If the two best players of a dynasty team were just "a good player on the best team", then who really made them the best team? Were they like a team of 6 almost-all-stars but no superstar? If so, then who were these players almost as good as Cousy and Russell, who must have been so underrated that made those two overrated ?_?
The Celtics had all stars up and down their roster - all stars for that time period when there are 12 teams in the league is not as impressive as it is today. It is ok to say, they were good for their time, but also overated overall....I agree with some that say it is hard to compare era's it is, but if you remove that era bit and simply go on basketball ability and skill, they are not even in the top 100. DD
To be fair I don’t think you can compare FG% today with FG% back in the day. The game wasn’t nowhere near as spaced and open like it is today even Bill Russell (who most put in their top 5-10) shot under 45% for his career and he was a center. Secondly I don’t feel he’s overrated because I rarely see anyone put Cousy in their top 10 PG’s other than guys who were old enough to see him play. I think most would have Magic, Oscar, Steph, Zeke, Kidd, Stockton, Nash, Payton, CP3, Westbrook (who some may disagree with but dude is a former MVP and is the only player to average a triple double more than once in NBA History) ahead of Cousy easily and then you have guys like Walt Frazier, Tony Parker, Chauncey Billups and even Kyrie or Dame Lillard you could argue are ahead of Cooz.
There is nothing that is different that would effect shooting % - either you can shoot or you can't.... Russel shooting 45% and Cousy under 40% are precisely why they are overrated. DD
After reading six pages of in-depth and insightful analysis, a deep dig if you will, and a serious search to find the needle in the haystack on this Cousy thing... I have come to only one conclusion. Nobody noticed that "Overated" was spelled incorrectly.
Maybe someone already answered this, and definitely the fast break was brought up as one idea. But there were still NBA players using the old flat-footed "set shot," some even using two hands like a pass (according to my father at least) well into the 1950's. Interesting article on the jump shot: https://www.newyorker.com/sports/sp...jump-shot-brought-individualism-to-basketball (They list late 1930's to late 1950's as its infiltration and eventual domination of basketball.) I really think people just learned good shooting mechanics slowly over time, with better shooting coaching, and probably started practicing a hell of a lot more over the years. The data are pretty interesting. https://www.basketball-reference.com/leagues/NBA_stats_per_game.html There's a steady rise from 1946 (28%! hahahaha) to 1962 (44%) with a fairly level period through the 60's. And even with the rise you cited, the league-wide average never crested 45% until the 1969-1970 season. They had to have some tough rims and tolerant fans.
[QUOTE="B-Bob, post: 14213076, member: 6273") They had to have some tough rims and tolerant fans. [/QUOTE] (even allowing for 1 shot FTs [or 2 to make 3] ) has anyone checked out the RB #s if the era? BTW - international players? Black players (small %)? How many colleges had strong basketball commitments? No, Elgin, Gus Johnson were anomalies and yes, today’s game is more athletic if perhaps not more skilled and not as team oriented. I wish there were 3 traunches of Top 25s/75: thru the 70s thru the Millennium thru the present And FWIW - Russ, Wilt, Kareem, Dream, Shaq could have competed v each other.
Yes, for reasons previously stated. Great player in his era and earned his HOF entry, but the game has evolved and gotten better imo. Because you're a pioneer or the first to do something, doesn't mean you're the best.
Just saw this in The (Boston) Globe: Happy Birthday this week to a true, legendary sports figure and personality in New England - Bob Cousy turned 94. I’ll wager in Cousy’s prime, ESPN mouth JJ Redick would want no part of him or the “plumbers and firemen,” lest he embarrass himself further. Maybe the best comeback, ever, came from The Cooz: “People with less talent will always try to make a name for themselves by criticizing other people and hopefully getting some attention and perhaps increasing their credibility.” I wonder how many of his critics here ever saw him play, or know anything much beyond JJ’s snark? No, HC’s BC is not the GOAT. But, c’mon folks, get real. Life didn’t begin with the new Millennium.
The game is called basketball in which the objective is to put the ball in the basket, and this dude was an elite bricklayer. I guess he paved the path so that one day Rafer Alston could play in the league.
Besides the thing they were actually shooting, dribbling, and passing? Just look at the ball itself in the photo below; there's no grip or pebbling, it's made out of cheap leather, and the channels were narrow and irregular. And this was the most photogenic ball they had on hand, the one they thought looked the best! The actual ones they used in game were probably even worse, and they definitely didn't have a full bag of backups at every arena for some fledgling league that wasn't making any money. Even Tari Eason might have trouble palming that thing. This is not to mention that in an era where the modular arena wasn't perfected, they were basically playing on hardwood laid directly on top of a hockey ice rink. If you've ever played outdoors with a busted-ass ball in the middle of winter, you know that there's gonna be a ton of bricklaying going on when it's cold and the air inside the ball gets dense and it starts bouncing funny on the rim. I mentioned this before, but compared to his era, he was right around league average when it came to efficiency, while still being a top 5-10 scorer. He also led the league in assists eight years in a row (and being top 4 for the other 5 years of his career). So an Allen Iverson/Trae Young level scorer, combined with John Stockton-level playmaking, topped off by being one of only two guards who won the league MVP in the first 30 years of the award's existence. Could he translate to the modern era, if he were given the same access to specialized training, AAU, nutrition, and equipment, although facing a much more competitive pool of talent? I have no freaking clue. It seems like a pretty solid bet that most modern players would not have been able to adapt to the racism and outright lack of protection afforded to black players in Cousy's era though. Just one of the reasons why Bill Russell is so revered by the player base; the fact that he went out and dominated while knowing his house was being vandalized and his family terrorized every night.
And the shorts. Look at his legs. Seriously, I've made the analogy earlier. Chuck Yeager wasn't an inferior pilot to today's top guns just because his X-1 was no match to today's jet fighters. Cousy's TS% was above league average for most of his career. Their league average was laughable by today's standard. But that's what they had in those days. If he's a brick layer, he's a better brick layer than his peer.
The new generation is definitely trying their hardest to prove that it wasn't the short shorts that held back FG%. Can't say I'm a huge fan of the new era nut huggers for casual pickup, but I do admit that looking at the baggy Kobe/TMac gear from the mid 2000s, you absolutely think they must have been playing at a disadvantage. Literally anyone who has ever played a bit of basketball in their life knows the difference between one that feels good in the hand and one that you have no control over. Introducing a new, better ball in 2006 also caused the league's FG% to go up, even though psychologically all the players hated it so much they complained and got it removed. Throwback, this was the year that Luther Head shot 44% from 3, and Jason Kapono led the league in shooting 51% from 3. Tech gets better, training gets better, technique gets better every single year. The ball is just one of many little things that contributed to making the entire level of play lower back then.
Should the NBA be worried when something like this is a topic? Can't believe how long this thread has lasted on page 1, (but I'm clearly glad to do my part. heh.)
I was just about to open this thread and say the same thing. A thread several pages long about how overrated Bob Cousy is? Would never have expected it.
Hard to compare across eras but one thing that is clear from watching Cousy: He was the first glimpse of the modern game in the NBA. If NBA basketball was human evolution, there would be no missing link because it would be Bob Cousy.
