I thought this was interesting. http://msn.foxsports.com/nba/story/10359390/Tantrums-can-pay-off-...-under-these-circumstances [rquoter] How would you compare Bob Cousy and Steve Nash? Both have great basic skill and great court awareness but I remember Cousy as being a better defender and dribbler than Nash. Cousy, of course, was surrounded by a greater array of talent. But what's your take? — Spero Theodore, Fort Wayne, IND Cousy was much stronger than Nash, which made him a better rebounder and enabled him to attack the basket with greater verve. For their careers, Cousy averaged 6.2 free throws per game as opposed to Nash's 2.8. Of course, the game is much different now than it was then. Players are bigger, faster, and as a whole more athletic. Also, shooting has become more of a refined art — so it's totally understandable that Nash is a much better shooter. Also contributing to the vast difference in their career shooting percentages — 37.5% for Cousy to 48.7% for Nash — is that the confrontational, hands-on defensive tactics that Cousy faced have been outlawed. Excluding his first four years in the league when he was a backup with Phoenix and Dallas, Nash's points-per-game average is 14.8, appreciably less than Cousy's 18.4 ppg. However, Cousy attempted 17.8 shots per game, while Nash only puts up 10.7 shots. Contrary to your remembrances, however, Nash has a trickier handle and can therefore score in a wider variety of self-created situations. All things considered, Nash is a superior scorer. Assists are awarded more liberally these days, so Cousy's 7.5 lifetime assists per game is roughly equivalent to the 9.5 assists that Nash averaged in his peak seasons. Cousy did lead the NBA in assists for eight consecutive seasons (1953-60), while Nash led in only three seasons (2005-07). However, Cousy's primary competitors were the likes of Dick McGuire, Andy Phillip and Bob Davies — great players, yet not in the same class as Jason Kidd and Chris Paul. Also, as far as pure passing ability is concerned, Nash has a very slight edge only because his left hand is more developed than was Cousy's in this category. Neither was an adequate defender in man-to-man situations. For most of his career, Cousy had Bill Russell prowling the lane to erase all of his own defensive mistakes. But Nash is more on his own, so his defensive lapses are more evident and more damaging. Overall, neither player has an advantage here. It says here that Nash's advantages in speed, quickness, athleticism and shooting make him the superior player. In fact, Cousy's inadequacies in these departments would disqualify him from even making a modern-day NBA roster. [/rquoter]
I agree with the article except for the last 2 paragraphs. In addition to the previously mentioned hand checking Cousy had to endure, Cousy also had to dribble with his hand on top of the ball. You can't change direction on a dime by dribbling with your hand on top of the ball. Most of what we call "quickness & athleticism" of today's ball handlers was called "carrying the ball" in Cousy's day. The article stated that Cousy couldn't make a modern day roster. By the same token, Nash couldn't make a Cousy era roster. Why because every time he brought the ball up court & changed directions, he would cause a turn over by carrying the ball. It's impossible to say a player is superior to another in the 2 era's due to the differences in the rules.
There were also no treys back in the day, which would knock Nash's scoring average down; he averages 1.5 treys made per game in his career. You are totally right on the ballhandling issue; the "killer crossovers" of today would all be blatant carries back in the day, especially with a guy like say Iverson. Rosen's been a consistent hater of the 60's players; he's disparaged Russell in the past so I'm not sure why he's giving him credit now. It is true that the competition in the NBA of guards especially was not very good until the 1960's, while Cousy started his career in 1951, so Cousy did in some respects dominate a weaker era.
Sure, but Cousy would then get the benefit of modern sports training and thus his quickness and athletic ability would be better today than it was in the 1960's.
As a ball handler and passer, Cousy was ahead of his time. Nash is of his time in all aspects. Very, very good... but not revolutionary.
Nash would absolutely demolish Cousy. People don't seem to realize how much better players have become over the years.
Interesting how the article goes from dissecting and comparing the players as if they're nearly equal to finally declaring that basically, Cousy couldn't hold Nash's jock today.
