First let me address this....
No they were not, their ball-handling abilities would be bottom tier in today's league. Even Wilt Chamberlain's post moves were straight up laughable and I don't blame them, they played when the NBA was a young league. Kareem was the first dominant big man who actually had a smooth offensive game.
Watch that and tell me Willis reed wasnt polished. He was out in the 60s.
The fact that people still think those 60's legends would be as good in today's league is hilarious.
Totally irrelevant. Not a little bit. Totally. 100%.
What some guy 50 years ago would do now matters as much as what someone now would do in a league that wouldnt allow them to play as they do. If its 1970 and a 30 footer is the same points as GP posting up for an easy 2....why do I want Steph over Gary Payton exactly? Hed have a worse fitting offensive game while being so far behind on defense it would sound mean trying to articulate it. If a 3 is worth 2....why guard Steph especially close from 25-30 feet like you do now? Hes not spacing the floor then. Hes still a great scorer....but has no reason to play like he does now. Hes an attacker. He has to play more physical ball. And as I said...in a game predicated on getting the ball 18 feet and in....guards posting up....man to man D...why is Steph better than Payton exactly? He isnt. But it doesnt matter...because they dont play in 1970.
And thats ignoring the many other downsides of Steph being in the NBA 50-60 years ago. he struggles with health at times with modern medicine and being pampered with low minutes, rest days, and world class accommodations.
Give him a league with no air conditioning, no team doctors in many cases(the Lakers did have one but not on the road), riding in regular buses and taking coach flights on 60s sized planes, sleeping in the bus on the road in the south when blacks cant have a room, playing in shoes made of poster board, 46 minutes a game, with 25 preseason games before Gatorade existed on floors that were warped, some that leaked from the hockey ice under them, with rims that were not breakaway and would bend over time while refs actually call traveling and palming all the time.
That sound like an ideal situation for a non physical shooter who needs "load management" while being treated like a king?
Steph would be great no matter who he played against...but he wouldnt win in the 60s without a superteam. Sure he would do numbers. All the greats did. But when Wilt loses with 78/43, 68/23, 67/21, 65/23, 62/28(all the same season) and on and on it goes...you think Stephs 55/12 makes his team automatically contend? You think the 40/10 he could give the Celtics makes his team win when Baylors 41/18 series didnt? Yea he could drop 60. Baylor dropped 60. Rick Barrys 41/9 for the series couldnt get close to winning it. Stephs 40 count at 80? Minus the spacing from 3s why would his numbers be more of a difference maker?
Steph cant guard Oscar in the post. They put forwards on Oscar who couldnt. Steph would light him up and get lit up in return. Gus Johnson was 6'6'' 240 and athletic. He couldnt stop Oscar in the post. Whats Steph gonna do about that with all his advanced handles?
Steph would be the most "advanced" player in the league and lose anyway. There was no parity. It doesnt matter if you have Steph...or Wilt...or baylor. What good is your 50 when the final score is 140-130 and the other team has 4 players better than your #2 and 10 players better than your #3? A guy like Walt Bellamy was more advanced than those guys. Big...athletic. Had 12 40 point games one year...lost 11 of them. Great...you got 47/20. But the Celtics had 5 hall of famers starting with 2 off the bench. They played 8 people. 7 in the hall of fame.
Steph in the 60s would be a territorial pick who went to the worst team in the league(Pistons...the Royals were actually further away though they were in the state with Akron). He could score all he wanted. We would be on here now talking about his stat padding in losses. If he got lucky and maybe went to the Hawks(lets call Charlotte his hometown...thats closest ) hed be on a better team.....ruled by racists who wouldnt let him play. He might well be Cleo Hill. A spectacular guard who ate up the stars(Including Bob Petitt) in practice and had the coach ready to build the team around him. THe 3 star white guys in a still segregated town went straight to the owner to force the coach to bench him. Coach refused...this was maybe his best player or second after Bob. What does the owner do?
Fire the coach and make Petitt player/coach who benched Hill and told him to come in and give it to the white guys. Turns out Cleos career high game? The first game of his career. The team was demanding he get less touches after that ONE good game. He never did anything after his coach was fired a couple weeks into the season. Retired having played one season being treated like shit.
Thats where a 60s Curry goes with the territorial draft rules.
Todays players are way too pampered to even begin to compare them to what guys like Oscar had to put up with.
But it doesnt matter what Steph might do with worse nutrition, travel, workload, teammates, courts, doctors, shoes, social situations, and rules for his game.
It matters what he does now. It matters what they did then.
The rest is fantasy.
It being stupid to take a 30 footer for 2 when the lane is thinner and your center can post up 6 feet from the basket the entire possession doesnt have anything to do with how good Steph is now. Now is now. Then is then.
We would barely recognize his game played under 60s restrictions/rules/social settings. The first time he took a stepback jumper and shimmied after it dropped even though his big had post position his own owner might storm the court and call him a showboating coonskin.