Oscar Robertson: NBA Coaches Don’t Know Anything About Defense

Oscar Robertson: NBA Coaches Don’t Know Anything About Defense

phpBB [video]

“If I’ve got a guy who’s great shooting the ball outside, don’t you want to extend your defense out a little bit?” the 77-year-old Big O said Thursday. “I just don’t think coaches today in basketball understand the game of basketball. They don’t know anything about defenses. They don’t know what people are doing on the court. They talk about analytical basketball and stuff like that.”

“They double-teamed me an awful lot during my career,” said Robertson, who in 1960-61 became the first and only player in league history to average a triple double. “I look at games today, and they’ll start a defense at the foul line. When I played, they were picking you up when you got the ball inbounds. So it’s a different strategy about playing defense.”

“(Curry)’s shot well because of what’s going on in basketball today,” Robertson said. “In basketball today, it’s almost like if you can dunk or make a three-point shot, you’re the greatest thing since sliced bread. There have been some great shooters in the past. … But here again, when I played years ago, if you shot a shot outside and hit it, the next time I’m going to be up on top of you. I’m going to pressure you with three-quarters, half-court defense. But now they don’t do that. These coaches do not understand the game of basketball, as far as I’m concerned.”

Was there anyone as good as Curry that can shoot 30+ feet and knock it down in his time? I'm getting fed up with these remarks by Hall of Famers. Face it, the league IS evolving around a player much like the league was in Jordan's era and in Bird/Magic's era.

Say you double-team Curry. Curry has the ball handling skills to slice your defense up, the passing ability to make plays happen, the vision to see who's open (probably Klay at this point), AND the shooting ability to knock his shots down.

Was there anyone as good as Curry that can shoot 30+ feet and knock it down in his time? I'm getting fed up with these remarks by Hall of Famers. Face it, the league IS evolving around a player much like the league was in Jordan's era and in Bird/Magic's era.

Say you double-team Curry. Curry has the ball handling skills to slice your defense up, the passing ability to make plays happen, the vision to see who's open (probably Klay at this point), AND the shooting ability to knock his shots down.

Still players don't play shit on defense, now it's all about the offense. Delladova defended curry agressively just in the second curry recieved the ball after a basket. a FULL COURT press (haven't seen a full court press in 20 years) and Curry had really terrible games in the first ones on that series.

Ofc u can argue Curry is probably one of the top10-15 undefendable guys in the history (including bron, mamba, shaq and mj, wilt, hakeem, durant, magic, etc..), but the lague has more than 300 players, and nobody plays defense on nobody.

Kerr's response.

“Oh I’m sure, yeah,” Kerr told Fox Sports’ Sam Gardner. “I could have stopped this back in my time. Boy, I would have shut Steph down. Because athletes, you know, 50 years ago were much bigger, stronger and faster, more finely tuned. So Steph might not have made it in the league.”

Discussed this elsewhere. More in context of 1980's Pistons and first three-peat Bulls. Past defenses wouldn't have had any clue how to guard the "pace and space" offenses if you just plopped the teams into a game tonight. Nobody took threes back then. Nobody played five guys who could hit 40% from three at the same time, along with some nutjob making 68% TS on 33% USG. Nobody played three to four to five BALLHANDLERS/PASSERS. The defenses were setup to guard and choke off completely different things. Nobody had to worry about pick and rolls where both players could cut to the basket OR step back for a three while also having to worry about the two guys moving to the corner and the fifth guy coming off a screen also outside the arc. AND having to worry about the team immediately pinging the ball four times around the court. Because everything happened inside the arc with the goal of getting the closest and thus best shot possible and was mainly setup by one or two guys.

The average team in 1991 took 586 threes. Curry already has 599 by himself.

Teams from Oscar's era would have matched up easier against the small ball lineups now, but they would've been crushed by the fact that those small ball lineups are bigger bodies AND faster AND better shooters.

Teams don't play defense like Oscar wants because it's stupid in the modern game, it plays right into the hands of teams that want to run these offenses he doesn't like. You don't press because they'll pass ahead and your team defense is far more important than one guy doing anything. Especially the Thibs type defenses. It's all about rotations, switches, and communication that has to be on-point to contain the offenses. You can't hang back, play mainly man-to-man and cut off a dribbler and call it a possession because then the ball starts whipping around the arc, and guys are running off screens and the defense has to react to the entire offense, not Oscar posting up and firing up a turnaround.

It's funny that he's lamenting that teams take the best shots available. Considering he was so well known for picking and choosing the best shots offered AND maximizing his free throw attempts. Which let him dominate the scoring efficiency despite being a guard and playing in the same league as Wilt:

Code:

True Shooting Pct
1960-61 NBA .555 (1)
1961-62 NBA .554 (2)
1962-63 NBA .588 (2)
1963-64 NBA .576 (2)
1964-65 NBA .561 (3)
1965-66 NBA .563 (2)
1966-67 NBA .583 (2)
1967-68 NBA .588 (2)
1968-69 NBA .579 (2)
1969-70 NBA .577 (3)
1970-71 NBA .563 (7)

Meanwhile, you could definitely take the Warriors or Cavs or Spurs or 2013 Heat and the thing that would hurt them the most isn't the other teams defense, let alone offense, but the lack of the three point line.

That's not to say I don't think you can't take somebody like 17 year old Oscar and build him up in today's game and training and technology and get a all-star player at minimum. The talent would just have to be adjusted and trained to fit the modern game.

https://twitter.com/andrewbogut/status/ ... 9825777665
https://twitter.com/StephenCurry30/stat ... 4308328449
https://twitter.com/Money23Green/status ... 4680029184

I tend to agree with Oscar Robertson on one point. There should have been tighter defense on Stephen Curry as soon as he crossed the half court line. Curry is an incredible 3-pt shooter, but as seen in the video I think that is Andre Roberson(?) on him. Roberson is supposed to be one of the better perimeter defenders, but in the last game where Curry made 12 3-ptrs in the game, Roberson should have been up in his grill. There was only time for one last play, the defender should have given his all. The defender instead played defense like there was still more than 24 secs on the clock. Same as the incredible Devin Harris half court shot a few years back, Harris made the shot, but at least there was some effort to contest.

For comparison:

phpBB [video]

phpBB [video]

Now most of the time, Curry is just plain ridiculous. Making 3ptrs like they were jump shots.

Discussed this elsewhere. More in context of 1980's Pistons and first three-peat Bulls. Past defenses wouldn't have had any clue how to guard the "pace and space" offenses if you just plopped the teams into a game tonight. Nobody took threes back then. Nobody played five guys who could hit 40% from three at the same time, along with some nutjob making 68% TS on 33% USG. Nobody played three to four to five BALLHANDLERS/PASSERS. The defenses were setup to guard and choke off completely different things. Nobody had to worry about pick and rolls where both players could cut to the basket OR step back for a three while also having to worry about the two guys moving to the corner and the fifth guy coming off a screen also outside the arc. AND having to worry about the team immediately pinging the ball four times around the court. Because everything happened inside the arc with the goal of getting the closest and thus best shot possible and was mainly setup by one or two guys.

The average team in 1991 took 586 threes. Curry already has 599 by himself.

Teams from Oscar's era would have matched up easier against the small ball lineups now, but they would've been crushed by the fact that those small ball lineups are bigger bodies AND faster AND better shooters.

Teams don't play defense like Oscar wants because it's stupid in the modern game, it plays right into the hands of teams that want to run these offenses he doesn't like. You don't press because they'll pass ahead and your team defense is far more important than one guy doing anything. Especially the Thibs type defenses. It's all about rotations, switches, and communication that has to be on-point to contain the offenses. You can't hang back, play mainly man-to-man and cut off a dribbler and call it a possession because then the ball starts whipping around the arc, and guys are running off screens and the defense has to react to the entire offense, not Oscar posting up and firing up a turnaround.

It's funny that he's lamenting that teams take the best shots available. Considering he was so well known for picking and choosing the best shots offered AND maximizing his free throw attempts. Which let him dominate the scoring efficiency despite being a guard and playing in the same league as Wilt:

Code:

True Shooting Pct
1960-61 NBA .555 (1)
1961-62 NBA .554 (2)
1962-63 NBA .588 (2)
1963-64 NBA .576 (2)
1964-65 NBA .561 (3)
1965-66 NBA .563 (2)
1966-67 NBA .583 (2)
1967-68 NBA .588 (2)
1968-69 NBA .579 (2)
1969-70 NBA .577 (3)
1970-71 NBA .563 (7)

Meanwhile, you could definitely take the Warriors or Cavs or Spurs or 2013 Heat and the thing that would hurt them the most isn't the other teams defense, let alone offense, but the lack of the three point line.

all i am saying is, curry would of been put on his ass a lot back then


really though people need to stop shitting all over the current players. i would agree that defense was better in the past, some defenders anyway, but curry gonna get his in any era. the biggest challenge is what rules they would use to play. i have said this every time the "greatest team ever" talk comes up. like you said the lack of the 3 point line would be the worst thing to happen to curry and the warriors.

I tend to agree with Oscar Robertson on one point. There should have been tighter defense on Stephen Curry as soon as he crossed the half court line. Curry is an incredible 3-pt shooter, but as seen in the video I think that is Andre Roberson(?) on him. Roberson is supposed to be one of the better perimeter defenders, but in the last game where Curry made 12 3-ptrs in the game, Roberson should have been up in his grill. There was only time for one last play, the defender should have given his all. The defender instead played defense like there was still more than 24 secs on the clock. Same as the incredible Devin Harris half court shot a few years back, Harris made the shot, but at least there was some effort to contest.

With 1.6 seconds left, you don't have to worry about getting beat on the dribble. Curry launched the shot with two or three seconds to go. If you defend him too tightly there, he goes right by you and gets an even better look.

It was a bad decision and a bad shot, it just happened to go in. It was the lowest-percentage option available, the defence would be mad to take it away.

Now most of the time, Curry is just plain ridiculous. Making 3ptrs like they were jump shots.

Most of them are.

all i am saying is, curry would of been put on his ass a lot back then

Thank you. I didn't see a lot of (to quote Clyde Frazier) "matador defense" back then like I do now.

I agree that you should play tighter on Steph. He's so great at threes that you might as well put yourself at a slight disadvantage on playing the drive and gain a bit of help on contesting his 3s. But honestly he's so great at shooting that it might not even matter anyways

I mean he's been burying 30-35ft 3s with ease. Hell, he even banked in a half court shot trying to draw a foul.

A lot of people are throwing Oscar Robertson under the bus, especially after what Curry did last week, capped off by the game against the Thunder. I would agree that he's oversimplifying the situation, the same way he did when he suggested he'd shut down Michael Jordan, but MJ wouldn't be able to shut down him. benji has already provided interesting analysis of how teams from the past might struggle to contain the teams of today, with the way the game has changed. There's certainly an air of "the old days were better" about The Big O's remarks.

At the same time though, I don't think you can completely dismiss them out of hand. Just because there's an oversimplification and some incorrect analysis doesn't automatically make everything he said completely wrong. Just as there's a tendency for older generations to dismiss the current generation as softer, less skilled, or whatever, there's a tendency to dismiss their criticisms as bitter ranting and raving...at least, when we disagree with them.

It kind of goes back to what Charles Barkley said about being outspoken. People love it when they agree, hate it when they disagree. When an NBA Legend praises a current player, or offers criticism that people agree with, we hold it up as validation of that point of view. After all, an all-time great said it! However, when we disagree with their assertions, especially negative ones, we sneer and claim that they're bitter, and out of touch. And in some cases, they might be...kind of, a little. But again, it doesn't completely invalidate every point they make. As the saying goes, even a stopped clock is right twice a day. It's also kind of funny how back in the 90s, Robertson's critique of Jordan was validation that "See? MJ isn't that great!", yet these days, his criticisms are immediately dismissed as bitter and incorrect. I've often seen people say that MJ couldn't survive the physicality of the 60s. I don't know about that, but if he couldn't, then Curry certainly wouldn't.

I think teams from the past would have their work cut out from them guarding the Warriors, and other modern teams. I also believe that modern teams would have their work cut out for them trying to shut down the great scorers of the past. The lack of physicality these days is significant. There were a few times when the Thunder seemed to just step back and let Curry finish at the hoop uncontested. Now, Curry can finish inside as well as gun it from deep, but he's fairly wispy, far more suited to a perimeter attack than finishing at the rim. On some of those layups he had against the Thunder, if that were the Celtics or Pistons of the 80s, the Knicks of the 90s, or another hard-nosed team, he's getting hit, and getting hit hard. That kind of toughness and pride in protecting the paint is absent, to say nothing of less contact on the perimeter as well.

Phil Jackson has also come under fire for comparing Stephen Curry to Mahmoud Abdul-Rauf. There's a lot of sneering going on, including a rubbish article from Dime Magazine that completely misses the point. The point, as this article rationally points out, is that there are similarities in their style of play. That's what Jackson is getting at when he's disagreeing that we've never seen a player like Stephen Curry before. Needless to say, Curry is playing a lot better than Abdul-Rauf, so if you want to argue that no player has done this well while playing that style of basketball, that's valid. But it's also a different statement, a different point to the one that Jax was making. As per the article:

Prior to the uproar over Phil Jackson tweeting that Steph Curry reminded him of Mahmoud Abdul-Rauf on Sunday, I’d made a similar comparison on Twitter more than a month earlier while watching the Golden State Warriors play the Cleveland Cavaliers on the road. I’ve long been a fan of the player formerly known as Chris Jackson dating back to the decade I spent living in Jackson, Mississippi.

As the Internet is wont to do, the reflexive outrage over and disagreement with Jackson’s comparison was swift and immediate.

Some people felt the Hall of Fame coach was exhibiting the same, “back in my day,” curmudgeonly behavior exhibited by Oscar Robertson who, just a few days earlier, wrongly suggested an oversimplified way to try and slow down Curry, while also stating that today’s NBA coaches don’t really know much about defense.

Others took a more lazy approach to refuting Jackson by simply comparing Abdul-Rauf’s NBA statistics to that of Curry’s. Of course, those who witnessed Mahmoud’s NBA career knew that those two sets of numbers would never match up. Jackson’s comments was about making a statistical comparison, he was speaking more to the style of play between Abdul-Rauf and Curry. And Jackson would know. After all it was Denver, led by Abdul-Rauf, that handed the recording setting 1995-96 Bulls squad one of their just 10 losses that season.

The disheartening part of the overwhelmingly negative reaction to Jackson’s tweet was that no one took the time to deep dive into Jackson’s statement.

In an era where there is a wealth of information at our fingertips, quite often, people avoid taking advantage of it.

He confirmed my observation when I asked if the two players were similar by saying, “Yeah, but Chris wouldn’t take the bad shots that Steph takes. That works for Golden State only.” Then he added this important caveat that I’ll come back to later, “I don’t think Steph would have been able to get loose in the ’90s with hand checking being allowed back then.”

That second paragraph I quoted is key in terms of how the opinions of Robertson, Jackson, and other Hall of Famers are so readily dismissed. "The disheartening part of the overwhelmingly negative reaction to Jackson’s tweet was that no one took the time to deep dive into Jackson’s statement. In an era where there is a wealth of information at our fingertips, quite often, people avoid taking advantage of it." People immediately assumed the worst - bitterness, cluelessness, being out of touch - rather than looking at what he meant by it, and really giving consideration to the point. The article's title, "Different, But the Same", is quite apt, though "Different, But Similar" might be a slightly better way of putting it.

The same people accusing the older generations of "hating" are themselves often hating on the older generations. These remarks about Curry being the greatest of all-time, and "move over Jordan", are quite simply ridiculous. Curry is having a season for the ages, and some amazing performances. I think he's established himself as the best shooter of all-time, by the numbers and the less objective eye-test. But to rank him ahead of Jordan, of Magic, of Bird, of Wilt, of Kareem, of Russell, even Kobe and LeBron, and so many others...it's jumping the gun. Did Jordan establish himself as a worthy contender for greatest of all-time after scoring 63 points against the Celtics in 1986? What about after averaging 37.1 points per game in 1987? I'd suggest not, and anyone saying so at the time was getting ahead of themselves. Anyone who argued in favour of Wilt, Russell, Bird, Magic, or Kareem would be quite right to vehemently disagree and suggest that it was too soon to be saying such things.

Again, Curry's having an amazing, historically significant season. He's a fantastic player...at least, offensively. But while he's doing something that no one else has done, you could say the same of a lot of other greats. They did stuff that he hasn't done, and may not be capable of doing, especially as he's not a fantastic defender. Modern players do probably get dumped on too much, and that's selling them short. But let's not pretend that doesn't happen to the older generation too, and also keep in mind that their point of view isn't automatically incorrect because we disagree with it, or some notion that they're all bitter and out of touch.

Curry's a great player, doing incredible things. The greatest player of all-time, the only one who has done truly incredible things, or the most incredible things? I wouldn't agree with that. Let's see what he can do over the course of his career, though. Chances are, he'll continue to perform spectacularly, and he'll go down as one of the all-time greats. But let's slow down on the "move over (everyone else)" chatter. That's getting a bit too caught up in the moment and the hype.

The one thing about the "hard hits in the lane" stuff, is that, yeah, teams could do that because they could pack the paint. Those teams are going to have enough problems chasing the ball around the arc and trying to stop the three point barrages they won't be able to settle in the mid-range and cut off every interior avenue. This is why the shorter three point line didn't improve offenses, even though it took the league a decade to truly realize the advantages of the longer line, you could cheat a foot or more closer to the paint.

That's one reason I think the focus on Curry vs. Frazier (who isn't getting enough love in the conversations for sure) or Big O is off-kilter. Curry's performances aren't existing in a vacuum. They're existing where a 6-6 guy is often playing center, hitting 40% of his own threes and averaging 14/10/8. And the team can put two to three other 40% three point shooters on the floor. And it doesn't completely tank their defense. They're 6th on defense despite Bogut+Ezeli+Speights being their only "traditional" big men. (Albeit accounting for 40 mpg combined. Which is STILL ONLY ONE POSITION OF FIVE.) They switch better than anyone who isn't the Cavs and Spurs. (It's fun to see the Spurs left out of these discussions when they're vaporizing the league on both ends. And playing only one player over 30 mpg.) And that depends on which day you catch the Cavs.

Did Jordan establish himself as a worthy contender for greatest of all-time after scoring 63 points against the Celtics in 1986? What about after averaging 37.1 points per game in 1987?

Jordan hadn't had the playoff success yet. Or a title.

In fairness, he wasn't coached by Mark Jackson.

And to think the Timberwolves took 2 PGs not named Curry in that draft and one didn't even make it past his rookie contract

Certainly a blunder. Of course, we're not always aware of the politics, negotiations, and threats that happen behind the scenes leading up to the Draft. I remember reading that the Warriors were actually warned off by Curry's camp at one stage, though they took the risk and it obviously worked out for everyone involved. Kobe Bryant's a classic example: it's easy to mock the teams that passed on him in 1996, but that's ignoring the fact he made his feelings about playing for a team like the Nets very clear to them, and thus they ended up with Kerry Kittles instead. Hypocritically, he took a swipe at them years later for passing on him, a move that makes a lot more sense when you know he (or at least his camp, on his behalf) scared them off.

Curry and Lillard and McCollum have done a lot to save the small school scoring machine guard too.

We're also in an era where worrying about if they're combo guards or two guards or point guards isn't something that's done as much. That was the concern about Curry. CAN HE BE A POINT GUARD?!?!?!?

When everyone's always ignored that score-first or at least not pass-first point guards are the ones on all the title teams who weren't Magic Johnson.

Interestingly enough, the best traditional PG of this era CP3 hasn't had much luck

His best years and the best teams he's been a part of have coincided with even better teams ruling the roost.

I think teams from the past would have their work cut out from them guarding the Warriors, and other modern teams. I also believe that modern teams would have their work cut out for them trying to shut down the great scorers of the past. The lack of physicality these days is significant. There were a few times when the Thunder seemed to just step back and let Curry finish at the hoop uncontested. Now, Curry can finish inside as well as gun it from deep, but he's fairly wispy, far more suited to a perimeter attack than finishing at the rim. On some of those layups he had against the Thunder, if that were the Celtics or Pistons of the 80s, the Knicks of the 90s, or another hard-nosed team, he's getting hit, and getting hit hard. That kind of toughness and pride in protecting the paint is absent, to say nothing of less contact on the perimeter as well.

Exactly Andrew.....I hate the lack of physicality in today's NBA. You mentioned the 80s & 90s defenses...shit was even rougher back in the 70s when you had cats like Nate Thurmond, Wes Unseld, Dave Cowens, Paul Silas patrolling the paint waiting for your ass. Cowens and Silas should be arrested for what they did to opposing players.

The counterpoint I'm seeing to that is that it's confirmation that players of old weren't skilled defensively, just rough. I think that's an oversimplification as well. It's not that there were muggings - although with some teams, that certainly was a thing - but players were willing and allowed (to some extent) to put a body on each other, especially in the paint.

As I said though, lots of knee-jerk reactions on both sides.

It's all about Stephen Curry that's raging this nation. Oscar's defense talk in reality is all about inability to stop Curry from what he's doing.

People need to accept that Curry is just one of a kind. No defense from any era could stop him just as Jordan, Shaq, Dirk would be able to do what they usually do against any era defense.

http://www.sbnation.com/nba/2016/2/26/1 ... tson-wrong

He is. But I still say let's see him maintain this excellence and dominance beyond this season before any "move over Jordan" talk (which I'm seeing already, and it's ridiculous hyperbole). And even then, it's not like he's automatically #1 ahead of Jordan, Bird, Magic, Wilt, Kareem, Russell, LeBron, Kobe, and some other greats we could mention. There'd still be a debate to be had, and a case for the aforementioned players.

Looks like stat community is quite torn too because Curry's shattering Jordan's what once was thought to be untouchable numbers for the season and people impatiently want the answers to question of who IS better. Perhaps it's 5 years too early for such question but for us excited fans it's never too early.

I am one of those who believes stat comparison is not suitable and is kinda meaningless for these two greats as it is a cross era apple to orange comparison. But I'd rather evaluate their skill set and capability as leader of the team.

That said, I believe Oscar and bunch others are making statements just as silly as "move over jordan" crowd. Oscar sounded like a salty and arrogant fool.