PDA

View Full Version : Oscar Robertson and Jerry West in the league now



JordansBulls
11-07-2008, 01:22 PM
Oscar Robertson and Jerry West went #1 and #2 in the 1960 draft. If both players were in the NBA nowadays as they were in 1960, which player would most teams rather have and which player do you think would be more productive?

ttam68
11-07-2008, 03:43 PM
Oscar would be the better player. More of an athlete (as today's game has moved toward) and better overall player, more efficient.

Jerry would be recognized as a one dimensional all star, but not on Oscar's level.

chicagowhitesox
11-07-2008, 04:24 PM
dude oscar robertson would be terrible these days. have you ever seen his offensive repitoir? it consisted of backing down a player for 20 seconds until he was right under the basket and making a layup. that wouldn't work in today's game. and there's too many athletes on the floor for him to put up all those rebounds still.

american_yakuza
11-07-2008, 05:33 PM
These guys nowdays would be running circles around both of them. Can't really compare, basketball was a whole different game in that era.

Lakersfan2483
11-08-2008, 02:02 AM
Oscar Robertson and Jerry West went #1 and #2 in the 1960 draft. If both players were in the NBA nowadays as they were in 1960, which player would most teams rather have and which player do you think would be more productive?

Oscar would be the more productive player.

JJ81
11-08-2008, 02:08 AM
Robinson.

Duncan = Donkey
11-08-2008, 05:59 AM
its impossible to tell.simple as that

JordansBulls
11-08-2008, 11:16 AM
Robinson.

His name isn't Robinson, it is Robertson

kswissdaf
11-08-2008, 12:03 PM
The Big o in my mind is the greatest player of all time but nethier would be able to hang with todays nba players

ink
11-09-2008, 01:08 PM
I'd say Oscar, although he'd be a different player now because he would have learned from all the greats that followed him. ;) He wouldn't play like the Oscar we know about, he'd take all that natural talent and build on what his predecessors had done -- just like Lebron, Kobe, Wade, Durant, and Beasley get to do. They all benefit from who came before them.

I don't think Jerry West would have the athleticism to play at a high level in today's NBA.

Hellcrooner
11-09-2008, 01:26 PM
How do any of us know? you cant judge a player by some selected revisited games, you hjave to see them at elast 8 or 9 games a year in all kind of game,s good bad normal etc etc.

No one in this boards is old enough to have seen them play that way.....

Man its even hard to find people who saw Woolridge, Gilmore or English play nowdays, so 60s stars ,..... go pfigure.

GregOden#1
11-09-2008, 03:14 PM
I'd say Oscar, although he'd be a different player now because he would have learned from all the greats that followed him. ;) He wouldn't play like the Oscar we know about, he'd take all that natural talent and build on what his predecessors had done -- just like Lebron, Kobe, Wade, Durant, and Beasley get to do. They all benefit from who came before them.

I don't think Jerry West would have the athleticism to play at a high level in today's NBA.

Jerry West was more athletic than Oscar Robertson.

ink
11-09-2008, 03:46 PM
Jerry West was more athletic than Oscar Robertson.

I haven't watched them as much as I'd like to but that doesn't mesh with what I've seen from each of them.

GregOden#1
11-09-2008, 03:55 PM
I haven't watched them as much as I'd like to but that doesn't mesh with what I've seen from each of them.

You should watch more of them then, Jerry West was one of the best athletes in the league.

Hawkeye15
11-09-2008, 04:24 PM
If they were both sent in a time machine to today, they would both struggle. Sports where size, speed, and strength are important, will always see evolution. In 50 years, guys like Kobe, Duncan, etc., would not be great players. Just the way it is. Skill sports, like baseball or golf for example, are comparable over generations. Not basketball. If you sent LeBron back to 1956, he would average 60 pts a game

ink
11-09-2008, 04:40 PM
You should watch more of them then, Jerry West was one of the best athletes in the league.

Well, maybe there wasn't as much between them as I said, but I've watched as much as I can find on O. He's one of my favourite players of all time. West is obviously good too, but I think O is better ... and a bit more athletic.

-----

Anyway, about the question -- some people are forgetting that we wouldn't just take Oscar or West straight out of the videos we have of them and plug them into today's NBA.

If they were playing in today's NBA they would have seen Jordan, Stockton, Isiah, Magic, etc, etc, etc. They would have grown up trying to imitate every move all the greats ever made. That's how basketball evolves. Then they'd bring all their talent into the NBA and we'd see a different Oscar and West.

Questions like this are really asking "who had the greatest natural talent, and who could learn anything they wanted' because that's what these guys would bring to today's NBA ... amazing talent and ability to innovate.

dre1990
11-09-2008, 05:19 PM
Oscar would light it up

SAVAGE CLAW
11-09-2008, 09:28 PM
If they were both sent in a time machine to today, they would both struggle. Sports where size, speed, and strength are important, will always see evolution. In 50 years, guys like Kobe, Duncan, etc., would not be great players. Just the way it is. Skill sports, like baseball or golf for example, are comparable over generations. Not basketball. If you sent LeBron back to 1956, he would average 60 pts a game


If todays players traveled back to 1956..... well to start with No one would contract Lebron because it was a racist era and teams only used White players....but thats not the thing , if the typyacl star from today traveled back its very probable that coach SITTED him at the bottom of the bench beacuse of their LACK of Fundamentals and lack of Team Play and Passing Game Knowledge.

GregOden#1
11-09-2008, 09:52 PM
Well, maybe there wasn't as much between them as I said, but I've watched as much as I can find on O. He's one of my favourite players of all time. West is obviously good too, but I think O is better ... and a bit more athletic.

It's debatable wether or not West or Oscar was the better player in their era, but not who would be better today. Oscar benefited from when he played, West didn't, in fact West played in probably the worst era a player like him could play in, any other time and he'd be that much better. I could go on, but this post from another forum that JB posted this on:


Jerry West played in the worst possible period for a player of his skills and type. He had great range, and there was no three point line. The era was more violent, which meant that it was more difficult for any player to play in the post, much less a small guy like West who drove to hoop constantly in his first 8-10 years in the league. West suffered frequent nagging injuries that modern medicine and rehab would help prevent (or at least speed his return to the court). There was no hand check rule. Offenses tended to be less spread, making it harder to get perimeter assists. Assists were given on a lower percentage of shots. I mean, it’s almost a perfect storm against West. And he managed to put up 28.2-5.7-6.9 over a 12 year period.

I’ve done it before, but I want to do it in more detail here…I want to estimate what West would look like now, at least statistically. The pace of the game is a good 10-15% slower now than it was then, so you’d want to dock West’s scoring. But then you have to give him the three. How much would that help him? From personal observation and in-person description, I figure that something like 10-12% of West’s shots were threes back in the day. That’s a low number by modern standards, but still. If 12% of West’s shots were threes and he connected at 38%, then his shooting breakdown looks like this.

Non threes: 7468-15179 (.4920)
Threes: 787-2070 (.3802)

West averaged almost 21 shots a game. Drop that to around 18.5-19 today; that’s the pace difference. But up the percentage of threes by a huge amount. Instead of 12%...put it to about 30%. If West takes 18.8 shots a game, 5.6 of them will be threes. That’s reasonable. So if West played 80 games, his shots would look like this

Non threes: 520-1056 (.4924)
Threes: 170-448 (.3795)

This means that West would shoot .459 from the field today...lower than in the past. And his free throws should, theoretically, go down. But the rule changes would benefit him pretty strongly here; I think West would stay at about his previous level of FTA per game, which is 9.9 for his peak 12 year period. So, in those 80 games, we have this:

Free throws: 651-792 (.8200)

So now we have a pretty good idea of what West’s scoring average would be, adjusted for era and pace. (1040+510+651/80 = 27.5) So…27.5 points per game for that 12 year peak. For the real stat hounds, that’s a TS% of .594 and an eFG% of .516.

Rebounds are easy. Over his 12 year peak, West had a rebound rate of 7.46. He averaged 39.9 minutes per game. He would grab 5.18 rebounds per game now. So now we have that.

Assists are the trickiest. The pace difference between eras is totally negated by the difference in assists given. When West played, assist were credited on about 52% of made field goals. Today it’s more like 60%. And when you add in increased perimeter assist totals…I figure West would actually be up around 5%. So that puts him at 7.3 assists per game.

Lastly, let’s look at steals and blocks. They only kept track in West’s finals year, and the logo averaged a block every 42 minutes, and a steal every 11.94 minutes. There are about 15% fewer steals now than in West’s day…but we only have data from West’s final year. He had played over 42000 regular season and playoff minutes by that point…about as much as Jason Kidd has played going into this season. I think it’s fair to say that, in his peak, West’s numbers would have been better. How much better? Probbaly close to the 15% to account for the difference in steals, IMO…but I’ll be conservative and say 10%. So West would get a steal every 12.54 minutes, down 5% from the year we have listed. But that also means he’d get more blocks, since the number of blocks hasn’t changed and you’d have a younger Jerry West. So make it a block every 38 minutes. That means, for a 12 year peak period adjusted for current totals and pace, Jerry West’s numbers would look something like this:

39.9 mpg, 27.5 ppg, 5.2 rpg, 7.3 apg, 3.2 spg, 1.1 bpg, .459 fg%, .822 ft%, .380 3p%

Which is, to put it charitably, pretty awesome. I’ve said it before—it’s basically Dwyane Wade with range and better D. I think West would be the best guard in the league more often than not right now, and would rarely be lower than #3 (or #2).

Interestingly, West’s scoring and assist totals varied wildly during his career. He wasn’t really a combo guard; he was a point guard and a shooting guard. When he played more on the perimeter and drove to the hoop less, his rebounds went down and his assists went up (his scoring also dropped about 5-10%). When he was a scoring guard, he had more rebounds and fewer assist. So West would have a peak PG year of something like

25 ppg, 10.1 apg, 3.8 rpg

And a peak SG year of around

30 ppg, 5.5 apg, 6.7 rpg

Both of these years are, again, awesome. I figure Jerry West in 1970 would have been a true monster…his rebounding was “low”but he was 10% over his peak average in scoring, and 10% ahead on assists. He shot about .015 over his peak average too. So…

30.2 ppg, 3.8 rpg, 8.1 apg, .474 fg%, .380 3p%

With first team All-D defense. He’d be terrifying…a hybrid of Chris Paul and Kobe Bryant, with more range than either.

Oscar’s numbers would drop a lot more. He wouldn’t get the benefit of the three, so his scoring would drop about 3 points a game. Oscar’s rebound rate is around 9 for his career; he peaked at around 10 and dropped as low as 7.5 or so. His rebounding is wildly overstated by the raw numbers. He’d still have terrific numbers...something like 26-7-10. But he wouldn’t as much of a defender as West, wouldn’t have West’s range, and wouldn’t be as good of a teammate or clutch player as West. But he would only suffer in comparison. Oscar would be awesome today. He’s be a better passing, lower scoring LeBron. (Which figures…Oscar would list today at 6’6” or 6’7”, 220). How good is that? Pretty damn good.

Hawkeye15
11-09-2008, 11:07 PM
If todays players traveled back to 1956..... well to start with No one would contract Lebron because it was a racist era and teams only used White players....but thats not the thing , if the typyacl star from today traveled back its very probable that coach SITTED him at the bottom of the bench beacuse of their LACK of Fundamentals and lack of Team Play and Passing Game Knowledge.

totally. I mean, I would sit a 6'9", 260 lb dude who can run the floor in 3 seconds, and dunk on anything in its path, just because he can't beat a 5'10" dude in a shooting drill. Makes sense to me!

SAVAGE CLAW
11-09-2008, 11:15 PM
^If Roger Waters appeared in Wien in Mozarts era and tried to say he was a musician he would get kicked in his butt out of Palace.

Hawkeye15
11-09-2008, 11:18 PM
^If Roger Waters appeared in Wien in Mozarts era and tried to say he was a musician he would get kicked in his butt out of Palace.

these are hypothetical questions dude. Calm down. Didn't old Billy Russell win MVP back then? I think the NBA would have been ready for a black player. And Roger Waters sucks. Gilmore is better. :)

Hellcrooner
11-10-2008, 04:13 AM
^arghhhhhhhh both of them suck, in fact Pink Floyd has been dead since poor Barrett lost his minds for lsd.

Dark side was pasable, and i quiet enjoy Wish you where here but the rest....********.

And on the topic, i still say no one of us shoudl have an oppinion since no one of us has seeen them play live.