s dribbling. Not every player can hit a 3pt shot though.

[One_and_Done]

I’ve made this point before, but it bears repeating that there is essentially a 3 stage approach to era comparison.

The first stage is where the majority of the argumentation has been, namely how player X would adapt to period Y. I give players the skillset they actually had, and ask how it would work in another era. In the case of 3pt shooting for instance, it’s basically impossible to infer you’d develop it from a good midrange game, because plenty of guys like Demar have a great midrange game and still can’t hit the 3 point shot. On the other hand, today’s dribbling is far more advanced than dribbling in the 60s. It should be relatively easy for players to tone down their dribbling to adjust to 60s rules. Poor dribbling is just a subset of advanced dribbling, so it’s a skill they already possess, like how someone who runs can already crawl. Players in today’s game are very sophisticated and skilled, and show their adaption to major rule changes every other year (in terms of how to foul, when they need to draw body contact, etc), and we have seen plenty of old skill challenges where NBA players are showing off their versatility in the past.

But let’s assume that you didn’t buy that for some reason. I don’t agree, but for the sake of argument let’s proceed. That gets you to stages 2 and 3. Stage 2 is “well, it’s more valuable to adjust to today’s superior game, and that’s what we should be looking at; how guys would do in a league of the best of the best”. Stage 3 is “let’s say for the sake of argument that no era is more inherently valuable than the other… the skillset that is more usable over a larger period of the NBAs history is surely more valuable, right?” The 3pt shot has existed for the majority of league history, for the last 45 years. Even further back if we include the ABA. Similarly, for the majority of NBA history players did not have the constraints of 60s dribbling rules. A more modern approach to dribbling is more valuable for the majority of the history of the league. So modern players are going to get an advantage in any weighting of skillsets when we move onto the 2nd and 3rd stage of analysis. I don’t think it even gets to these stages, but if it did older players would still lose out; as they should, because they played in a barely professional bush league to paraphrase Wilt.

[Jaivl]

Demar had a solid vertical. He wasn't "very athletic" by NBA standards, though obviously so by the standards of the general public.

Oscar looks nothing like DeRozan, but... come on, man. Come on.

C'mon what?

He could jump pretty well and he wasn't immobile, but he didn't have elite quickness, he didn't have elite power, nor a frame where that was even possible. He wasn't at that level of overwhelming athleticism. This was bluntly obvious watching him. He was also more of a two-footed jumper than a one-footed leaper, which limited the utility of his vertical. His footspeed was a SIGNIFICANT part of why he exerted so little rim pressure and resorted to bombing long twos as much as he did.

I'm not saying Demar was a stiff, because that's obviously untrue, but he very clearly didn't have top-end athletic tools. That really shouldn't even be a debatable point, when he played in the same league as tail-end prime Wade, Lebron James, Kevin Durant, Blake Griffin, Dwight Howard, John Wall, etc.

The vertical. If DeRozan had a "solid" vertical, then maybe 4 players ever that had a "good" one. None of them stars. Otherwise sure, he was mostly good, not great.

[tsherkin]

The vertical. If DeRozan had a "solid" vertical, then maybe 4 players ever that had a "good" one. None of them stars. Otherwise sure, he was mostly good, not great.

Yeah, his max vertical is solid. It's also the least-important athletic trait for most players, because it doesn't come into play that frequently. Also, LOADS of plays have verticals in excess of Demar's. Yeah, his max vert was 38.5" at the combine. Standing was 29". He was 4th in his draft class in max vertical.

In 2012, SEVEN guys had a higher max vertical at the combine (four of whom were 40"+). A year later, 10 guys had higher max verts.

I could go on, but it's bluntly obvious that tons of guys have higher verts than Demar, especially from the functional perspective, especially because one-footed jumpers are better than two-footers for actual in-game utility more often. Pat Connaughton's standing vert (37.5) is almost as good as Demar's max vert, and he rocked a 44" max vert. Donovan Mitchell maxed out at 40.5. DiVincenzo, 42. Keon Johnson posted a 48 in 2022. Achbaji on the Raptors posted a 41.5. Dalton Knecht is at 39.

Look, we can go all day about this, and whether you agree about the characterization or not isn't really material. Footspeed is a lot more important than max vertical. Demar has enough to do what he does, but he's clearly never been a tier-1 athlete in the league. That's good, relative to NBA standards, but not elite. And that was the point. What made him into a good regular-season player was skill more than athleticism.

[ty 4191]

This isn't relevant to what I wrote. I projected a semi-competent 3 from him based on his actual shooting proficiency.

I bolded the part I was responding to.

I was speaking in terms of his efficiency. Suppose I should have been clearer, fair enough.

Oscar's TS Added (1040 career games):



Curry TS Added (1020 career games):



https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1cZKyz688S74yyo8Dy4T5vuAkIXZggKJK6QdiUnQqSx8/edit?gid=266732662#gid=266732662

Oscar is 2nd all time in TS Added per 82 G, career. Curry is NOW, 11th, +229 TS Added per 82 G...just behind Jerry West and just ahead of Charles Barkley. Add to that Oscar was far more skilled (all around, including defense, stamina, size, strength, rebounding, top 5 passer all time)....and it's no contest. I'd take the far bigger stronger far less "I shoot 3s...and really do nothing else beautifully...... and only in an era where a foul is called when a defender just BREATHES on a shooter", every day, twice on Sundays.

[One_and_Done]

I bolded the part I was responding to.

I was speaking in terms of his efficiency. Suppose I should have been clearer, fair enough.

Oscar's TS Added (1040 career games):



Curry TS Added (1020 career games):



https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1cZKyz688S74yyo8Dy4T5vuAkIXZggKJK6QdiUnQqSx8/edit?gid=266732662#gid=266732662

Oscar is 2nd all time in TS Added per 82 G, career. Curry is NOW, 11th, +229 TS Added per 82 G...just behind Jerry West and just ahead of Charles Barkley. Add to that Oscar was far more skilled (all around, including defense, stamina, size, strength, rebounding, top 5 passer all time)....and it's no contest. I'd take the far bigger stronger far less "I shoot 3s...and really do nothing else beautifully...... and only in an era where a foul is called when a defender just BREATHES on a shooter", every day, twice on Sundays.

Who cares about relative TS%. If a guy had average TS% in 1950, does it logically follow he'd also be average in 2025? Obviously not. So who cares.

[SpreeS]

I bolded the part I was responding to.

I was speaking in terms of his efficiency. Suppose I should have been clearer, fair enough.

Oscar's TS Added (1040 career games):



Curry TS Added (1020 career games):



https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1cZKyz688S74yyo8Dy4T5vuAkIXZggKJK6QdiUnQqSx8/edit?gid=266732662#gid=266732662

Oscar is 2nd all time in TS Added per 82 G, career. Curry is NOW, 11th, +229 TS Added per 82 G...just behind Jerry West and just ahead of Charles Barkley. Add to that Oscar was far more skilled (all around, including defense, stamina, size, strength, rebounding, top 5 passer all time)....and it's no contest. I'd take the far bigger stronger far less "I shoot 3s...and really do nothing else beautifully...... and only in an era where a foul is called when a defender just BREATHES on a shooter", every day, twice on Sundays.

So you tell me that Oscar would have +115 TS in this era?

[ty 4191]

So you tell me that Oscar would have +115 TS in this era?

Why wouldn't he? Your historical ignorance and total dismissiveness is completely unfathomable.

Watch this first, do some research, and educate yourself:

Watch on YouTube

https://www.reddit.com/r/nba/comments/or2mtc/oscar_robertson_was_once_regarded_as_the_greatest/

"Oscar Robertson was once regarded as the greatest all-around player in basketball history. Here are some quotes that demonstrate his sometimes underrated greatness.

I compiled some quotes on the greatness of Oscar Robertson, a former player who I think has become underrated. I threw in basically anything I could find in case anybody was interested.

Praise from players, coaches

Kareem Abdul-Jabbar (2013)

“LeBron is awesome, MJ was awesome — but I think Oscar Robertson would have kicked them both in the behind,” said Abdul-Jabbar when asked about James and Jordan. “Absolutely. Oscar was awesome. He had brains. […] He had all the skills.”

Red Auerbach

“He [Oscar] is so great he scares me.”

Jerry Lucas

“He obviously was unbelievable, way ahead of his time. There is no more complete player than Oscar.”

Bill Russell

“Oscar was one of basketball’s great leaders, and his life is one of basketball’s great stories. He was unafraid, unabashed, and unmatched in everything he did. There will never be another like him.”

Rick Barry

“People just don’t have any idea how good Oscar was. The numbers are ridiculous. If you’re getting 30 points and double-figures in rebounds as a point guard and 10 assists a game, that’s sick. He is the greatest athlete in the history of sports in this country who has been overlooked in terms of his greatness.”

Jerry West

“Oscar Robertson was never a rookie. He was the measuring stick for how a player should play. He is a man for the ages.”

John Havlicek

"He [Oscar] is the best I've ever seen."

Jerry West

"[Oscar Robertson was the] greatest player I played against, period."

Magic Johnson

"I never knew how good Oscar was until I tried to do it."

Wayne Embry

“Oscar knew you were open before you knew you were open. [...] He was the greatest player I have ever seen, period.”

Pete Newell

"Oscar Robertson was the most fundamentally flawless player I ever saw."

Bob Boozer

“He played the game like he invented it. Oscar was James Naismith in tennis shoes. He did what he wanted to do.”

John Wooden [1]

"I've always considered Oscar Robertson to be the best player in the game," says John Wooden. "Now I'm not so sure that Larry Bird isn't."

John Salley (on what Michael Jordan told him) [2]

Interviewer: "Who did Jordan tell you is the greatest player ever?"

Salley: "He would say Oscar Robertson."

Praise from media & notable awards

AP Basketball Player of the Century (1999) [3]

Michael Jordan (49)

Oscar Robertson (44)

Wilt Chamberlain (42)

Bill Russell (41)

Earvin Johnson (36)

Larry Bird (34)

Kareem Abdul-Jabbar (25)

Elgin Baylor (19)

Jerry West (16)

Julius Erving (12)

Karl Malone (6)

Bob Pettit (4)

Bob Cousy (1)

John Havlicek (1)

Selection Panel of Marv Albert, Chick Hearn, Fuzzy Levane, Harvey Pollack, Bill Russell, and Lenny Wilkens

SLAM Magazine Top 75 NBA Players of All-Time (2003) [4]

Michael Jordan

2. Wilt Chamberlain

3. Oscar Robertson

4. Bill Russell

5. Magic Johnson

6. Larry Bird

7. Kareem Abdul-Jabbar

8. Jerry West

9. Shaquille O'Neal

10. Julius Erving

11-75. [...]

National Association of Basketball Coaches' Player of the Century [5]


PLAYERS OF THE CENTURY

Larry Bird (Indiana State)

Kareem Abdul Jabbar (UCLA)

Earvin "Magic" Johnson (Michigan State)

Michael Jordan (North Carolina)

Oscar Robertson (Cincinnati)

Bill Russell (San Francisco)

Bill Walton (UCLA)

PLAYER OF THE CENTURY

Oscar Robertson Cincinnati

New York Times (2009) [6]

Oscar Robertson has watched LeBron James for years and thinks so highly of the young star that he recently gave him the nod over Kobe as the N.B.A.’s best player.

But with each successive playoff game against Orlando, Robertson, the greatest all-around player in N.B.A. history, said Cleveland was beginning to resemble Robertson’s Cincinnati Royals. While Robertson played with Jerry Lucas from 1963 to 1969, the Royals had no depth.

“When I played for the Royals, when I look back on it, there’s no way we could have won,” Robertson said Monday in a telephone interview from his home in Cincinnati. “We played the Celtics, and they had three or four superstars playing in their lineup. We had one.”

[One_and_Done]

So you tell me that Oscar would have +115 TS in this era?

Why wouldn't he? Your historical ignorance and total dismissiveness is completely unfathomable.

Watch this first, do some research, and educate yourself:

Watch on YouTube

https://www.reddit.com/r/nba/comments/or2mtc/oscar_robertson_was_once_regarded_as_the_greatest/

"Oscar Robertson was once regarded as the greatest all-around player in basketball history. Here are some quotes that demonstrate his sometimes underrated greatness.

I compiled some quotes on the greatness of Oscar Robertson, a former player who I think has become underrated. I threw in basically anything I could find in case anybody was interested.

Praise from players, coaches

Kareem Abdul-Jabbar (2013)

“LeBron is awesome, MJ was awesome — but I think Oscar Robertson would have kicked them both in the behind,” said Abdul-Jabbar when asked about James and Jordan. “Absolutely. Oscar was awesome. He had brains. […] He had all the skills.”

Red Auerbach

“He [Oscar] is so great he scares me.”

Jerry Lucas

“He obviously was unbelievable, way ahead of his time. There is no more complete player than Oscar.”

Bill Russell

“Oscar was one of basketball’s great leaders, and his life is one of basketball’s great stories. He was unafraid, unabashed, and unmatched in everything he did. There will never be another like him.”

Rick Barry

“People just don’t have any idea how good Oscar was. The numbers are ridiculous. If you’re getting 30 points and double-figures in rebounds as a point guard and 10 assists a game, that’s sick. He is the greatest athlete in the history of sports in this country who has been overlooked in terms of his greatness.”

Jerry West

“Oscar Robertson was never a rookie. He was the measuring stick for how a player should play. He is a man for the ages.”

John Havlicek

"He [Oscar] is the best I've ever seen."

Jerry West

"[Oscar Robertson was the] greatest player I played against, period."

Magic Johnson

"I never knew how good Oscar was until I tried to do it."

Wayne Embry

“Oscar knew you were open before you knew you were open. [...] He was the greatest player I have ever seen, period.”

Pete Newell

"Oscar Robertson was the most fundamentally flawless player I ever saw."

Bob Boozer

“He played the game like he invented it. Oscar was James Naismith in tennis shoes. He did what he wanted to do.”

John Wooden [1]

"I've always considered Oscar Robertson to be the best player in the game," says John Wooden. "Now I'm not so sure that Larry Bird isn't."

John Salley (on what Michael Jordan told him) [2]

Interviewer: "Who did Jordan tell you is the greatest player ever?"

Salley: "He would say Oscar Robertson."

Praise from media & notable awards

AP Basketball Player of the Century (1999) [3]

Michael Jordan (49)

Oscar Robertson (44)

Wilt Chamberlain (42)

Bill Russell (41)

Earvin Johnson (36)

Larry Bird (34)

Kareem Abdul-Jabbar (25)

Elgin Baylor (19)

Jerry West (16)

Julius Erving (12)

Karl Malone (6)

Bob Pettit (4)

Bob Cousy (1)

John Havlicek (1)

Selection Panel of Marv Albert, Chick Hearn, Fuzzy Levane, Harvey Pollack, Bill Russell, and Lenny Wilkens

SLAM Magazine Top 75 NBA Players of All-Time (2003) [4]

Michael Jordan

2. Wilt Chamberlain

3. Oscar Robertson

4. Bill Russell

5. Magic Johnson

6. Larry Bird

7. Kareem Abdul-Jabbar

8. Jerry West

9. Shaquille O'Neal

10. Julius Erving

11-75. [...]

National Association of Basketball Coaches' Player of the Century [5]


PLAYERS OF THE CENTURY

Larry Bird (Indiana State)

Kareem Abdul Jabbar (UCLA)

Earvin "Magic" Johnson (Michigan State)

Michael Jordan (North Carolina)

Oscar Robertson (Cincinnati)

Bill Russell (San Francisco)

Bill Walton (UCLA)

PLAYER OF THE CENTURY

Oscar Robertson Cincinnati

New York Times (2009) [6]

Oscar Robertson has watched LeBron James for years and thinks so highly of the young star that he recently gave him the nod over Kobe as the N.B.A.’s best player.

But with each successive playoff game against Orlando, Robertson, the greatest all-around player in N.B.A. history, said Cleveland was beginning to resemble Robertson’s Cincinnati Royals. While Robertson played with Jerry Lucas from 1963 to 1969, the Royals had no depth.

“When I played for the Royals, when I look back on it, there’s no way we could have won,” Robertson said Monday in a telephone interview from his home in Cincinnati. “We played the Celtics, and they had three or four superstars playing in their lineup. We had one.”

Players of all eras say dumb things that showcase how clueless they are about other players, why would we take these particular comments seriously? Every player has a vested interest in hyping up their own era.

[ty 4191]

Players of all eras say dumb things that showcase how clueless they are about other players, why would we take these particular comments seriously? Every player has a vested interest in hyping up their own era.

Every young and ignorant dilettante- like yourself- has a vested interest in hyping up their own myopia (the current era), engaging in Recency Bias and Confirmation Bias (NONSTOP), because you're ahistorical and aversed to actual historical scrutiny and skills analysis/portability across eras.

So what physical attributes and skill sets did Oscar Robertson lack, specifically, that would make him "not NBA level" of "just an average player" today? (I'm paraphrasing your tacit sentiments about all 1960's/1970's players being "Plumbers and Firemen")....

Watch on YouTube

Watch on YouTube

Do tell. If you're an expert on skill sets and basketball, break down exactly what he lacked.

[One_and_Done]

Just watch him. He looks average compared to today's players.