ISH All-time Top 25 Guards Project: #7 - Dwyane Wade vs. Bob Cousy

[G.O.A.T]

Make your arguments here for the next 48 hours on rather Dwyane Wade or Bob Cousy should advance and continue to move higher on the list. Put the players name you are voting for in BOLD so I don't miss it when I tally. The loser of this poll will be ranked #8 in our project.

Only members listed on the project roster will have their votes counted. Anyone may add their opinion and or argument as long as it's constructive. Our roster is now finalized. If you like the project and think you can make it better please add your opinion. If you'd like to join in the forwards, centers or all-time top 67 project, please let me know via PM. The Final Roster is listed below....

The Roster

L.Kizzle
ThaSwagg3r
Rose
WillC
G.O.A.T
1987 Lakers
neyca
Toizumi
Shaqattack3234
Magnax1
RobertdeMeijer
nycelt84
KGMN
SteveNashMVPcro

Crossover (added after initial vote)
bizil (added after initial vote)
Boston C's (added at #20)
Gotterdammerung (added at #17)
SuperPippen (added at #14)
Big164 (added at #13)
Droid101 (added at #11)
D.J. (added at #11)
Miller for 3 (added at #10)
Odinn (added at #9)
OmniStrife (added at #9)
HylianNightmare (added at #9)
Pushxx (added at #9)
MasterDurant24 (added at #9)
Clippersfan86 (added at #9)

ThaRegul8r (contributor)
NugzHeat3 (contributor)
Psileas (contributor)
alexandreben (contributor)
EricForman (contributor)





http://susanshan.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/07/Dwyane-Wade1.jpg

8 seasons
6x all-NBA
7x all-star
3x all-defensive
2010 ASG MVP
1x Scoring Champion
2006 NBA Champion
2006 Finals MVP
27-6-6-2 for playoffs during prime


Votes (5)
Tha Swagg3r
Shaqattack3234
Miller for 3
Odinn
1987 Lakers

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-ExbAtZnvrGI/TdM6sS3z3DI/AAAAAAAAAB0/sT6gbqFu0-M/s1600/COUS.jpg

14 seasons
12x all-NBA
13x all-star
2x ASG MVP
6x NBA Champion
1957 MVP
8x Assists leader
20-6-8 averages over 9 year prime


Votes (10)
Gotterdammerung
Hylian Nightmare
Clippersfan86
WillC
Big 164
KGMN
D.J.
SteveNashMVPcro
Boston C's
G.O.A.T

[Gotterdammerung]

Break it down ISH style:

ISH logic: GOAT must be the better playground player, the one with high NBA 2k rating, better athlete.

G

[Fatal9]

I hope this is unanimous for Wade...

[Rose]

[QUOTE=Gotterdammerung]Break it down ISH style:

ISH logic: GOAT must be the better playground player, the one with high NBA 2k rating, better athlete.*

G

[kaiiu]

Wade. And my vote does count bitch

[ThaSwagg3r]

I vote for Dwyane Wade. He was the better player and by miles. Cousy and the Celtics never did jack until Russell came along. Wade got to play with a declining Shaq but he never got to play with a young and prime Bill Russell like Cousy did.

[8BeastlyXOIAD]

I vote for Dwyane Wade. He was the better player and by miles. Cousy and the Celtics never did jack until Russell came along. Wade got to play with a declining Shaq but he never got to play with a young and prime Bill Russell like Cousy did.



http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_eoUNvt_eorU/TFiSwYYh2eI/AAAAAAAACok/bH1lLIzK-78/s400/act_joel_anthony.jpg

[ThaSwagg3r]

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_eoUNvt_eorU/TFiSwYYh2eI/AAAAAAAACok/bH1lLIzK-78/s400/act_joel_anthony.jpg

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v2akdYIFJ2A

[8BeastlyXOIAD]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v2akdYIFJ2A
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CL83-xPedDU&feature=related

[kaiiu]

I would take Joel Anthony over a prime Russell 2

[HylianNightmare]

now i know wade COULD catch cousy some day but i don't think wade will catch him in all star games or MVP, his chances of winning MVP went down the drain as soon as lebron and bosh joined up, and i think wade winning 6 more rings wont happen either so
Bob Cousy

[G.O.A.T]

I hope this is unanimous for Wade...

Really?

Even if you have convinced yourself, you don't see how the guy with 10 all-NBA 1st teams an MVP and 7 rings could have a case?

Even understanding that there is context to all those achievements, you don't see why someone would pick Cousy?

[Legends66NBA7]

Really?

Even if you have convinced yourself, you don't see how the guy with 10 all-NBA 1st teams an MVP and 7 rings could have a case?

Even understanding that there is context to all those achievements, you don't see why someone would pick Cousy?

If i may ask, is it too late be a part of voting committee for the top #25 guards list ?

If yes, could you post the link to where i can wait in line for the next list ?

If no, then i'll just contribute opinions here and wait for the forawrds and centers lists.

[Kblaze8855]

All this comes down to is if you care one speck about the ability to play basketball.

If not its cousy by a mile. Legacy Wade will never match.

If ability to play the game matters..its Wade by a mile. Cousy couldnt shoot(dont tell me you saw him make a set shot from 3 point range...I did too..but fact is if he shot 34-35% he either missed almost all his shots or a hell of a lot of layups). Ive heard from his mouth that kids today are better ball handlers than he was(not that id make that case). Russel said Cousy didnt have any interest in defense at all and Russell helped build their fast breaking style for the express purpose of finding a way to get something out of Cousys lack of defense. Someone can find the article im sure but the basic story...

Cousy did not want to play good D. He didnt see it as a key towinning...so when his man would abuse him Russell would block it and mastered quick outlet passes because after a whhile once cousy got blown by he would know Bill was there to reject it and throw it to him leaking out down the court.

So we have his own teammates saying he played no D...

He got rebounds...on a teams scoring 120 ppg in a league that shot like 38-42%. Lot of rebounds to grab.

Fact is...all Cousy could be argued better than Wade at is passing......and playing with Bill Russell.

He was on a team as one of 3HOf players and had never even played a finals game before Bill. I wanna say they won a ring in a game he and Sharman combined for like 5 of 40 shooting. Their frontcourt won them titles. Russell. Heinson. Sanders. Their defense and frontcourt won those rings which is probably why they won 5 or 6 without him.

Point blank period....

A vote for cousy is a total disregarding of the ability to play basketball. I dont wanna hear shit about winning when a guy puts up 21/6 on 28% shooting in the playoffs losing in the second round or tops out at 26 on 50 in a sweep in the first round. Then Russell arrives and he makes 7 straight finals winning 6....then he retires...and they win one mre game...and win the title in even more dominant fasion. One of the 5 they didnt need him for.

Im hearing no "he was a winner" arguments in that situation.

He was a teammate of Bill Russell. That makes anyone a winner.

[Kblaze8855]

Even if you have convinced yourself, you don't see how the guy with 10 all-NBA 1st teams an MVP and 7 rings could have a case?

I thought that sounded odd when I read it...

He has 6 rings.

In what im sure is a total coincidence he won his first in Russells rookie season....lost the second time in the finals with Russell hurt vs the Hawks...then won 5 in a row with Russell. Then retired. Before they won 5 more without him.

[Fatal9]

Really?

Even if you have convinced yourself, you don't see how the guy with 10 all-NBA 1st teams an MVP and 7 rings could have a case?

Even understanding that there is context to all those achievements, you don't see why someone would pick Cousy?

Because while "winning" and accomplishments are nice, context matters. I won't even consider the era stuff (though how well a player's game/skillset translates decade to decade matters to me).

Celtics when they were winning often had very mediocre offenses...sometimes the worst in the league (I expect better if the offense is being led by a player who is going to be voted as a top 4 PG of all-time). It was their defense (which was the best in the league by huge margins in most years) anchored by Russell and supported by guys like KC Jones, Satch Sanders, Sharman and so on, that made them a dynasty.

Cousy's contributions were replaceable. Nice piece to have I'm sure but not necessary, what he brought to the table did not have an affect on whether they won or not. They could win with him quaterbacking them while they were a mediocre offensive team. They could win when he got old and began playing under 30 minutes a game. And they could win when he retired. Cousy wasn't the identity of those teams, it was Russell and the other guys who made the Celtics who they were defensively, combined with the clutch shooting of guys like Jones and Havlicek.

Guards back then shot poorly...but Cousy was horrific. I'm sure his playmaking was great, it is in all the old games I've seen of him (game 7 of the '62 finals impressed me for example), but dude never even broke 40%, was always shooting much lower than league average, and by much lower I mean more than 10 percentage points under league average in some of their runs. That's just awful from a guy who is being ranked this highly because of his offense.

[Kblaze8855]

Really...if ever 6 rings flat out dont matter is when you didnt do anything of note in the playoffs before your teams leader arrived then you won 6....losing in the finals only when that leader was hurt....you then retired and he won 5 more?

Get the **** outta here. Im not giving a guy credit for that.

[Clippersfan86]

Cousy not even close. He has much better all around stats, 6 rings and played excellent every year in the playoffs. What's not to like?

[Fatal9]

He has much better all around stats

:facepalm

[Clippersfan86]

:facepalm

Actually I should say statistically Wade does have an edge. I forgot Cousy has the worst FG% over his career of any HOF player. Nonetheless I pick him because of the 7 rings, constant success. I understand he played for a great team but it's way too soon for Wade to be knocking off legends like this.

[Kblaze8855]

14/8/6 on 21% shooting is excellent in the playoffs? 21/6/5 on 28%? 15/9/4 on .305? 17/9/4 on 34%? 20/9/6 on 32%?

And in what world is 20/8/6 on 35% shooting on a team running al ldya every day much better all around than Wade doing like 28/8/5?

its as if we arent even talking about the same people here...

[Clippersfan86]

14/8/6 on 21% shooting is excellent in the playoffs? 21/6/5 on 28%? 15/9/4 on .305? 17/9/4 on 34%? 20/9/6 on 32%?

And in what world is 20/8/6 on 35% shooting on a team running al ldya every day much better all around than Wade doing like 28/8/5?

its as if we arent even talking about the same people here...

We can't just take the playoffs into account though. Wade is a relatively efficient scorer/shooter while Cousy is a horrendous one over the course of his career. I still pick Cousy but that's one edge Wade has.

[Kblaze8855]

Nonetheless I pick him because of the 7 rings

He didnt even win 7 rings. he won 6. And the team won 5 without him.

The one year they lost...it was with Russell injured. Again..

Im sure that was just by chance.

We giving a guy credit for winning title clinching games he was 2-20 in with Russell and Heinson combining for like 60/50....

Dude was not the reason they won. Point blank period. If we are calling guys better than Wade merely for existing on Bill Russells roster for 6 of his 11 rings we might as well stop the voting now and throw basketball ability out the window and rank off NBA.com bios.

Dont know how people want context to disregard his numbers but not to explain his rings as part of a team that clearly didnt need him.....and he did nothing with before Russell.

[Clippersfan86]

Blaze misunderstood you. You were agreeing Wade has a big edge in shooting... I misread it my bad.

[SonOfMattGeiger]

i know my vote doesn't count, but if cousy doesn't win this i'm gonna have to jump forums bc that would be a tragedy. please ISH, i've been impressed for the short while i've been on here, don't let me down.

[LJJ]

Fact is...all Cousy could be argued better than Wade at is passing....

Lol. I don't know why you have such irrational hatred for very specific players.

"Cousy could be argued to be better at passing than Wade" :rolleyes:


Cousy was probably the best passer of an entire era, while Wade is not even top 50 in the league at any moment of his career. Stop saying ridiculous shit, Cousy won MVP and back in the day he was thought of as one of the best players in the league. Least you can do is argue in a respectful manner.

[ShaqAttack3234]

I have to pick Wade. KBlaze and Fatal pretty much summed up a lot of my thoughts.

Prime/peak and how well your game can translate to other eras is very important to me. Not only that, but there are Cousy's weaknesses in his own era(shooting and defense). While there obviously isn't that much footage available of Cousy, what I've seen is enough to tell me that they aren't close in terms of evaluating them that way. And I'll cut Cousy some slack on that because I don't feel right about just disregarding a guy because that game hadn't evolved nearly as much then.

[Kblaze8855]

For one...I didnt mean that to imply Wade is arguably better as a passer than cousy. I meant that passing is the only thing one could put in Cousys favor.

As for respect? All calling Cousy better than wade is is disrespecting one factually superior legend in favor of another because he was born earlier.

People get so wrapped up in respecting the past they will ignore the obvious. bob Cousy himself said in the 70s that half the points in the league were doing more than he ever did.

The man is an icon. He was not better at basketball than Wade. This isnt calling Russell Ben Wallace or jerry West a poor mans Michael Redd.

Its saying that a guy who learned the game in the 40s and didnt have a traditional jumper, is listed by his own teammates as a guy with no interest in defense, and would miss 70-80% of his shots some playoff runs while winning nothing before Russell...

Is not better than Wade.

Having 6 of a teams 11 rings does not make you better than Wade.

Im reasonably sure Bill Russell has more RINGS than Cousy won individual playoff games without him.

But im to care about his rings? Or his MVP won over Russell because Bill had to play the summer olympics which were held in december because they were in the southern hemisphere so he missed a number of games?

Cousy and russell both have said Bill didnt get his fair credit back then. Bill won them rings and kids loved cousy. Fans loved Cousy. we are supposed to be more advanced than kids in the 1950s who didnt know what drove those teams. It was not Cousy. It was russell. Always.

Cousys team success is irrelevant and that team success is the only reason hes in this discussion. Oh he won 6 rings...

I can see how people in the 50s might not know who to credit...or be too racist to admit the obvious.

Us? We should know better.

When a team wins 5 rings without you...you are not the reason they won.

And it is no disrespect to Cousy to say so. Its disrespect of Bill Russell that anyone on those teams even has their ring total listed without his name being next to it.

This isnt Michael and Scottie. Its not even Shaq and Kobe or Reed and Frazier.

This is one guy winning 11 rings and 5 of them without the other guy never missing a beat.

Listing cousys team accomlishments to distract from the fact he wasnt an 8th as good as Wade at basketball is more disrespectful to Wade than anything ive said disrespects cousy.

These areb oth legends here. We dont need to heap more respect on one because of his birthday and getting to play with Bill Russell.

He was a pioneer. No doubt.

So was Curtis Blow.

Doesnt make him better than Nas.

[Miller for 3]

have to go with Wade because his skills would translate to success in any era. Cousy had the better career based on accolades and such, but Wade was the better and more impactful player

[WillC]

Bob Cousy gets my vote and this is a no brainer for me.

Just a phenomenal pass-first point guard who got the job done, winning multiple championships.

[G.O.A.T]

Because while "winning" and accomplishments are nice, context matters. I won't even consider the era stuff (though how well a player's game/skillset translates decade to decade matters to me).


Of course context matters, but to argue against Cousy you have to pick and choose where you apply which portion of the context.


Celtics when they were winning often had very mediocre offenses...sometimes the worst in the league (I expect better if the offense is being led by a player who is going to be voted as a top 4 PG of all-time). It was their defense (which was the best in the league by huge margins in most years) anchored by Russell and supported by guys like KC Jones, Satch Sanders, Sharman and so on, that made them a dynasty.

This is an example. This is an entirely true statement, but it ignores a lot of context.

1) The Celtics were the best offense in pro basketball history to that point from 1951-1956 led by Cousy. They were running a shot clock era offense even before the shot clock.

2) From 1957-1960, Cousy's only prime years with Russell, the Celtics were top three in the league in scoring, field goal percentage and assists every year.

3) KC and Satch weren't really in the rotation until 1962 when Cousy was on his way out.


Cousy's contributions were replaceable. Nice piece to have I'm sure but not necessary, what he brought to the table did not have an affect on whether they won or not. They could win with him quaterbacking them while they were a mediocre offensive team. They could win when he got old and began playing under 30 minutes a game. And they could win when he retired. Cousy wasn't the identity of those teams, it was Russell and the other guys who made the Celtics who they were defensively, combined with the clutch shooting of guys like Jones and Havlicek.

Really it was two teams and while not being the best player, Cousy was the face of the first one. That team with Cooz, Sharman, Heinsohn, Loscutoff and Ramsey as the key components alongside Russell was what I call an "old-NBA" team. Those guys grew up with pro games being played to scores in the 40's and 50's with shooting percentage below 25% often. The next team with the Jones boys, Hondo, Satch, Seigfried and co. was a new NBA team. Better athletes, guys who grew up playing a different kind of game then there peers a decade or so older.

To your point though, I don't think Cousy contributions were replaceable, neither the tangible or intangible. That's wholly subjective, but i can tell you that most certainly was not the common opinion during his time.


Guards back then shot poorly...but Cousy was horrific. I'm sure his playmaking was great, it is in all the old games I've seen of him (game 7 of the '62 finals impressed me for example), but dude never even broke 40%, was always shooting much lower than league average, and by much lower I mean more than 10 percentage points under league average in some of their runs. That's just awful from a guy who is being ranked this highly because of his offense.

This is misleading. Cousy shot over or near the league average for most of his prime. The game changed and a 32 year old Cousy could not adjust with it. But you can't hold that against him. By that point he had already had a longer career than almost anyone of his contemporaries and even once the game passed him by from a skill and style standpoint, he could still be a high level playmaker.

Even though he led the playoffs in APG for eight straight years and led the playoffs in PPG three times, his shooting percentages during playoff runs are dreadful, no doubt and that's a good reason to keep him a level below the Oscar's and West and Magic despite a similiar resume. But to think it's not valid for someone to prefer one of the most illustrious and accomplished careers of all-time over a very impressive but inconsistent eight year run is not reasonable in any context.

[WillC]

[QUOTE=Gotterdammerung]Break it down ISH style:

ISH logic: GOAT must be the better playground player, the one with high NBA 2k rating, better athlete.

G

[Clippersfan86]

Of course context matters, but to argue against Cousy you have to pick and choose where you apply which portion of the context.



This is an example. This is an entirely true statement, but it ignores a lot of context.

1) The Celtics were the best offense in pro basketball history to that point from 1951-1956 led by Cousy. They were running a shot clock era offense even before the shot clock.

2) From 1957-1960, Cousy's only prime years with Russell, the Celtics were top three in the league in scoring, field goal percentage and assists every year.

3) KC and Satch weren't really in the rotation until 1962 when Cousy was on his way out.



Really it was two teams and while not being the best player, Cousy was the face of the first one. That team with Cooz, Sharman, Heinsohn, Loscutoff and Ramsey as the key components alongside Russell was what I call an "old-NBA" team. Those guys grew up with pro games being played to scores in the 40's and 50's with shooting percentage below 25% often. The next team with the Jones boys, Hondo, Satch, Seigfried and co. was a new NBA team. Better athletes, guys who grew up playing a different kind of game then there peers a decade or so older.

To your point though, I don't think Cousy contributions were replaceable, neither the tangible or intangible. That's wholly subjective, but i can tell you that most certainly was not the common opinion during his time.



This is misleading. Cousy shot over or near the league average for most of his prime. The game changed and a 32 year old Cousy could not adjust with it. But you can't hold that against him. By that point he had already had a longer career than almost anyone of his contemporaries and even once the game passed him by from a skill and style standpoint, he could still be a high level playmaker.

Even though he led the playoffs in APG for eight straight years and led the playoffs in PPG three times, his shooting percentages during playoff runs are dreadful, no doubt and that's a good reason to keep him a level below the Oscar's and West and Magic despite a similiar resume. But to think it's not valid for someone to prefer one of the most illustrious and accomplished careers of all-time over a very impressive but inconsistent eight year run is not reasonable in any context.


:applause: . Great post G.O.A.T.

[Big164]

Bob cousey

If wade died today no one would remember him in 50 years. He'd be lost in the shuffle as some guy from the kobe era. Kobe won 3 before wade and 2 after. The guy is a footnote as of now.

Bob cousey 50 years later is still a legend and no guard from that era is even close to him.

Easy vote.

[WillC]

Bob cousey

If wade died today no one would remember him in 50 years. He'd be lost in the shuffle as some guy from the kobe era. Kobe won 3 before wade and 2 after. The guy is a footnote as of now.

Bob cousey 50 years later is still a legend and no guard from that era is even close to him.

Easy vote.

Cousy was so memorable that you forgot how to spell his name.

[Warriors fan]

Cousy was so memorable that you forgot how to spell his name.
:applause: big164 is a wade hater

[Odinn]

I mostly agree with ShaqAttack3234, KBlaze8855 and Fatal9 in this thread.

I vote for Dwyane Wade, again.

[Big164]

Cousy was so memorable that you forgot how to spell his name.
Im not Bob's mother, sorry. That'd be really embarrassing...

Bob Cousy

[Kblaze8855]

While every single post in favor of Cousy both makes me laugh and wonder when the ability to play basketball went out the window...

I am interested in what some of the Cousy voters will do when presended with what guys like George Mikan and Neil Johnson actually did compared to guys like Shaq and Barkley. Still pretend its close?

And I wonder where guys like Bob Davies are when we are putting more value on being an innovator and accomplishments than the ability to play basketball well. Did Pistol Pete end up higher than Davies?

Im not sure how Cousy is better than Wade but Paul Arizin probably wont be higher than say...KG..on the forward list.

Being a Celtic and having 6 rings gifted to you by a guy who won 5 without you sure gets you a lot of love.

[Rnbizzle]

If you guys would look at these players on the court, there is no question Wade is the better player. The fact that you count his 6 rings (Which he only won because he played with Russell) is so retarded to me. Give Wade a good/great team and he will get a shitload of rings as well.

Wade is a proven winner.

[oolalaa]

All this comes down to is if you care one speck about the ability to play basketball.

If not its cousy by a mile. Legacy Wade will never match.

If ability to play the game matters..its Wade by a mile. Cousy couldnt shoot(dont tell me you saw him make a set shot from 3 point range...I did too..but fact is if he shot 34-35% he either missed almost all his shots or a hell of a lot of layups). Ive heard from his mouth that kids today are better ball handlers than he was(not that id make that case). Russel said Cousy didnt have any interest in defense at all and Russell helped build their fast breaking style for the express purpose of finding a way to get something out of Cousys lack of defense. Someone can find the article im sure but the basic story...

Cousy did not want to play good D. He didnt see it as a key towinning...so when his man would abuse him Russell would block it and mastered quick outlet passes because after a whhile once cousy got blown by he would know Bill was there to reject it and throw it to him leaking out down the court.

So we have his own teammates saying he played no D...

He got rebounds...on a teams scoring 120 ppg in a league that shot like 38-42%. Lot of rebounds to grab.

Fact is...all Cousy could be argued better than Wade at is passing......and playing with Bill Russell.

He was on a team as one of 3HOf players and had never even played a finals game before Bill. I wanna say they won a ring in a game he and Sharman combined for like 5 of 40 shooting. Their frontcourt won them titles. Russell. Heinson. Sanders. Their defense and frontcourt won those rings which is probably why they won 5 or 6 without him.

Point blank period....

A vote for cousy is a total disregarding of the ability to play basketball. I dont wanna hear shit about winning when a guy puts up 21/6 on 28% shooting in the playoffs losing in the second round or tops out at 26 on 50 in a sweep in the first round. Then Russell arrives and he makes 7 straight finals winning 6....then he retires...and they win one mre game...and win the title in even more dominant fasion. One of the 5 they didnt need him for.

Im hearing no "he was a winner" arguments in that situation.

He was a teammate of Bill Russell. That makes anyone a winner.

:applause:

I was going to write pretty much the same as this but now i don't have to.

:cheers:

Anyone who chooses cousy over wade is either 60 years old or just plain ignorant.

[KGMN]

Bob Cousy

[1987_Lakers]

Cousy impacted the league more & has a greater legacy, but Wade is simply the better player.

[G.O.A.T]

While every single post in favor of Cousy both makes me laugh and wonder when the ability to play basketball went out the window...

Really being a dick with this whole "abilty to play basketball" thing.

A ton of people a lot smarter and with more knowledge have come to the conclusion that Cousy is a better player than Wade. It's far from unreasonable.

Any Cousy as very good at playing basketball. In his time some people even said he was the greatest ever.

Now I know you are smarter than those people and the game is just so superior now, but what does that mean this generations players and observers are fated for in 50-100 years

Bring the level of conversation up or take it elsewhere.

[IGOTGAME]

Really being a dick with this whole "abilty to play basketball" thing.

A ton of people a lot smarter and with more knowledge have come to the conclusion that Cousy is a better player than Wade. It's far from unreasonable.

Any Cousy as very good at playing basketball. In his time some people even said he was the greatest ever.

Now I know you are smarter than those people and the game is just so superior now, but what does that mean this generations players and observers are fated for in 50-100 years

Bring the level of conversation up or take it elsewhere.

who has said this?

[Rnbizzle]

Really being a dick with this whole "abilty to play basketball" thing.

A ton of people a lot smarter and with more knowledge have come to the conclusion that Cousy is a better player than Wade. It's far from unreasonable.

Any Cousy as very good at playing basketball. In his time some people even said he was the greatest ever.

Now I know you are smarter than those people and the game is just so superior now, but what does that mean this generations players and observers are fated for in 50-100 years

Bring the level of conversation up or take it elsewhere.
He's right, though. You guys are rating players based on who they played with and what they've achieved as a team. Kblaze is pretty much the only one rating players as players, what they can do on the basketball court.

[tontoz]

There are always going to be conflicts when trying to compare guys from different eras, especially when the eras are so far apart. This type of thing in inevitable when attempting a GOAT project like this.

[Clippersfan86]

We have to decide what makes someone better to compare eras like this. Do you think intangibles, impact on the game, winning and running a team are more or less valuable than more dominant all around player and better stats?

I personally think it's the first one assuming that player still has good stats and a good game to go with it. I think it's a lot harder to find another player like Bob Cousy than it is D Wade. Has Wade changed the game in any way? Is he revolutionary? How much have the Heat won in his career pre Lebron/Bosh? Wade is no doubt a great guard... but how much of an imprint has he left on the NBA?

[D.J.]

It's hard to compare someone from today to someone in the 50's and 60's. The winner here has to be Cousy


-6 championships
-10 All-NBA 1st teams
-Led the league in assists 8 consecutive seasons
-1 MVP and top 5 on three other occasions


Wade is the better individual talent, but Cousy dominated. He was the QB of that Celtics offense that won title after title. He was on the All-NBA 1st team year in and year out. He regularly put up 21-22/7-8/5-6 in the playoffs and even had a playoff year of 26/9/8. How do you go against 6 rings, 10 All-NBA 1st teams, an additional 2 All-NBA 2nd teams, 20/7-8/6 on a regular basis, and leading the league in assists 8 consecutive seasons?

[Clippersfan86]

It's hard to compare someone from today to someone in the 50's and 60's. The winner here has to be Cousy


-6 championships
-10 All-NBA 1st teams
-Led the league in assists 8 consecutive seasons
-1 MVP and top 5 on three other occasions


Wade is the better individual talent, but Cousy dominated. He was the QB of that Celtics offense that won title after title. He was on the All-NBA 1st team year in and year out. He regularly put up 21-22/7-8/5-6 in the playoffs and even had a playoff year of 26/9/8. How do you go against 6 rings, 10 All-NBA 1st teams, an additional 2 All-NBA 2nd teams, 20/7-8/6 on a regular basis, and leading the league in assists 8 consecutive seasons?

:applause:

[SteveNashMVPcro]

It's a hard pick for me
Cousy's awards just blow out Wade's but Wade is just a better player
still i'm gonna give my vote to Cousy

[catch24]

There are always going to be conflicts when trying to compare guys from different eras, especially when the eras are so far apart. This type of thing in inevitable when attempting a GOAT project like this.

For sure.

I'd go with Wade, but it's close because of Cousy's team accomplishments. To me, Cousy is an inferior scorer (on both volume and efficiency), as was his playmaking despite averaging more APG. Watching the limited footage that's available of Cousy, Wade was a better passer imo - and I suspect he averages less turnovers because of his handle/iq. Wade is the better shooter and above all else, the better defender.

As another poster eluded to, Cousy's playoff production doesn't help his case (nor does it when Boston continued winning titles; it's almost as if Cousy's impact was marginal and negated...the results show he really wasn't missed).

The three years, Wade has played with a contending team (minus the notable injuries to his teammates and/or himself), he's made it to the ECF and Finals twice...arguably the best player on all three teams mind you.

There's no way, Bob Cousy had the ability to put up the type of regular season and playoff production Wade's accumulated either....

27/6/7 on 49% shooting
30/5/8/2 on 49% shooting

Postseason numbers:
27/6/7 on 48% shooting
28/6/6 on 50% shooting (35/8/4 on 47% shooting in the Finals)
29/5/5 on 44% shooting
33/6/7 on 56% shooting
24/7/5 on 48% shooting (27/7/5 on 54% shooting in the Finals)

Those are some of the greatest numbers from a 2-guard the games' seen....

Cousy may have had the better career, but if (or when, lets be real) Miami starts winning more championships, Wade will surpass him. D-Wade is the better player and it isn't even close.

[Boston C's]

I love wade but my lord cousy better take this... itd be a dame shame if he doesnt... wade will probably surpass him when its all said and done but as of right now its cousy and it isnt close for me

[tontoz]

I think Wade has been making a good case to be considered the 3rd best shooting guard ever. His lack of range hurts him but other than that he is a pretty complete player.

[Kblaze8855]

Really being a dick with this whole "abilty to play basketball" thing.

A ton of people a lot smarter and with more knowledge have come to the conclusion that Cousy is a better player than Wade. It's far from unreasonable.

Im really being a realist when I say Wade is better at basketball.

And dont tell me a ton of people come to the conclusion Wade isnt better because they think Cousy is "greater". A lot of people in this very topic have picked cousy while flatly saying hes inferior. As would many you asked. IVe heard Tommy Henison say that as a playmaker...you look at stockton and Magic...times 10...and you get Cousy. Am I to give that flowery meaningless nonsense credence? Of course not. Hes talking about his teammate and friend. So he ranks him highly.

Ive heard Hondo in just the late 70s talking about how far the game had come and how guards are far better than in the 60s. And Cousy is a product of the 40s. Hondo would no doubt rank Cousy high o na list of the greats. You show him a prospect who is 6'1'' 155 pounds, an average athlete, with no jumper to speak of, and a passionate disregard for defense hes not calling him better than Wade if he has Cousys passing.

DOnt sit there and act like you cant differentiate betweens someone calling a peer or a legend great....and thinking they are actually as good as a guy like Wade.

You seem so wrapped up in these legacies and accomplishments(despite getting some wrong that I knew the moment I read them) possibly because of the nature of your purpose here that you use it to blind yourself to the obvious.

This isnt laughing at the 60s. Saying all things now > then. Its saying that a one way player who was so far behind even the 60s game he was shooting 28 and 30% for entire playoff runs is not better than Wade because he won rings and got love on teams that did as much without him.

This isnt 60s vs now.

Its Cousy vs Wade.

If you are going to lie to me and say you dont have observational powers enough to conclude Wade is better than him...fine. I believe you to very set in your ways and even objective in a respectable way. I do value consistiency out of someone on these matter...

I do not however believe you are stupid enough to not see why one would say Wade is better at the game. Or stupid enough to not see why one would say Cousy is greater....while knowing Wade is better.



Any Cousy as very good at playing basketball. In his time some people even said he was the greatest ever.

Stupid people exist now as well.



Now I know you are smarter than those people and the game is just so superior now, but what does that mean this generations players and observers are fated for in 50-100 years

Some players are timeless. Some are not.


Bring the level of conversation up or take it elsewhere.

Up?

By totally disregarding basketball playing in favor of facts I knew as a child?

A 6 year old could rank players by out of context facts about what they accomplish.

ITs not a higher level of discusison. ITs disregarding the higher level...the finer points of the game...the how and why...in favor of pretending the world is simple and fair.

It isnt. Its not fair to dock Cousy for not having aj umper when guards didnt generally have one.

But its not fair to Wade to pretend that not having a jumper doesnt matter as a basketball player.

You can call it disrespect. You cant tell me im not telling the truth.

YOu tell me Cousy played the game better than Wade id bet my life you know he did not.

Im just being real.

Truth is a complete defense homie.

And I am speaking the truth.

You want a point to put up 15 a game and shoot 30% on a team that wins 6 with him and 5 without him?

Fine. Enjoy him.

I will take the player who plays basketball better regardless of not getting to play with Bill Russell.

Call it a lower level of thinking or whatever.

But I needed to know a lot more than facts out of a book to conclude it.

Almanac greatness is not the only greatness. At some point...basketball needs to be considered.


Me? I consider it first.

[DMAVS41]

Really being a dick with this whole "abilty to play basketball" thing.

A ton of people a lot smarter and with more knowledge have come to the conclusion that Cousy is a better player than Wade. It's far from unreasonable.

Any Cousy as very good at playing basketball. In his time some people even said he was the greatest ever.

Now I know you are smarter than those people and the game is just so superior now, but what does that mean this generations players and observers are fated for in 50-100 years

Bring the level of conversation up or take it elsewhere.

You need to open your eyes and start evaluating what actually happens on the court.

You put way too much stock in team accomplishments. Hell, just after the Finals ended you claimed that the Heat lost because Wade can't step up when it matters most. The best player does not always win the title. Teams win titles.

If you honestly watched the NBA finals and thought that Wade didn't play well enough to win...then I give up. I'm the biggest Dirk fan in the world and I can admit that Wade was largely the best player in that series.

You can't just rank players solely off their paper resume. Basketball doesn't work like that. Its a combination of everything....there is no "magic" that allows players to win titles. The Heat would have probably swept the Mavs this year if Wade had gotten anything out of Lebron/Bosh. Just like the Mavs would have won in 06 if Terry had stepped up the way he did this year in the Finals.

There are way too many factors and circumstances outside the control of one player to put the kind of emphasis you do on titles and team accomplishments.

Having said that, Cousy vs Wade is debatable based on their careers. This isn't a one on one game between wade and cousy. You have to account for era differences...etc. It depends on the criteria one is using and its totally subjective.

[iamgine]

He's right, though. You guys are rating players based on who they played with and what they've achieved as a team. Kblaze is pretty much the only one rating players as players, what they can do on the basketball court.
It's not fair though to rate players like that. There has to be more consideration for eras. Ben Gordon or Jason Terry is easily a much better player than Bob Cousy ever was but should they be ranked higher then?

[Fatal9]

This is an example. This is an entirely true statement, but it ignores a lot of context.

1) The Celtics were the best offense in pro basketball history to that point from 1951-1956 led by Cousy. They were running a shot clock era offense even before the shot clock.

2) From 1957-1960, Cousy's only prime years with Russell, the Celtics were top three in the league in scoring, field goal percentage and assists every year.

3) KC and Satch weren't really in the rotation until 1962 when Cousy was on his way out.

Looking at the Celtic offense and defense (estimated offensive/defensive ratings, we don't have turnovers/offensive rebounding numbers, but this gives a very good general idea) during the Russell/Cousy era:

1957

Offense:

League average - 87.6
Celtics - 87.2 (-.4) (ranked 5 out of 8)

Defense:

League average - 87.6
Celtics - 82.8 (+4.8) (rank 1st)

1958

Offense:

League average - 87.5
Celtics - 86.6 (-.9) (ranked 7th of 8)

Defense:

League average - 87.5
Celtics - 82.3 (+5.2) (ranked 1st)

1959

Offense:

League average - 89.2
Celtics - 88.3 (-.9) (ranked 7th of 8)

Defense:

League average - 89.2
Celtics - 83.4 (+5.8) (ranked 1st)

1960

Offense:

League average - 90.3
Celtics - 90.2 (-.1) (ranked 5th of 8)

Defense:

League average - 90.3
Celtics - 84.2 (+6.1) (ranked 1st)

1961

Offense:

League average - 91.5
Celtics - 87.5 (-4.0) (ranked last)

Defense:

League average - 91.5
Celtics - 83.4 (+8.1) (ranked 1st)

1962

Offense:

League average - 93.3
Celtics - 91.6 (-1.7) (ranked 7th of 9)

Defense:

League average - 93.3
Celtics - 84.6 (+8.7) (ranked 1st)

1963

Offense:

League average - 96.0
Celtics - 92.6 (-3.4) (ranked last)

Defense:

League average - 96.0
Celtics - 87.0 (+9.0) (ranked 1st)


Team stats basically confirm what we already knew (and I'm sure what you already knew). Celtics were a defensive dynasty. If they were half as good on offense, I'm sure they would have been winning titles in an even more dominant fashion (better RS records, less losses in playoffs etc).


What we consistently have is a team that had a sub-par offense, but a historically great defense. It didn't matter if they were average offensively (at league average), mediocre offensively (ie. below league average) or downright putrid (bottom of the league). How well they played offensively year in year out did not matter, because they were better than other teams on defense by unbelievable margins and Cousy literally contributed nothing to that...contributed nothing to the constant that made those Celtic teams what they were...which is why they won when he was there, why they won when he got old, why they won when he left. Guys contributing/supporting Russell defensively were players like Sharman, Ramsey, Loscutoff early on and then KC Jones, Sanders, Havlicek etc later on. And it's not like he was some consistent clutch shooting superstar who took over when the team needed it (like say a Sam Jones or Havlicek or Heinsohn in '57), he has some terrible game 7 performances, specifically scoring wise.

We look at teams like '93 Knicks, '04 Pistons, '08 Celtics and even they weren't better than the second best teams by margins that the Russell era Celtics were in some years.


This is misleading. Cousy shot over or near the league average for most of his prime. The game changed and a 32 year old Cousy could not adjust with it. But you can't hold that against him. By that point he had already had a longer career than almost anyone of his contemporaries and even once the game passed him by from a skill and style standpoint, he could still be a high level playmaker.

His shooting in the playoffs (aka the part of the season where you win rings) was absolutely dreadful compared to the league average. It wasn't like the standard was high either...usually ranged between the high 30s and low 40s.


Cousy's playoff shooting compared to league playoff shooting averages '55-'63:

0% (first year of shot clock)
11.8% (only 3 games)
-5.2% (awful)
-2.6% (poor)
-7.2% (awful)
-9.7% (awful)
-6.3% (awful)
-5.4% (awful)
-8.1% (awful)

The guy could not shoot. Shooting basically 5-10% below league average when teams weren't even shooting that well? There's no excuse for that. It's not like he had to carry an offense or score like an Iverson or something either. In the regular season he was closer to the league average though still 2.5-4.5% under in most shot clock era years.

He was bad, no getting around it. And there's more than enough stories about how the media overrated Cousy at the time (trying to credit him over Russell for the Celtics success). He was a fan favorite, brought a style to the game that made him entertaining, so I take what's said about his "greatness" with a grain of salt, especially from back then.


Regardless, just evaluate them as players. Wade's stats are as good as most guys in the top 10, and better than most you'd consider top 20. Cousy? Not so much. As players, what would you say Cousy is better than Wade at? Is he a better offensive player? One guy can't even shoot, while the other is almost flawless. Is he a better defensive player? One guy is noted to not play defense at all, while the other is a one of the better defensive guards of his era and arguably the best shot blocker at his position. Rebounding? Not if you look at their stats in context of the pace their respective leagues/teams played at. As players, I don't even think they're comparable, one guy is levels above.

I don't care what the accolades are for Cousy getting all-NBA first teams before any legit guards like Oscar/West entered the league, or getting 6 rings on a team that could win with or without him. I mean a major argument for Cousy is him making all-NBA first teams over guys like Gene Shue, Dick Garmaker, Larry Costello, Slater Martin and so on...who I'm sure were good players for their time but not comparable to guys at Wade's position during his career, guys like Kobe, Chris Paul, Nash, Roy, T-Mac, Rose, Deron and so on.

[Kblaze8855]

Thing about ben and terry types.....if you consider what they accomplished at all you cant put them over cousy. Terry did once what cousy did 6 times. Ben less than that. Skills you can give them. But you have to throw out the accomplishments side in full to rank them over cousy. To rank wade? Wade body bags cousy skills wise. But hes an all nba first teamer mvp level(winner or not) who was the best player on a title team.

Wade is on a level usually reserved for the wests and oscars. The lebrons and kobes and karl malones. The real best of all time. Wade has few peers skills wise or accomplishment wise. Cousy? Only accomplishments. Wade over cousy is considering everything just weighing ability more as i feel it must be. Gordon over cousy is just off ability and ignoring career totally. I dont think we can totally ignore either. You have to ignore one to put terry over cousy. And ignore one to put wade under cousy. Consider them both? Wade. By a lot.

[L.Kizzle]

I have no problems with people voting for Dwyane Wade, but the reasoning is all wrong.

Are y'all seriously voting for Wade because Cousy's game wouldn't translate to the current NBA 60+ years later? If it is going down like that, Cousy shouldn't even be in the top 25 discussion, hell the top 100 for that matter. Why is Tracy McGrady not up here, where is David Thompson and Mitch Richmond at? Vince Carter vs Bob Cousy, really.

You guys have to be smarter than that. I hate to see where George Mikan is voted for the center spot, probably right behind Kevin Duckworth ...

Look at it as in what Bob Cousy did in his era, not because D-Wade is 1000 times more athletic than him in the decade of the 2000's.

[G.O.A.T]

Someone else take over the project for a while.

This is shitty, tired of having to listen to people half my age say I said things or did things I didn't or that I think something I don't, or I'm smarter than that.

We can't even have an exchange of ideas without petty shit and namecalling.

I'm not sifting this ****ing litter box anymore.

[IGOTGAME]

Someone else take over the project for a while.

This is shitty, tired of having to listen to people half my age say I said things or did things I didn't or that I think something I don't, or I'm smarter than that.

We can't even have an exchange of ideas without petty shit and namecalling.

I'm not sifting this ****ing litter box anymore.

yep, he mad.

Plus, how do you know the age of the people talking to you. Over the years I have come to respect the bball opinions of some of these dudes you seem to be running from. Maybe, not run from adverse opinions?

[Warriors fan]

Someone else take over the project for a while.

This is shitty, tired of having to listen to people half my age say I said things or did things I didn't or that I think something I don't, or I'm smarter than that.

We can't even have an exchange of ideas without petty shit and namecalling.

I'm not sifting this ****ing litter box anymore.
:roll: you :cry: ????? let me take over OLD MAN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[BlackJoker23]

fatal9 ethered this thread

[AlphaWolf24]

Someone else take over the project for a while.

This is shitty, tired of having to listen to people half my age say I said things or did things I didn't or that I think something I don't, or I'm smarter than that.

We can't even have an exchange of ideas without petty shit and namecalling.

I'm not sifting this ****ing litter box anymore.


Wade would merk that scruby 5'10" WHIT EBOY.....

:roll: @ U Getting "UMADDED" becuase kids saying Wade's a better player..

it's the M@ F@KIN truth....If you don't think Wade is a better player with a far better skillset....that would translate into better impact for a team.......then U in the wrong biznazz son.

scout fail 101.....you on Michael Jordan's scouting team?....feel me?




F'ing Crazybone....anyone saying Cousy is on wade's level :roll:





What's next?....George Mikan was really a far better player then Dwight Howard??.....psst

[Niquesports]

Really?

Even if you have convinced yourself, you don't see how the guy with 10 all-NBA 1st teams an MVP and 7 rings could have a case?

Even understanding that there is context to all those achievements, you don't see why someone would pick Cousy?


G.O.A.T. I know my vote doesnt count but I put anyone before 1960 in the * group. IT was an segregated league with most of the best athlets playing baseball or football.Going for MVp Cousy might had have 3 peers after Milkin. Wade has about 15.With one on his own team.As far as the rings how many does he have pre Russell ?

[iamgine]

Thing about ben and terry types.....if you consider what they accomplished at all you cant put them over cousy. Terry did once what cousy did 6 times. Ben less than that. Skills you can give them. But you have to throw out the accomplishments side in full to rank them over cousy. To rank wade? Wade body bags cousy skills wise. But hes an all nba first teamer mvp level(winner or not) who was the best player on a title team.

Wade is on a level usually reserved for the wests and oscars. The lebrons and kobes and karl malones. The real best of all time. Wade has few peers skills wise or accomplishment wise. Cousy? Only accomplishments. Wade over cousy is considering everything just weighing ability more as i feel it must be. Gordon over cousy is just off ability and ignoring career totally. I dont think we can totally ignore either. You have to ignore one to put terry over cousy. And ignore one to put wade under cousy. Consider them both? Wade. By a lot.
What I was saying is, even though Cousy's skills was way inferior than perhaps even Adam Morrison, you have to rate his skills compared to his peers in the era he played in.

But of course Dwyane Wade should win this.

[Kblaze8855]

I will say this in cousys defense. I dont know if its fair to say his teams had the worst offenses. If you go drop 144 points mostly on the break im not sure i can say the offense sucked with a straight face due to offensive rating. I know it was the d giving them more shots and fast break chances but still. Feels like piling on you know? Team scores 119 a game. I think i can let the point slide on the ratings.

[Niquesports]

Bob cousey

If wade died today no one would remember him in 50 years. He'd be lost in the shuffle as some guy from the kobe era. Kobe won 3 before wade and 2 after. The guy is a footnote as of now.

Bob cousey 50 years later is still a legend and no guard from that era is even close to him.

Easy vote.


BOB Cousey was a much better NASCAR driver than Wade.:roll:

[Fatal9]

Are y'all seriously voting for Wade because Cousy's game wouldn't translate to the current NBA 60+ years later? If it is going down like that, Cousy shouldn't even be in the top 25 discussion, hell the top 100 for that matter. Why is Tracy McGrady not up here, where is David Thompson and Mitch Richmond at? Vince Carter vs Bob Cousy, really.
Ignoring the fact that at their peak only one of those guys even reaches Wade's level (T-Mac for like 1 or 2 seasons...rest of them...big gap between them at their best and Wade at his best). Wade isn't some one season wonder. He's been to the conference finals three times (none of those guys other than David Thompson have done this), been to the finals twice (none of those guys have done this), led a team to a championship while playing as well as most guys in your top 15 did in their most successful playoff runs (none of those guys have damn sure done this), put up statlines in the regular season/playoffs that you could put in between Jordan's career and not blink twice.

He's won more playoff series than all of them combined while playing at a level above them and reaching the absolute pinnacle of what a great player can achieve (best player on championship team)...and you can't spot the difference between him and Vince Carter?



I will say this in cousys defense. I dont know if its fair to say his teams had the worst offenses. If you go drop 144 points mostly on the break im not sure i can say the offense sucked with a straight face due to offensive rating. I know it was the d giving them more shots and fast break chances but still. Feels like piling on you know? Team scores 119 a game. I think i can let the point slide on the ratings.
If you run more, you don't necessarily have a great offense (look at teams like Westhead's Nuggets... offensive/defensive rating adjusts for possessions to show what you score/allow with every team adjusted to 100 possessions/game). But regardless, it's more to show that where the Celtics were offensively meant next to nothing. They could be average, mediocre, bad, Celtics were winning it all behind their historical defense, which again Cousy basically had no part in. It's a reason why they could not have Cousy and not miss a beat. It would be one thing if Cousy was some sort of takeover player who time and time again came up big offensively when they needed him to...but he didn't...in fact quite the opposite in some of these games (and in the playoffs overall).

[L.Kizzle]

Ignoring the fact that at their peak only one of those guys even reaches Wade's level (T-Mac for like 1 or 2 seasons...rest of them...big gap between them at their best and Wade at his best). Wade isn't some one season wonder. He's been to the conference finals three times (none of those guys have done this), been to the finals twice (none of those guys have done this), led a team to a championship while playing as well as most guys in your top 15 did in their most successful playoff runs (none of those guys have damn sure done this), put up statlines in the regular season/playoffs that you could put in between Jordan's career and not blink twice.

He's won more playoff series than all of them combined while playing at a level above them and reaching the pinnacle of what a great player can achieve (best player on championship team)...and you can't spot the difference between him and Vince Carter?
I'm not comparing Wade to Vince Carter, I'm sayin by you guys logic, they are all better than Cousy?

[Niquesports]

What I was saying is, even though Cousy's skills was way inferior than perhaps even Adam Morrison, you have to rate his skills compared to his peers in the era he played in.

But of course Dwyane Wade should win this.


ITs just hard for me to rank Cousy so high. Would we be calling him great if marques Haynes of the Globetroer's was allowed to play in the NBA .many said he was as good if not better than Cousy.Cousy was like not even a Robin he was more like a Cato for the Green Hornet.

[L.Kizzle]

ITs just hard for me to rank Cousy so high. Would we be calling him great if marques Haynes of the Globetroer's was allowed to play in the NBA .many said he was as good if not better than Cousy.Cousy was like not even a Robin he was more like a Cato for the Green Hornet.
Well, we should just wipe the who NBA until Bill Russell enters the league, right? It happened, we can't change history but only look at if for what it was. Even when the black players started to arrive in the early to mid 50s, Cousy was still All-NBA and was still an All-Star.

He was still All-NBA 1st team in1961 with black players Wilt, Baylor, Roberston and Pettit. His last season, was still All-NBA 3rd team with black players Wilt and Hal Greer.

He didn't just fall off the earth like Neil Johnston did.

[iamgine]

ITs just hard for me to rank Cousy so high. Would we be calling him great if marques Haynes of the Globetroer's was allowed to play in the NBA .many said he was as good if not better than Cousy.Cousy was like not even a Robin he was more like a Cato for the Green Hornet.
But then how was he compared to the rest of the league when he played?

We can't just say what if x played in the NBA. He didn't.

[Big164]

The question you should ask yourself is where does wade rank in this era compared to where Bob is ranked in his?

Oddly enough they both are 2nd fiddle to the real stars of their team.

[Niquesports]

Someone else take over the project for a while.

This is shitty, tired of having to listen to people half my age say I said things or did things I didn't or that I think something I don't, or I'm smarter than that.

We can't even have an exchange of ideas without petty shit and namecalling.

I'm not sifting this ****ing litter box anymore.
G.O.A.T. Be bigger than that. They get to name calling and defensive when they know they are looking so silly and have lost in the exchange of intelligent ideas so they go to stupity

[Kblaze8855]

Funny thing to me is that all I had said directly to him was:


"I thought that sounded odd when I read it...

He has 6 rings.

In what im sure is a total coincidence he won his first in Russells rookie season....lost the second time in the finals with Russell hurt vs the Hawks...then won 5 in a row with Russell. Then retired. Before they won 5 more without him."


Before he said I was bring a dick for saying Cousy had less basketball ability. But he says name calling is a problem.

If he really is more than twice my age we have a guy born in the late 30s early 40 on here which I find...unlikely.

None of the basketball fans of that age that I know care one bit about the kind of things he seems to bring up all the time. all D teams and BAA stars and all.

These guys were listening to games on a radio watching a game or two on TV when they could and really into local games. Know a lot about HS and college ball of the time. The kinda fans who followed all that numerical and award based shit were starting with my generation.

Oldtime fans dont care about that stuff. I remember watching Peter Vescey talk about how Elgin Baylor told him he averaged 19 rebounds one season and he didnt believe him till he looked it up. And dude was a bigtime basketball fan since the 50s. Guys back then just didnt know all these things. Awards, numbers, and so on. I know them off the top of my head. My generation really started following that. The NBA was mostly on radio back then before the news im told.

So even if he is 60 hes basing most of his arguments on things hes likely to not have known in full till the 80s or more recently. Books. Numbers. Sites that list all nba teams and all. I remember telling my uncle little facts in the early 80s that he didnt know. And he was a coach in the 70s with a friend in the NBA....

I know more facts about Elgin Baylor than my stepfather who was born in 47.

For the most part unless you were someone who traveled with a team or lived near an arena you were not gonna have an encyclopedic knowledge of the NBA in the 60s. Where would you get it? The paper? Radio? Few games on tv featuring mostly the same teams? They didnt even have national deals to show the playoffs all the time till I was a kid. Even then a game you wanted t osee...a playoff game mind you...they might put half of that shit on after the news. Wouldnt always even be the second half. I remember staying up to see a playoff game once after the news and they didnt even put it on. I dont remember why but I remember being pissed off.

Doesnt matter how old you are at some point. you talk about the 50s and early 60s and support it with numbers and records you might as well have not seen any of it. I dont buy that suchthings were at all well known at the time.

[G.O.A.T]

Looking at the Celtic offense and defense (estimated offensive/defensive ratings, we don't have turnovers/offensive rebounding numbers, but this gives a very good general idea) during the Russell/Cousy era:

1957

Offense:

League average - 87.6
Celtics - 87.2 (-.4) (ranked 5 out of 8)

Defense:

League average - 87.6
Celtics - 82.8 (+4.8) (rank 1st)

etc.

First of all this is a damn good job of laying out your argument, however those I woul throw right out. First they are no real stats, they are subjective formulas created by people who may or may not have had a good understanding of the game and for this case specific most of the data is estimated. Those early Russell/Cousy Celtics were one of the leagues highest scoring, best passing and most efficent teams, that's good enough for me.

I'm exhausted, I won't bother responding to the rest, suffice to say I don't agree with your conclusion, but I have no choice but to respect the thought that went into you getting there.

[G-train]

Someone else take over the project for a while.

This is shitty, tired of having to listen to people half my age say I said things or did things I didn't or that I think something I don't, or I'm smarter than that.

We can't even have an exchange of ideas without petty shit and namecalling.

I'm not sifting this ****ing litter box anymore.

http://profile.ak.fbcdn.net/hprofile-ak-snc4/50499_133209509674_4453041_n.jpg

[donald_trump]

The question you should ask yourself is where does wade rank in this era compared to where Bob is ranked in his?

Oddly enough they both are 2nd fiddle to the real stars of their team.

wade's been the 2nd or 3rd best player in the league in 06, 07, 09, 10, 11...

cousy was never that good.

[L.Kizzle]

wade's been the 2nd or 3rd best player in the league in 06, 07, 09, 10, 11...

cousy was never that good.
Yep, even when he won league MVP ...

George Mikan and Dolph Schayes and Bob Pettit are the only one that can say they were better than Cousy 1950-1956. Mikan was gone by 54 an Pettit debuted that same year the next season.

[magnax1]

I don't really want to vote for or against a guy who I've only seen three games of, but I'll give a rather general opinion on them.
First off, too the people who are saying that Wade was just on a whole other level peak vs peak, I don't agree. Cousy was miles ahead in terms of passing of any other guard from the era I've watched. Russell was the final piece that turned them into champions, but they were a good team the year before he joined them, and wasn't the MVP of the league that first year like Cousy was. It's also worth noting that Cousy made 10 straight all NBA 1st teams, which is as high as anyone but Karl Malone who played something like an extra 7 years. In terms of comparison to their peers, I don't see how you could say Wade was just way better. There were maybe 2 guys better then Cousy at his best, and it really isn't much different for Wade.
I think they're both in the same general area to me (top 20-30 range) and I'd probably take Wade at his peak, but 6 all NBA teams of a guy with a bit better peak vs 12 all NBAs is the way I see it.
Like I said I've only seen 3 games of Cousy, so I don't want to give a vote mostly based off of reading other peoples opinions.
If you want to say that Cousy would suck today because he's from a different era, then I could go and say the same about McHale, a 6-10 forward/center who weighed less then today's shooting guards. (I know everyone's going to disagree, but he really would get battered if he didn't put on any weight in today's game, especially his early weight) Sports are always evolving, and take anyone from 30+ years past, and they probably won't be as good today. To rank players based off that is just disregarding the history of the game to me.

[tontoz]

I just noticed that Cousy never shot 40% from the field in his entire career. Wow

[D-Wade316]

In terms of legacy: Cousy
In terms of skills: Wade

I'll go with the person who forever changed the PG position with his flashy dribbles and passes. A pioneer who revolutionized basketball. Wade will clearly surpass him in time. As of now I'll go with Bob Cousy

[DMAVS41]

I don't really want to vote for or against a guy who I've only seen three games of, but I'll give a rather general opinion on them.
First off, too the people who are saying that Wade was just on a whole other level peak vs peak, I don't agree. Cousy was miles ahead in terms of passing of any other guard from the era I've watched. Russell was the final piece that turned them into champions, but they were a good team the year before he joined them, and wasn't the MVP of the league that first year like Cousy was. It's also worth noting that Cousy made 10 straight all NBA 1st teams, which is as high as anyone but Karl Malone who played something like an extra 7 years. In terms of comparison to their peers, I don't see how you could say Wade was just way better. There were maybe 2 guys better then Cousy at his best, and it really isn't much different for Wade.
I think they're both in the same general area to me (top 20-30 range) and I'd probably take Wade at his peak, but 6 all NBA teams of a guy with a bit better peak vs 12 all NBAs is the way I see it.
Like I said I've only seen 3 games of Cousy, so I don't want to give a vote mostly based off of reading other peoples opinions.
If you want to say that Cousy would suck today because he's from a different era, then I could go and say the same about McHale, a 6-10 forward/center who weighed less then today's shooting guards. (I know everyone's going to disagree, but he really would get battered if he didn't put on any weight in today's game, especially his early weight) Sports are always evolving, and take anyone from 30+ years past, and they probably won't be as good today. To rank players based off that is just disregarding the history of the game to me.


Its about how good players were in relation to their peers in large part when you compare across eras. Of course within reason and using context and logic.

I didn't see Cousy play so I can't really rank him vs Wade. I do know that anyone saying just listing Cousy as better solely because he won 6 titles is being silly.

Just like anyone saying that Wade is easily better and treating this like some type of glorified one on one game between the two is also being silly.

You can't compare across eras like this because the game changes so much. Its simply not fair. And it goes both ways. Put Cousy in the current NBA with no adaptation and he's probably awful. Put Wade in the past with no adaptation and he's called for carrying and traveling every single play down.

You need to compare them more on paper. Cousy did make 10 first team all nba teams and 2 2nd teams. He finished in the top 8 MVP voting 7 times. He won an MVP. He did play a large role in 6 titles. He also had the luxury of playing on some of the most stacked teams of all time. So the titles matter, but they aren't nearly as important as GOAT wants them to be.

Wade has played only 8 years, but he's on a path that would put his career in the same tier or ahead of cousy if he continues on without a big injury or something.

Ranking players depends on what you value. Is longevity really important? Are titles? Are numbers? Playoff play? It all matters.

The idea that Wade should be ranked ahead of Cousy because he's "better at basketball" is an extremely flawed notion. There is just nothing to support that and there never will be because its comparing two people 60 years apart in completely different circumstances that were playing a completely different game.

On the other side, the notion that Cousy is better because he won more titles is just as flawed a notion.

I'd say looking at both of their careers...Cousy should be ranked over Wade for the simple fact that Wade is yet to write his legacy. If Wade fails to win a few titles with Lebron there really won't be much of a debate on who should be ranked higher. Wade...and Lebron for that matter....have to prove they can play well AND WIN. You can't just rank Wade higher because somebody thinks "he's better"....at what? Playing the current game? Sure. Playing the 50's game? I doubt it.

I can't remember where I ranked Cousy last time I did my list, but somewhere close to number 25 all time. About where I have Wade as well. Its definitely a good debate and anyone saying its easily one guy or the other isn't being honest to the history of the game.

[Kblaze8855]

Mchale was having 30 point games on 80% shooting vs frontlines of karl malone mark eaton and kent benson. All good sized players. Not sure that was the best example.

And id say i disregarded the past if i ranked everyone from the 60s behind modern players. I dont. I rank the ones who dont seem very skilled behind current superstars. Seems fair to me. Nobody ever heard me say wade is better than russelll. I just dont see a case for ranking a defenseless pg with no jumper who had runs in the playoffs shooting literally half the percentage ai got hated on for over wade. Not like he led a team to a speck of playoff success without russell. Wade led a title team.

The clearly less skilled guy who didnt even win as much as his teams best player? Because he played with a guy who won 5 rings without him?

Not seeing the case.

[L.Kizzle]

I just noticed that Cousy never shot 40% from the field in his entire career. Wow
Not many players shot above 40% in the 50s. His pg peers Andy Phillip and Bob Davies had similar %'s. Hell, his backcour mate, Bill Sharman considered the best shooter of his era 2hot about 42% for his career. George Mikan was barley above 40%.

It's not that "wow" if you actually look what everyone else was doing.

[L.Kizzle]

Mchale was having 30 point games on 80% shooting vs frontlines of karl malone mark eaton and kent benson. All good sized players. Not sure that was the best example.

And id say i disregarded the past if i ranked everyone from the 60s behind modern players. I dont. I rank the ones who dont seem very skilled behind current superstars. Seems fair to me. Nobody ever heard me say wade is better than russelll. I just dont see a case for ranking a defenseless pg with no jumper who had runs in the playoffs shooting literally have the percentage ai got hated on for over wade. Not like he led a team to a speck of playoff success without russell. Wade led a title team.

The clearly less skilled guy who didnt even win as much as his teams best player?

Not seeing the case.
Wade did not lead that team to a title, Shaq may not have been LA Shaq, but he had a damn big impact. Delete Shaq and are they winning a title? What did Wade do after Shaq left, or pre-Shaq? Worse than Cousy pre-Russell.

[Clippersfan86]

In terms of legacy: Cousy
In terms of skills: Wade

I'll go with the person who forever changed the PG position with his flashy dribbles and passes. A pioneer who revolutionized basketball. Wade will clearly surpass him in time. As of now I'll go with Bob Cousy

Very unbiased. Much respect :applause:

[Gotterdammerung]

Jumping Jesus. H. Christ. On a Stick. :facepalm

You guys are so ****ing predictable.

:facepalm

[Kblaze8855]

Wade did not lead that team to a title, Shaq may not have been LA Shaq, but he had a damn big impact. Delete Shaq and are they winning a title? What did Wade do after Shaq left, or pre-Shaq? Worse than Cousy pre-Russell.

I see no reason to get into a Wade vs Shaq thing. Shaq stopped being Shaq in like 2003. With hints of Shaq till ike 2007 or 8. Maybe a word from him every few weeks in 09. But im not calling the 06 Heat Shaqs team the way Wade won them that ring.

Shaq had an impact. But Wade probably deserves the credit if you must single one person out.

And as for what Wade did after shaq left....

He played on a level that wouldnt be slap worthy if you compared it to Michael Magic and Bird.

Wade has at times been almost as good as any non top 6 all time player has ever been.

Im not gonna act like he wasnt on a flat out legendary level because he was playing with a bad team 08-10.

Not like he had an all nba first teamer teammate AND an all nba second teamer with him like Cousy had a few of those years pre Russell.

Ive had people tell me the Cousy/Sharman backcourt is the greatest of all time. And they had a 3 time all NBA first teamer and 7 time all star bigman with them.

They didnt do anything till Russell showed up.

Any way I look at it Cousy just wasnt terribly dominant. I mean...you retire...and the team wins 5 rings?

You have 3 HOF starters pre russell and do...what?

Just seems fishy to me.

[Kblaze8855]

And for the record yes i do remember the 07 playoffs with the heat being swept. Im a bulls fan. It was beautiful. But i also remember 2006.

[iamgine]

Mchale was having 30 point games on 80% shooting vs frontlines of karl malone mark eaton and kent benson. All good sized players. Not sure that was the best example.

And id say i disregarded the past if i ranked everyone from the 60s behind modern players. I dont. I rank the ones who dont seem very skilled behind current superstars. Seems fair to me. Nobody ever heard me say wade is better than russelll. I just dont see a case for ranking a defenseless pg with no jumper who had runs in the playoffs shooting literally half the percentage ai got hated on for over wade. Not like he led a team to a speck of playoff success without russell. Wade led a title team.

The clearly less skilled guy who didnt even win as much as his teams best player? Because he played with a guy who won 5 rings without him?

Not seeing the case.
Humm, remember Michael Jordan wasn't winning much even though he was pretty close to his best in 1986-87?

But I do see the point. Can we blame players who play in eras where guard didn't have a big impact? Is it fair to account all eras as the same? It's clear when Cousy played the NBA was still at its infancy. Athleticism still play a big part since skills and tactics wasn't as developed. Naturally Cousy had much much lower impact than Bill Russell since Bill was much more athletic even though they could be seen as #1 and #2. It's not like Wade and Shaq in Miami where they're impact wise. Cousy was considered one of the best guards in his time where guards have much lower impact compared to centers so where do we draw the line?

[L.Kizzle]

I see no reason to get into a Wade vs Shaq thing. Shaq stopped being Shaq in like 2003. With hints of Shaq till ike 2007 or 8. Maybe a word from him every few weeks in 09. But im not calling the 06 Heat Shaqs team the way Wade won them that ring.

Shaq had an impact. But Wade probably deserves the credit if you must single one person out.

And as for what Wade did after shaq left....

He played on a level that wouldnt be slap worthy if you compared it to Michael Magic and Bird.

Wade has at times been almost as good as any non top 6 all time player has ever been.

Im not gonna act like he wasnt on a flat out legendary level because he was playing with a bad team 08-10.

Not like he had an all nba first teamer teammate AND an all nba second teamer with him like Cousy had a few of those years pre Russell.

Ive had people tell me the Cousy/Sharman backcourt is the greatest of all time. And they had a 3 time all NBA first teamer and 7 time all star bigman with them.

They didnt do anything till Russell showed up.

Any way I look at it Cousy just wasnt terribly dominant. I mean...you retire...and the team wins 5 rings?

You have 3 HOF starters pre russell and do...what?

Just seems fishy to me.
Pre Russell, they were not at stacked. You had Sharman (who's not even in the top 25) and Ed Macauley. He was a decent big back then, but clearly behind Mikan, Pettit, Johnston and Schayes.

They got Russell, Heinsohn and Andy Phillip all in one season. They got the Jones boys the next season in 1957. The team upgraded greatly in a 3 year span or so. Coisy was rewarded the MVP in 1956-57.

[AlphaWolf24]

Jumping Jesus. H. Christ. On a Stick. :facepalm

You guys are so ****ing predictable.

:facepalm


Are you seriously whining because some people believe Wade (who is one of the most exciting , most skilled , most athletic hard working players who reached the highest mountain for any player and put up one of the greatest playoff runs of alltime for the whole world to see ) is being recognized as a better player then Cousy??

you elititist fans are a silly lot....


I can't believe this sh!t....."context".....:lol



and the funniest part is....the OP got so Butthurt that some believe Wade is a better player......he ran away and took his ball home .


If you guy's are really saying cousy is better because some "context" and he impacted the game more in the 50's because he went behind his back...

then holy sh!t....Bo Lamar and David Thompson are the GOAT...they Impacted modern day basketball more then Cousy's behind the back passe's

[Boston C's]

In terms of legacy: Cousy
In terms of skills: Wade

I'll go with the person who forever changed the PG position with his flashy dribbles and passes. A pioneer who revolutionized basketball. Wade will clearly surpass him in time. As of now I'll go with Bob Cousy

This... wade will surpass him when hes done

[magnax1]

Pre Russell, they were not at stacked. You had Sharman (who's not even in the top 25) and Ed Macauley. He was a decent big back then, but clearly behind Mikan, Pettit, Johnston and Schayes.

They got Russell, Heinsohn and Andy Phillip all in one season. They got the Jones boys the next season in 1957. The team upgraded greatly in a 3 year span or so. Coisy was rewarded the MVP in 1956-57.
They were definitely stacked. Before Russell got there they were a 40 win team in a league where the highest was something like 44, and the lowest was something like 30 (I'm probably a bit off, I'm just going off memory)
As for Shaq, he was an obvious second option on the title team, and 05 it's definitely arguable who had a better year. Shaq was definitely not all time great level Shaq after 03. He had hints of it in 05, but still was not the same player at all.

[donald_trump]

just baffling at kizzle calling the 2006 heat team shaq led, because apparently without shaq they wouldn't be there.

well where would they be without wade? same goes. fact is, wade was the far and away better player that season. wade was far and away better in the playoffs. lastly wade was better in the finals. at no point in the season was shaq better than him. that means, wade led the team. how much clearly does it need to be?

as for your other argument of cousy being >wade when both were without their big men. wrong. wade won more playoff games, put up better stats, and is a far and away more impactful player.
he's better on offense, no questions asked. then you look at defense and the gap is even bigger.

anyone wins titles on those russell led teams. who cares that he has 6 championships when any other decent guard would have won the same?

and my statement as to wade being the 2nd or 3rd best player in the league, while at times arguably 1st for 06, 07, 09, 10, 11 still stands. cousy was never that good. even when he won mvp he wasn't in the top 5 players in the league. its not the best player award, its the mvp.
was rose the best player in the league this last season? nope, not even top 5.
was nash top 5 when he won? nope.

[TheNaturalWR]

To the people riding the Cousy's amazing passing argument. Let's not act like Wade isn't a top 5 passer/playmaker at shooting guard in NBA history. Wade is a great passer and his assist totals for a SG shows it.

[donald_trump]

good point, how many better passing shooting guards are there?

[L.Kizzle]

They were definitely stacked. Before Russell got there they were a 40 win team in a league where the highest was something like 44, and the lowest was something like 30 (I'm probably a bit off, I'm just going off memory)
As for Shaq, he was an obvious second option on the title team, and 05 it's definitely arguable who had a better year. Shaq was definitely not all time great level Shaq after 03. He had hints of it in 05, but still was not the same player at all.
Compared to other teams back then, they were not stacked. They were a middle of the road team. They had the 2nd best record one, every other year they were 5th or 4th place. In a 8-10 team league.

The Lakers were staked. Mikan, Jim Pollard, Mikkleson, Slater Martin.
Warriors had Arizin, Johnston (probably both top 5 players at the time) and Tom Gola
Royals had Davies, anzer and Arnie Risen
Pistons had Yardley, Andy Phillip, Max Z and Larry Foust
Knicks had Harry Galliton, Dick McGuire, Carl Bruan
Syracuse had Schayes, Redd Kerr, Al Cervi.

Hawks only had Pettit until the Russell trade for Macualey and Cliff Hagan.

[L.Kizzle]

just baffling at kizzle calling the 2006 heat team shaq led, because apparently without shaq they wouldn't be there.

well where would they be without wade? same goes. fact is, wade was the far and away better player that season. wade was far and away better in the playoffs. lastly wade was better in the finals. at no point in the season was shaq better than him. that means, wade led the team. how much clearly does it need to be?

as for your other argument of cousy being >wade when both were without their big men. wrong. wade won more playoff games, put up better stats, and is a far and away more impactful player.
he's better on offense, no questions asked. then you look at defense and the gap is even bigger.

anyone wins titles on those russell led teams. who cares that he has 6 championships when any other decent guard would have won the same?

and my statement as to wade being the 2nd or 3rd best player in the league, while at times arguably 1st for 06, 07, 09, 10, 11 still stands. cousy was never that good. even when he won mvp he wasn't in the top 5 players in the league. its not the best player award, its the mvp.
was rose the best player in the league this last season? nope, not even top 5.
was nash top 5 when he won? nope.
I never said Shaq led them to the title, but there is a reason they went out and got Shaq, why? Cause they were not winning a title with Caron Butler and Lamar Odom. Shaq wins championships or gives you a shot. Wade takes you to the playoffs (like Cousy did.)

Cousy not that good, you don't go to 10 straight All-NBA 1st team without being that good. How come no other guard was all-nba 1st team? Actually he was the only guard selected to the team for four straight seasons (before they went to the 2 guard, 2 forwards, 1 center format.) That means he was head and shoulders above every other guard at that time. He made it with and without Russell. He led the league in assist 8 straight years, top 5 in scoring four years.

[G-train]

Wade is probably the 3rd best SG ever. Yeah he better than Jerry West.

[SuperPippen]

Wade is probably the 3rd best SG ever. Yeah he better than Jerry West.

No, he's not.

Not yet.

You can definitely say Wade>Cousy, but Wade>West is an entirely different story.

[Kblaze8855]

Not stacked?

Has any team in history with a nal nba first team point and all nba first team forward and another all nba second teamer not been considered stacked? Whats the worst anyone could come up with for that? nash/Amare/marion?

And Ed was all nba first team 3 years in a row and an all star 7 years in a row. Lets not act like he was a nobody here.

They had at least 3 of the leagues best players.

I thin it just cant be understated what russell did for them. Cousy described himself as a capable but not always willing defender.

Its honest but...the **** is that? just dont feel like playing defense?

I wish I could find Russells interview on how he decided to make use of cousys lack of desire to play D. Searched for a few minutes and came up short. Its a good read. I love how he thinks. He strikes me as someone who understood how to win and cared about nothing more. You can hear it years after he retired daydreaming about how he would defend Kareem. How being left handed would help him bother Kareems hook. How to play him in the 4th quarter.

The guy just lived to win. And I think often his teammates as good as they may be get far too much credit. People will say Russell won because of them. I dont buy it for a second.

I look at things like this and want to keep readig all day:



As a matter of fact, I think our 1963-64 team was the best [Sanders, K. C. Jones, Heinsohn, Ramsey, Sam Jones, Havlicek, Russell]. It was easily the best defensive team we ever had—maybe that's why it's my favorite—and maybe the best of all time. I rate it best despite the fact that it was only good offensively, not great. Maybe that's the key to it. We knew our offensive shortcomings and we worked hard to overcome them.

People didn't give us credit for being as good as we were last season. Personally, I think we won because we had the best team in the league. Some guys talked about all the stars on the other teams, and they quote statistics to show other teams were better. Let's talk about statistics. The important statistics in basketball are supposed to be points scored, rebounds and assists. But nobody keeps statistics on other important things—the good fake you make that helps your teammate score; the bad pass you force the other team to make; the good long pass you make that sets up another pass that sets up another pass that leads to a score; the way you recognize when one of your teammates has a hot hand that night and you give up your own shot so he can take it. All of those things. Those were some of the things we excelled in that you won't find in the statistics. There was only one statistic that was important to us—won and lost.

Something everybody else but Bill Russell excelled in was giving the coach good advice. I made the decisions, but I listened an awful lot. Sometimes in practice the other guys would talk for half an hour and I wouldn't say a word. I encouraged them to tell me what they thought. You take Siegfried—he's a flake all right, but he's got one of the best basketball minds in the game. They all helped—Sam, Bailey, Nelson, all of them. They knew I respected them as men with ideas, that I didn't treat them as just guys with numbers on their backs. Remember that last-second shot that Sam took to win the fourth playoff game? Well, Sam is a great shooter, but that was a real cooperative effort. We wanted a play that would help us win the kind of close games we were getting involved in, and we started with what was basically an old Ohio State play. Probably either Siegfried or Havlicek brought it up. The first time we tried it in practice, it took 13 seconds. We worked it down to seven. All five players have to make perfectly timed moves and fakes, and the passes have to be exact. It saved us in that fourth game.


That man knew how to win. He knew how to lead people. He drove those teams to victory. And to see anyone else get a gang of credit for those rings just bugs me at times.

Especially someone they won 5 rings without. Russell said the best team they ever had was once cousy left...when they played their best defense.

I think cousy perhaps started the trend of flashy offense being more beloved than the defensive players who actually make it all possible.

And not like its a Rose/Iverson thing. These guys were at their best without Cousy at all. Won 5 rings without him. he was NOT keeping that team afloat in any way shape or form.

I just dont see how we keep talking up his legacy which is almost totally tied to being a winner on the Celtics when the only reason he won is because Bill russell has victory seeping from his pores.

If anyone justifies winning related hyperbole its Bill.

The man was just born to win. And anyone but him getting credit for winning those rings will always bug me. I dont think he will ever get the love he deserves. cousy did not have the right approach. I dont think his teams ever would have. Russell set it straight. I choose to credit Bill.

[SuperPippen]

Not stacked?

Has any team in history with a nal nba first team point and all nba first team forward and another all nba second teamer not been considered stacked? Whats the worst anyone could come up with for that? nash/Amare/marion?

And Ed was all nba first team 3 years in a row and an all star 7 years in a row. Lets not act like he was a nobody here.

They had at least 3 of the leagues best players.

I thin it just cant be understated what russell did for them. Cousy described himself as a capable but not always willing defender.

Its honest but...the **** is that? just dont feel like playing defense?

I wish I could find Russells interview on how he decided to make use of cousys lack of desire to play D. Searched for a few minutes and came up short. Its a good read. I love how he thinks. He strikes me as someone who understood how to win and cared about nothing more. You can hear it years after he retired daydreaming about how he would defend Kareem. How being left handed would help him bother Kareems hook. How to play him in the 4th quarter.

The guy just lived to win. And I think often his teammates as good as they may be get far too much credit. People will say Russell won because of them. I dont buy it for a second.

I look at things like this and want to keep readig all day:





That man knew how to win. He knew how to lead people. He drove those teams to victory. And to see anyone else get a gang of credit for those rings just bugs me at times.

Especially someone they won 5 rings without. Russell said the best team they ever had was once cousy left...when they played their best defense.

I think cousy perhaps started the trend of flashy offense being more beloved than the defensive players who actually make it all possible.

And not like its a Rose/Iverson thing. These guys were at their best without Cousy at all. Won 5 rings without him. he was NOT keeping that team afloat in any way shape or form.

I just dont see how we keep talking up his legacy which is almost totally tied to being a winner on the Celtics when the only reason he won is because Bill russell has victory seeping from his pores.

If anyone justifies winning related hyperbole its Bill.

The man was just born to win. And anyone but him getting credit for winning those rings will always bug me. I dont think he will ever get the love he deserves. cousy did not have the right approach. I dont think his teams ever would have. Russell set it straight. I choose to credit Bill.

You've made some insightful posts Kblaze, and I very much agree with what you stated above, but I still believe you're selling Cousy a little short.

I know it's purely hypothetical, but maybe Cousy in today's era doesn't shoot nearly as bad as he did back then? Maybe he's right round Jason Kidd's level?

And maybe Wade in the 50's and early 60's shoots at 40%, or even worse. Maybe he has significantly less impact and success by himself than Cousy did.

You can't fault the players. That's just the evolution of the game.

Again, I realize that none of that can be proven, and that is nothing but speculation on my part, but things like these should be taken into consideration when arguing about players from different eras of the sport.

[L.Kizzle]

Not stacked?

Has any team in history with a nal nba first team point and all nba first team forward and another all nba second teamer not been considered stacked? Whats the worst anyone could come up with for that? nash/Amare/marion?

And Ed was all nba first team 3 years in a row and an all star 7 years in a row. Lets not act like he was a nobody here.

They had at least 3 of the leagues best players.

I thin it just cant be understated what russell did for them. Cousy described himself as a capable but not always willing defender.

Its honest but...the **** is that? just dont feel like playing defense?

I wish I could find Russells interview on how he decided to make use of cousys lack of desire to play D. Searched for a few minutes and came up short. Its a good read. I love how he thinks. He strikes me as someone who understood how to win and cared about nothing more. You can hear it years after he retired daydreaming about how he would defend Kareem. How being left handed would help him bother Kareems hook. How to play him in the 4th quarter.

The guy just lived to win. And I think often his teammates as good as they may be get far too much credit. People will say Russell won because of them. I dont buy it for a second.

I look at things like this and want to keep readig all day:





That man knew how to win. He knew how to lead people. He drove those teams to victory. And to see anyone else get a gang of credit for those rings just bugs me at times.

Especially someone they won 5 rings without. Russell said the best team they ever had was once cousy left...when they played their best defense.

I think cousy perhaps started the trend of flashy offense being more beloved than the defensive players who actually make it all possible.

And not like its a Rose/Iverson thing. These guys were at their best without Cousy at all. Won 5 rings without him. he was NOT keeping that team afloat in any way shape or form.

I just dont see how we keep talking up his legacy which is almost totally tied to being a winner on the Celtics when the only reason he won is because Bill russell has victory seeping from his pores.

If anyone justifies winning related hyperbole its Bill.

The man was just born to win. And anyone but him getting credit for winning those rings will always bug me. I dont think he will ever get the love he deserves. cousy did not have the right approach. I dont think his teams ever would have. Russell set it straight. I choose to credit Bill.
If the Celtics were stacked, so were those other teams I listed. Macauley wasn't the same player from the early 50s to the mid 50s as you can see a change once the shot clock was introduced and the black players started emerging. Look at Dolph Schyaes, he improved with the shot clock and emergence of the black player.

[magnax1]

Compared to other teams back then, they were not stacked. They were a middle of the road team. They had the 2nd best record one, every other year they were 5th or 4th place. In a 8-10 team league.

The Lakers were staked. Mikan, Jim Pollard, Mikkleson, Slater Martin.
Warriors had Arizin, Johnston (probably both top 5 players at the time) and Tom Gola
Royals had Davies, anzer and Arnie Risen
Pistons had Yardley, Andy Phillip, Max Z and Larry Foust
Knicks had Harry Galliton, Dick McGuire, Carl Bruan
Syracuse had Schayes, Redd Kerr, Al Cervi.

Hawks only had Pettit until the Russell trade for Macualey and Cliff Hagan.
My bad, I for some reason thought you said post-russell they weren't stacked.
But yeah, you're right they definitely weren't stacked before they got Russell. They were good, but mostly because they had one of the best players in the league, and probably one of the best coaches ever.

[Kblaze8855]

You've made some insightful posts Kblaze, and I very much agree with what you stated above, but I still believe you're selling Cousy a little short.

I know it's purely hypothetical, but maybe Cousy in today's era doesn't shoot nearly as bad as he did back then? Maybe he's right round Jason Kidd's level?

And maybe Wade in the 50's and early 60's shoots at 40%, or even worse. Maybe he has significantly less impact and success by himself than Cousy did.

You can't fault the players. That's just the evolution of the game.

Again, I realize that none of that can be proven, and this is nothing but speculation on my part, but things like these should be taken into consideration when arguing about players from different eras of the sport.

Im sure you remove a lot of the terirble shots cousy was taking if he plays today. he wont be allowed t otake them. assuming he made the NBa(an issue I wont go into) no doubt he wont make it and be given the freedom he was in the 50s. So yes he probably would shoot higher percentages. Largely due to shooting less.

But Wade shooting 40% in the 60s? I just dont see how. he has no motivation to take a 3 point range shot. Hes going to get far more chances in transition. Hes bigger and stronger than virtually anyone you can put in his way. I dont know how the league handles him.

I think even more than giving Cousy too much credit for his teams im bothered by the underrating of Wade.

Im nto so down on Cousy I think we should be throwing anyone modern over him...as I explaned with the Ben Gordon/Terry issue.

I just dont see how we ignore that...at some point..the game passed him by. And not in gentle fashion. It left him in the dust. He was the last relic of an age that died in the 60s. Forget the 70s. A guy like Tiny would hate crime Bob Cousy I suspect. He came in right at the end of where it was ok to shoot 32% and take 25 shots and miss layups and just turn every look you get into a FGA. He came in where the NBA didnt care about defense. As red put it:



“All NBA teams win with their defenses now,” Red continues. “They learned its importance from the Celtics and now they all work at it. Even their scouting habits have changed. They still may send a man out to scout a boy because he’s a great shooter. But they also want that man to report on the boy’s quickness, ability to run backward, mental concentration and anticipation on defense.”


hes a transitional player. A guy who just didnt even translate well to the 60s style. I ont judge him by what he would do today. I judge him by what I feel he could do...period. Im not terribly impressed with inaccurate hooks and missed layups and not caring about defense at all. He did well for his time.

I just think we are pushing the needle a little too far into legacy and away from ability when we rank Cousy over a guy who could at times look like he could go toe to toe with Jordan(lets not start a jordan/Wade thing anyone...you know what I mean).

It just feels a little past the line.

I cant talk myself into ignoring this big of a gap.

[Gotterdammerung]

Dwayne Wade is one of my favorite players, but he's guilty of an embarrassing fact:

he presided over one of the worst, if not THE worst collapses of any championship team ever. :eek:

From 2006 title to first round elimination in 2007 to last place in 2008.

Failed to win ONE playoff series from 2007 to 2010.

Let's be a bit more analytic. He's a poor free-throw shooter. Careless with the ball (20% more turnovers than Kobe Bryant, a similar player, on a per minute basis).

Wade excelled in 2006 finals because the Mavericks bailed him out by fouling him, and he hit his free-throws. In 2011, they played far better defense. He is still incapable of beating elite defenses in a half-court set offense, unlike Kobe Bryant, due to an unreliable jumper.

Wade is great, but he's no Jerry West. Or Kobe Bryant. Much less His Airness. Wade is at best a runner-up guard of the 00s, if you discount McGrady. :confusedshrug:

OTOH Bob Cousy was the greatest point guard of his generation.

[magnax1]

Dwayne Wade is one of my favorite players, but he's guilty of an embarrassing fact:

he presided over one of the worst, if not THE worst collapses of any championship team ever. :eek:

From 2006 title to first round elimination in 2007 to last place in 2008.

Failed to win ONE playoff series from 2007 to 2010.

Let's be a bit more analytic. He's a poor free-throw shooter. Careless with the ball (20% more turnovers than Kobe Bryant, a similar player, on a per minute basis).

Wade excelled in 2006 finals because the Mavericks bailed him out by fouling him, and he hit his free-throws. In 2011, they played far better defense. He is still incapable of beating elite defenses in a half-court set offense, unlike Kobe Bryant, due to an unreliable jumper.

Wade is great, but he's no Jerry West. Or Kobe Bryant. Much less His Airness. Wade is at best a runner-up guard of the 00s, if you discount McGrady. :confusedshrug:

OTOH Bob Cousy was the greatest point guard of his generation.
I've never heard anyone blame Wade for the 08 season. That's insanity.

[AlphaWolf24]

Dwayne Wade is one of my favorite players, but he's guilty of an embarrassing fact:

he presided over one of the worst, if not THE worst collapses of any championship team ever. :eek:

From 2006 title to first round elimination in 2007 to last place in 2008.

Failed to win ONE playoff series from 2007 to 2010.

Let's be a bit more analytic. He's a poor free-throw shooter. Careless with the ball (20% more turnovers than Kobe Bryant, a similar player, on a per minute basis).

Wade excelled in 2006 finals because the Mavericks bailed him out by fouling him, and he hit his free-throws. In 2011, they played far better defense. He is still incapable of beating elite defenses in a half-court set offense, unlike Kobe Bryant, due to an unreliable jumper.

Wade is great, but he's no Jerry West. Or Kobe Bryant. Much less His Airness. Wade is at best a runner-up guard of the 00s, if you discount McGrady. :confusedshrug:

OTOH Bob Cousy was the greatest point guard of his generation.

You know what....after reading yours and other people great posts...I see where you are coming from..

Looking outside the box.....Cousy is a better guard. He did have a major impact and was a winner...

I'm sorry....you guy's are correct


Cousy>Wade when including Impact and context....I was just thinking who I would want on my team vs the other team.

example = My team , I'm taking wade....the other team could have Bob..

but looking at both players in context , era and impact amongst their PEERS!!..you are right.


BOB>WADE:cheers:



next

[G-train]

No, he's not.

Not yet.

You can definitely say Wade>Cousy, but Wade>West is an entirely different story.

Yes, he is

[ThaRegul8r]

I wish I could find Russells interview on how he decided to make use of cousys lack of desire to play D. Searched for a few minutes and came up short. Its a good read.

I believe I know what you're talking about. I think I have what you're talking about in my database. Lemme look.

EDIT: Here it is:


Bob Cousy was a great teammate. But in our approaches to the game, he and I were complete opposites. I approached the game defense first, then offense. He approached the game offense first and then, maybe, some defense. I never had a negative thought about that—he was always a great team player and a really good guy. But you can’t win championships with just an offensive approach. Over our time together, I think I helped him appreciate that because, years later, he told me that his most lasting memory of our first championship together was a defensive play I made. After I watched him play a dozen games or so, and had a few brief conversations with him to learn more about his approach, I figured out how to help him to help us win more games. If we were on defense and his man got by him, I’d slide over and pick him up to keep him from getting a layup. On offense, after I’d get a rebound, I’d start deliberately looking for Cousy to get him outlet passes to start fast breaks. Probably a third of the shots I blocked for Cousy were off his men. But I never criticized him, behind his back or to his face.

The way I looked at it was that his flaws on defense triggered our offense. I’d block a shot and outlet it and get it going the other way, turning it into a strength. Also, it demonstrated to the other guys that if their man got by them, I’d be there to back them up, too, and I would never complain about it. Instead, I would find a way to incorporate their defensive lapses into our offensive system. I think that was one of my most gratifying contributions to the team. And Red perceived that.

After I’d been there about a month, Cousy walked over to me in practice and said, “I know when you get a rebound, you look for me. So what I’ll do is, after they take a shot and you rebound it, I’ll go to that spot over there. Look for me there first.” He had started to appreciate what I was doing for him. By the end of that year, our team scoring average was the highest in franchise history. That was based on my defensive rebounding and outlet passing, mostly to Cousy. The other team would shoot and, four seconds later, we’d be making a layup at the other end. But, really, all I did was help Cousy do better what he did best.

[Rolando]

I am sorry but, come on, Dwayne Wade? As someone pointed out earlier; if he retired now, he would be forgotten in 15 years. The guy is a great player but he simply does not have the accomplishments to go up against a guy like Cousy. Where's his MVP's. How many times has he led the league in anything? Has he somehow brought something new and significant to his position?

[Odinn]

Top 4 is clear-cut in this project.

1. Michael Jordan
2. Magic Johnson
3. Kobe Bryant
4. Jerry West

[D-Wade316]

I am sorry but, come on, Dwayne Wade? As someone pointed out earlier; if he retired now, he would be forgotten in 15 years. The guy is a great player but he simply does not have the accomplishments to go up against a guy like Cousy. Where's his MVP's. How many times has he led the league in anything? Has he somehow brought something new and significant to his position?
:facepalm Wade will not be forgotten. Click this (http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/playoffs/2011/columns/story?columnist=hollinger_john&page=FinalsPerformances-1). Awards are overrated. Kobe never deserved to be in the All-Defensive teams starting from 2003. That's a fact. MVPs? :lol Click this (http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/playoffs/2011/columns/story?columnist=hollinger_john&page=FinalsPerformances-1) again. You don't have to lead the league in a single statistic. Just because 06 Iverson's PPG is higher than that of Wade means Iverson>Wade? Of course no. Impact is more important. You can put Wade's stats besides MJ and he would be the closest to him. Nope. MJ also didn't revolutionized the game. Dr. J has to be given credit for the play-above-the-rim that is basketball today. Mj was only influential.

[Niquesports]

I am sorry but, come on, Dwayne Wade? As someone pointed out earlier; if he retired now, he would be forgotten in 15 years. The guy is a great player but he simply does not have the accomplishments to go up against a guy like Cousy. Where's his MVP's. How many times has he led the league in anything? Has he somehow brought something new and significant to his position?


I totally disagree.If Cousy never played on the Great Russell led Celtics we would even be talking about him. How many people talk about Bill Sherman Cousy back court mate ? Who in his era was fairly good also.When ranking Centers how many people rank Milkin in there top 10 ? If Cousy had never played on them Russ's teams he would be just another really good player from that era.Wade on the other hand. Has the benifit of media 24 hour talk show endorsements World wide acclaim. Do you think people in Europe knew about Cousy ? He benifited from playing with Russ more than his game or his accomplishments.

[Story Up]

I have never looked at Wade as the eight best guard of All-Time; I don't know if it's just this board, but Nash and Wade are straight up overrated. Kobe was never considered as Cousy in 05' after winning more titles and having more accolodes. Heck it took Kobe back to back titles as the man before he even entered the top fifteen players of all-time discussion. Almost seems some are ready to place Wade there? Lmao.

Sorry keep emphasizing his FG% and his FMVP, his resume doesn't even come close to Cousy's. Let idiots like blaze have hypotheticals, if Wade lived in the 60's and didn't have so much influence, training facilities, diet and benchmarks; he wouldn't be the same player in the 60's.

It doesn't work like that blaze, you're not watching Back To The Future. Don't bring hypotheticals for validation purposes.

Cousy is the clear choice; Wade does have more impact, but Cousy has longevity, success and way more accomplishments. He is also a pioneer, Wade will surpass him if he stays healthy but not right now.

[DMAVS41]

This comparison brings up an interesting issue. Because pretty much all of us weren't watching basketball in the 50's...we have to almost solely go off a combination of stats, longevity, awards/honors, team success, peer comparisons, and evaluation/narratives written at the time.

Now, the interesting part is how much stock to put in things like all nba. Cousy made something like 10 straight first team all nba. Does that matter? I think it does. However, we know that the current all nba voting is a complete joke....especially when talking about Wade. This is my problem with this stuff. People will look back 60 years from now...not having seen Wade play and think that Kobe was a better player this year because of his first team selection and first team all defense selection. Obviously anyone without huge bias would admit Wade was better this year.

Was that going on in the 50's as well? How do we put that stuff in context like we can now.

Same thing with MVP voting. Wade got something around 16 times less points than Kobe and Lebron. Of course we know that is a joke. Wade was better than Kobe this season and only slightly worse than Lebron. In history, that will be a total travesty for someone 50 years from now to look at that stuff and come to the wrong conclusions.

I just think the game and the players were so different in a comparison of then and now that it gets really hard. Did Cousy make those first teams because of his stature and the teams he played on?...or for his actual play?

I simply don't know.

[D-Wade316]

This comparison brings up an interesting issue. Because pretty much all of us weren't watching basketball in the 50's...we have to almost solely go off a combination of stats, longevity, awards/honors, team success, peer comparisons, and evaluation/narratives written at the time.

Now, the interesting part is how much stock to put in things like all nba. Cousy made something like 10 straight first team all nba. Does that matter? I think it does. However, we know that the current all nba voting is a complete joke....especially when talking about Wade. This is my problem with this stuff. People will look back 60 years from now...not having seen Wade play and think that Kobe was a better player this year because of his first team selection and first team all defense selection. Obviously anyone without huge bias would admit Wade was better this year.

Was that going on in the 50's as well? How do we put that stuff in context like we can now.

Same thing with MVP voting. Wade got something around 16 times less points than Kobe and Lebron. Of course we know that is a joke. Wade was better than Kobe this season and only slightly worse than Lebron. In history, that will be a total travesty for someone 50 years from now to look at that stuff and come to the wrong conclusions.

I just think the game and the players were so different in a comparison of then and now that it gets really hard. Did Cousy make those first teams because of his stature and the teams he played on?...or for his actual play?

I simply don't know.
This is why awards are overrated and that they shouldn't be taken with face value.

[Odinn]

This is why awards are overrated and that they shouldn't be taken with face value.
If Wade had multiple MVPs, you would be the one who overrates awards.:blah

[D-Wade316]

If Wade had multiple MVPs, you would be the one who overrates awards.:blah
Nope. Never had. Rose was nearly voted to the All-Defensive teams despite him being an average defender. CP3 should have won the All-NBA First Team over Rose and Westbrook. There's no way for Tony Allen to be placed on the All-Defensive second team behind Kobe. There's no way Nash should have won the MVP in 2006 over Dirk, Lebron, Kobe, and Wade.

[Droid101]

From the aguments I've seen presented, I vote Bob Cousy

[oolalaa]

From the aguments I've seen presented, I vote Bob Cousy

:banghead:

[pauk]

damn.... have to go with bob cousy on this one i guess....

my heart says wade... but brain says cousy :lol

[D-Wade316]

damn.... have to go with bob cousy on this one i guess....

my heart says wade... but brain says cousy :lol
This.

[Droid101]

:banghead:
Insead of bashing your head into the wall, present a better argument for Wade!

Wade is better than Cousy at getting LeBron Shames to come play for him.

[Kblaze8855]

It doesn't work like that blaze, you're not watching Back To The Future. Don't bring hypotheticals for validation purposes.

Who needs hypotheticals?

People are talking up cousy success on teams that didnt need him.

You can find google archive articles with him saying himself hes not sure he should even be starting anymore. And he was all NBA first team at the time(61) but had gone 6-45 in the playoffs the last few games and felt he was hurting the team. Red said he would go with him as long as he felt he should play because of all he had done for them.

But he wasnt actually needed. Which should be obvious when he retired and they won 5 more rings.

I dont need anything hypothetical to support the idea that Cousy was superflous.

You retire...your team has its best year ever and goes on to win 5 rings...you were not the reason they were winning. You dont win anything...till you get the guy who had just won back to back naitonal titles and a gold medal....you are not the reason for the turnaround.

This is the basic problem with success being the main factor. Success can be gained by players not providing it.

People want to call Cousy greater...go right ahead. Tell me hes better and you are flat out lying.


Guy did not have the approach of a winner. He admitted a lack of desire to even play defense. His teammates said he didnt have the approach to win:



I approached the game defense first, then offense. He approached the game offense first and then, maybe, some defense. I never had a negative thought about that—he was always a great team player and a really good guy. But you can’t win championships with just an offensive approach.

And people still talk him up like the success was his.

Without Bill Russell cousy is a flashy player nobody has reason to care about today. He didnt have any interest in playing the total game. He wanted to run and make fancy plays.

he got the love from the fans for it. Bill actualy powered the team. Point blank period.

But hes better than factually superior players for being on a roster with Bill for 6 of 11 rings....

Just makes no sense.

And what makes even less sense is people saying Wade might one day be better as if hes going to improve at 30 or as if he wasnt better in college than Cousy in his prime.

Cousy over Wade is the greatest example I can think of of legacy blinding people to common sense.

He can win off name alone not his game or what he actually led his team to. But I bet Dolph Schayes wont end nearly as high despite actually leading his team to titles.

In the end...Cousy was on the dynasty Celtics due almost totally to Russell and Dolph was a Syracuse National.

bill Russell elevated so many legacies beyond the basketball playing ability of the players in question its a joke.

But I bet anything on the center list towards the top people will argue that his teammates are the reason he won so much. People act like im taking credit from a legend. I think im just giving the credit to the one who earned it.

Im not about to list Cousys accomplishments and pretend Bill russell isnt the reason for most of them.

Bob cousy was in a lot of ways the exact opposite of what you want to try to win. A small guard who shot so badly it seems like a series of typos, admits to not wanting to play defense, and never won till he had a player to make the defense so good he could afford to run around and make fancy but unnecessary plays to get the love of the fans. Then he retires and they win 5 rings like nothing happened.

I cant believe anyone with all these facts still concludes that his success is reason to rank him over Wade. It really makes me wonder if anyone is even making an effort to think about what they are saying.

I might seem like a dick to some players. Cant tell me im not explaining my reasons and thinking about why I feel the way I do. I dont have my opinions assigned from a record book without context or looking into how and why they happened.

If someone looks over everything and wants to vote Cousy...ok then. But I get the feeling most dont really look into those teams or how it is they did what they did.

That bothers me a bit. Not enough to really try to change the outcome(I do not vote...though I was asked to).

But I feel a need to explain the things I say so nobody thinks I just...hate the guy.

I dont hate cousy. seems like a nice guy. His teammates loved him.

I just dont see how we credit him at all for those teams.

[DMAVS41]

Who needs hypotheticals?

People are talking up cousy success on teams that didnt need him.

You can find google archive articles with him saying himself hes not sure he should even be starting anymore. And he was all NBA first team at the time(61) but had gone 6-45 in the playoffs the last few games and felt he was hurting the team. Red said he would go with him as long as he felt he should play because of all he had done for them.

But he wasnt actually needed. Which should be obvious when he retired and they won 5 more rings.

I dont need anything hypothetical to support the idea that Cousy was superflous.

You retire...your team has its best year ever and goes on to win 5 rings...you were not the reason they were winning. You dont win anything...till you get the guy who had just won back to back naitonal titles and a gold medal....you are not the reason for the turnaround.

This is the basic problem with success being the main factor. Success can be gained by players not providing it.

People want to call Cousy greater...go right ahead. Tell me hes better and you are flat out lying.


Guy did not have the approach of a winner. He admitted a lack of desire to even play defense. His teammates said he didnt have the approach to win:




And people still talk him up like the success was his.

Without Bill Russell cousy is a flashy player nobody has reason to care about today. He didnt have any interest in playing the total game. He wanted to run and make fancy plays.

he got the love from the fans for it. Bill actualy powered the team. Point blank period.

But hes better than factually superior players for being on a roster with Bill for 6 of 11 rings....

Just makes no sense.

And what makes even less sense is people saying Wade might one day be better as if hes going to improve at 30 or as if he wasnt better in college than Cousy in his prime.

Cousy over Wade is the greatest example I can think of of legacy blinding people to common sense.

He can win off name alone not his game or what he actually led his team to. But I bet Dolph Schayes wont end nearly as high despite actually leading his team to titles.

In the end...Cousy was on the dynasty Celtics due almost totally to Russell and Dolph was a Syracuse National.

bill Russell elevated so many legacies beyond the basketball playing ability of the players in question its a joke.

But I bet anything on the center list towards the top people will argue that his teammates are the reason he won so much. People act like im taking credit from a legend. I think im just giving the credit to the one who earned it.

Im not about to list Cousys accomplishments and pretend Bill russell isnt the reason for most of them.

Bob cousy was in a lot of ways the exact opposite of what you want to try to win. A small guard who shot so badly it seems like a series of typos, admits to not wanting to play defense, and never won till he had a player to make the defense so good he could afford to run around and make fancy but unnecessary plays to get the love of the fans. Then he retires and they win 5 rings like nothing happened.

I cant believe anyone with all these facts still concludes that his success is reason to rank him over Wade. It really makes me wonder if anyone is even making an effort to think about what they are saying.

I might seem like a dick to some players. Cant tell me im not explaining my reasons and thinking about why I feel the way I do. I dont have my opinions assigned from a record book without context or looking into how and why they happened.

If someone looks over everything and wants to vote Cousy...ok then. But I get the feeling most dont really look into those teams or how it is they did what they did.

That bothers me a bit. Not enough to really try to change the outcome(I do not vote...though I was asked to).

But I feel a need to explain the things I say so nobody thinks I just...hate the guy.

I dont hate cousy. seems like a nice guy. His teammates loved him.

I just dont see how we credit him at all for those teams.

If Wade retired tomorrow and would never again play a game in the NBA. Would you still rank Wade over Cousy?

[tontoz]

You retire...your team has its best year ever and goes on to win 5 rings...you were not the reason they were winning



A small guard who shot so badly it seems like a series of typos, admits to not wanting to play defense,

:oldlol:


I don't think there is really a right or wrong way to compare players from vastly different eras. Some people will look at the players accomplishments in the context of that era, some people will look at the guy and say could this guy even play in the NBA today? That isn't going to change.

Having said that KB just clowned Cousy here.

[D-Wade316]

@Kblaze8855

I don't give credit to Cousy for winning all those titles. He was just a role player. Simple as that. But you can't deny the fact the he changed the game forever. He may not be as talented as Wade. He may not have the desire to win as Wade. He may not play defense at times. You can't just deny that he left an indelible mark in basketball. His legacy, IMHO, is greatly underrated. The guy was a pioneer.

[Kblaze8855]

Of course I would. Not even due to the fact thaT cousy is not as good as Wade at playing basketbal. Mostly due to the fact that even though it seems we are pretending it didnt happen....Wade actually led his team to victory and Cousy did not.

Its kinda like Wade vs Pippen to me. Only...I dont have to pretend the yare close in terms of ability.

Wade won as the man. Cousy won on a team he wasnt needed on.

Its almost like comparing Rick Barry to Hondo...if Hondo were not arguably the best player on the 70s celtics. So maybe its more like...um...

Hakeem vs Wes unseld?

Only from what I watched Wes was way more important to the Bullets ring towards the end of his prime than Cousy was.

Its hard tothink of a comparison.

Who else is considered on Cousys level..retires...and the team wins 5 more rings?

Who else among the greats is THAT clearly not the reason his team was great?

[chazzy]

If Wade retired tomorrow and would never again play a game in the NBA. Would you still rank Wade over Cousy?
That's the real issue for me. Though lately I tend to rank players with more emphasis on level of play than I have in the past, it's hard to ignore the longevity/accomplishments issue. I do think that there are inconsistencies with the way people are ranking in this project - in some comparisons, level of play is valued more than the other factors - and I personally think Wade is just a flat out better individual player. But this goes back to something you've been saying dmavs.. how high will Havlicek be ranked all time if people are scoffing at the idea of Wade vs Cousy?

[DMAVS41]

Of course I would. Not even due to the fact thaT cousy is not as good as Wade at playing basketbal. Mostly due to the fact that even though it seems we are pretending it didnt happen....Wade actually led his team to victory and Cousy did not.

Its kinda like Wade vs Pippen to me. Only...I dont have to pretend the yare close in terms of ability.

Wade won as the man. Cousy won on a team he wasnt needed on.

Its almost like comparing Rick Barry to Hondo...if Hondo were not arguably the best player on the 70s celtics. So maybe its more like...um...

Hakeem vs Wes unseld?

Only from what I watched Wes was way more important to the Bullets ring towards the end of his prime than Cousy was.

Its hard tothink of a comparison.

Who else is considered on Cousys level..retires...and the team wins 5 more rings?

Who else among the greats is THAT clearly not the reason his team was great?

I was just curious. So you have to understand that you have a different criteria than others. Most people that do these all time rankings factor in longevity and total accomplishments...etc. Its very hard to rank a player that has only played 8 years (6 healthy) over a player that did what Cousy did over 13 years iirc.

That was my point. You and others have much different criteria for ranking players.

[DMAVS41]

That's the real issue for me. Though lately I tend to rank players with more emphasis on level of play than I have in the past, it's hard to ignore the longevity/accomplishments issue. I do think that there are inconsistencies with the way people are ranking in this project - in some comparisons, level of play is valued more than the other factors - and I personally think Wade is just a flat out better individual player. But this goes back to something you've been saying dmavs.. how high will Havlicek be ranked all time if people are scoffing at the idea of Wade vs Cousy?

Exactly. I personally feel that the consensus way we rank players here is flawed and that it should be more or less about who was simply the best player.

I don't like the notion that x number of titles or x number of years makes one player better than another.

However, I have tried my best to use the accepted standard here so we are all talking about the same stuff. As you pointed out when I first posted here, people ranked players differently than I was.

[Kblaze8855]

@Kblaze8855

I don't give credit to Cousy for winning all those titles. He was just a role player. Simple as that. But you can't deny the fact the he changed the game forever. He may not be as talented as Wade. He may not have the desire to win as Wade. He may not play defense at times. You can't just deny that he left an indelible mark in basketball. His legacy, IMHO, is greatly underrated. The guy was a pioneer.

That he was. Though a lot of it is just because hes a Celtic. People give him credit for things he had nothing to d owith. I read once that he invented behind the bakc dribbling and no look passing. Bob Davies was doing it in the 40s. hell Bob Davies had the Houdini name first.

But not everyone got to be on the greatest dynasty ever. Bob got to be. Davies did actually win it all though and was a 4 or 5 time all NBA first teamer. But since he wasnt doing things like this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uLAqMZNBqhE

At 27 seconds

On the Celtics and winning a grip of titles nobody cares.

Cousy kinda caught the perfect storm.

He was a legit talent. He was beloved and played a style that catered to the fans. And he just happened to have the greatest winner ever dropped onto his team in his prime to make up for the fact he didnt care about playing defense.

A lot of players from back then would be far more respected than they are if the ywere as lucky.

I know "if" doesnt matter. But we can at least admit that things dont happen without reason. And Cousy has the legacy he has...because of Bill Russell.

[chazzy]

Dwayne Wade is one of my favorite players, but he's guilty of an embarrassing fact:

he presided over one of the worst, if not THE worst collapses of any championship team ever. :eek:

From 2006 title to first round elimination in 2007 to last place in 2008.

Failed to win ONE playoff series from 2007 to 2010.

Let's be a bit more analytic. He's a poor free-throw shooter. Careless with the ball (20% more turnovers than Kobe Bryant, a similar player, on a per minute basis).

Wade excelled in 2006 finals because the Mavericks bailed him out by fouling him, and he hit his free-throws. In 2011, they played far better defense. He is still incapable of beating elite defenses in a half-court set offense, unlike Kobe Bryant, due to an unreliable jumper.

Wade is great, but he's no Jerry West. Or Kobe Bryant. Much less His Airness. Wade is at best a runner-up guard of the 00s, if you discount McGrady. :confusedshrug:

OTOH Bob Cousy was the greatest point guard of his generation.
You're gonna say all those things about Wade and to summarize Cousy, you just give him a one liner? What about all of his horrid shooting playoff runs? What about the fact that despite Wade's lack of team success due to external factors like injuries/team strength, his prime play was not clearly a step below Kobe's? I feel like all of Cousy's negatives are being simply glossed over because of his rings, while Wade's are magnified because of his lack of multiple rings. 06 is being treated like a flash in the pan, when in reality he was a better player in 09. But that season is ignored because of his first round exit.

The best argument against Wade is his lack of longevity/accomplishments, which is perfectly understandable. But it should be established that his impact on the court was simply better than Cousy's, and it's not "disrespect of the past" to take Wade over Cousy as a player.

[Kblaze8855]

I was just curious. So you have to understand that you have a different criteria than others. Most people that do these all time rankings factor in longevity and total accomplishments...etc. Its very hard to rank a player that has only played 8 years (6 healthy) over a player that did what Cousy did over 13 years iirc.

That was my point. You and others have much different criteria for ranking players.

That is all wel land good. It doesnt greatly bother me that people want to rank guys based on a bio that ignores the reasons the things happened. When it comes down to it none of us have all the information on that era.

My issue is...if you are gonna rank Cousy over him...dont tell me its because of success...and not look into why exactly his teams won.

It just feels lazy to me. I know im not normal in how I look at a number of things. If some 17 year old doesnt feel like looking as deeply as I am willing to...ok. People have shit to do.

But to keep seeing it over and over....as if people just sit the how and the why aside with no concern?

Bugs me. Especially when its done in the name of respecting a legend. As if its not disrespecting the other one. People have issues with the Heat...but Wade had towork his ass off to be as good as he is. You dont get to be Wade good by wishing it. You work for it.

And a guy works his whole life to approach(not reach...lets be clear) an almost Jordan level of basketball...power his team to a ring...play both sides of the ball. Have the right approach to the game.

And hes worse than someone because they got Bill Russell who won....everything....and they just happened to overlap with him long enough to get 6 of his 11 rings?

I respect legends in the present. I dont wait till they are old or dead to start saying how great they are.

Wade is one of the greatest players of this game the world has ever seen.

Cousy...is not on that level.

Some players from his era were. I see no evidence he was one of them. He didnt even want to TRY on defense. Its admirable he admitted it. But its a joke that this guy just cant be spoken of honestly without people acting all offended. since when can a guy just admit he doesnt wanna play D and have it ignored?

Hes Steve nash if Nash couldnt shoot, would shoot 20-25 times anyway, and played far far far worse defense....but got to play with Duncan, Gasol, Pippen, Rodman, and Bruce Bowen to make up for it.

[IGOTGAME]

That is all wel land good. It doesnt greatly bother me that people want to rank guys based on a bio that ignores the reasons the things happened. When it comes down to it none of us have all the information on that era.

My issue is...if you are gonna rank Cousy over him...dont tell me its because of success...and not look into why exactly his teams won.

It just feels lazy to me. I know im not normal in how I look at a number of things. If some 17 year old doesnt feel like looking as deeply as I am willing to...ok. People have shit to do.

But to keep seeing it over and over....as if people just sit the how and the why aside with no concern?

Bugs me. Especially when its done in the name of respecting a legend. As if its not disrespecting the other one. People have issues with the Heat...but Wade had towork his ass off to be as good as he is. You dont get to be Wade good by wishing it. You work for it.

And a guy works his whole life to approach(not reach...lets be clear) an almost Jordan level of basketball...power his team to a ring...play both sides of the ball. Have the right approach to the game.

And hes worse than someone because they got Bill Russell who won....everything....and they just happened to overlap with him long enough to get 6 of his 11 rings?

I respect legends in the present. I dont wait till they are old or dead to start saying how great they are.

Wade is one of the greatest players of this game the world has ever seen.

Cousy...is not on that level.

Some players from his era were. I see no evidence he was one of them.

Hes Steve nash if Nash couldnt shoot, would shoot 20-25 times anyway, and played far far far worse defense....but got to play with Duncan, Gasol, Pippen, Rodman, and Bruce Bowen to make up for it.

co-sign...people seem reluctant to give current legends there due. They feel better doing it after they have retired.

[catch24]

Kblaze and I share the same sentiments...

Cousy shouldn't be ranked over Wade, imo. It isn't like he's Kobe Bryant with team accomplishments.

[D-Wade316]

That is all wel land good. It doesnt greatly bother me that people want to rank guys based on a bio that ignores the reasons the things happened. When it comes down to it none of us have all the information on that era.

My issue is...if you are gonna rank Cousy over him...dont tell me its because of success...and not look into why exactly his teams won.

It just feels lazy to me. I know im not normal in how I look at a number of things. If some 17 year old doesnt feel like looking as deeply as I am willing to...ok. People have shit to do.

But to keep seeing it over and over....as if people just sit the how and the why aside with no concern?

Bugs me. Especially when its done in the name of respecting a legend. As if its not disrespecting the other one. People have issues with the Heat...but Wade had towork his ass off to be as good as he is. You dont get to be Wade good by wishing it. You work for it.

And a guy works his whole life to approach(not reach...lets be clear) an almost Jordan level of basketball...power his team to a ring...play both sides of the ball. Have the right approach to the game.

And hes worse than someone because they got Bill Russell who won....everything....and they just happened to overlap with him long enough to get 6 of his 11 rings?

I respect legends in the present. I dont wait till they are old or dead to start saying how great they are.

Wade is one of the greatest players of this game the world has ever seen.

Cousy...is not on that level.

Some players from his era were. I see no evidence he was one of them. He didnt even want to TRY on defense. Its admirable he admitted it. But its a joke that this guy just cant be spoken of honestly without people acting all offended. since when can a guy just admit he doesnt wanna play D and have it ignored?

Hes Steve nash if Nash couldnt shoot, would shoot 20-25 times anyway, and played far far far worse defense....but got to play with Duncan, Gasol, Pippen, Rodman, and Bruce Bowen to make up for it.
Very strong argument here. :applause:

[IGOTGAME]

Kblaze and I share the same sentiments...

Cousy shouldn't be ranked over Wade, imo. It isn't like he's Kobe Bryant with team accomplishments.

this goes back to my initial thing before. some people tend to overlook current stars. It reminds me of back when people ranked John Stockton over Kobe Bryant. Makes you realize that ability to play ball doesnt factor much into some of these rankings.

[DMAVS41]

That is all wel land good. It doesnt greatly bother me that people want to rank guys based on a bio that ignores the reasons the things happened. When it comes down to it none of us have all the information on that era.

My issue is...if you are gonna rank Cousy over him...dont tell me its because of success...and not look into why exactly his teams won.

It just feels lazy to me. I know im not normal in how I look at a number of things. If some 17 year old doesnt feel like looking as deeply as I am willing to...ok. People have shit to do.

But to keep seeing it over and over....as if people just sit the how and the why aside with no concern?

Bugs me. Especially when its done in the name of respecting a legend. As if its not disrespecting the other one. People have issues with the Heat...but Wade had towork his ass off to be as good as he is. You dont get to be Wade good by wishing it. You work for it.

And a guy works his whole life to approach(not reach...lets be clear) an almost Jordan level of basketball...power his team to a ring...play both sides of the ball. Have the right approach to the game.

And hes worse than someone because they got Bill Russell who won....everything....and they just happened to overlap with him long enough to get 6 of his 11 rings?

I respect legends in the present. I dont wait till they are old or dead to start saying how great they are.

Wade is one of the greatest players of this game the world has ever seen.

Cousy...is not on that level.

Some players from his era were. I see no evidence he was one of them. He didnt even want to TRY on defense. Its admirable he admitted it. But its a joke that this guy just cant be spoken of honestly without people acting all offended. since when can a guy just admit he doesnt wanna play D and have it ignored?

Hes Steve nash if Nash couldnt shoot, would shoot 20-25 times anyway, and played far far far worse defense....but got to play with Duncan, Gasol, Pippen, Rodman, and Bruce Bowen to make up for it.

Yes. I agree. The team accomplishment stuff simply can't be the backbone of an argument for Cousy over Wade. Its hugely flawed....as I said earlier.

Based on the standard most people seem to use here, I still think Cousy should be ranked ahead of Wade in these discussions.

Based on my own standard, I have Wade higher...much higher actually.

[D.J.]

For those that criticise Wade from 2007-2010, let's be honest; Wade missed over 60 games from 2007-2008.


2007- missed 31 games, came back too soon but still up 23/6/5 in the playoffs

2008- missed 31 games again and Shaq was traded mid-season

2009- Wade put up 30/7+/5 and took an otherwise 20 win team to the playoffs and nearly to the second round

2010- Wade took an equally garbage team to the playoffs again with 47 wins. The best players after him were 2nd year Beasley(15/6), JO(13/7), and Haslem(10/8). Wade was the only Heat player to average over 30 MPG

[Kblaze8855]

I do wonder at times why people are so selective when acknowledging reality. In the mid 80s people were asking if Bird was the GOAT. before 1990 people were saying MJ might be the GOAT. Ive seen players in interviews say Oscar robertson was the best guard of all time in 1960. Wilt was probably the best or second best player of all time as a rookie.

If ISH existed in 1990 would we pretend not to know the obvious and rank Cousy over Jordan even while discussing if he was in fact the best player ever already as people were doing?

Its like common sense and seeing the obvious are optional. We just decide to see it when we feel like it?

1987 Jordan was better than Cousy ever was. We all know that t obe true. yet if I say it in 87 I bet someone would present the same empty arguments seen here in an attempt to pretend they didnt know it too.

But years later...Jordan is..in retrospect...much better?

Why wait?

If Wade wins 3 more rings is he gonna be better in 2009? Of course not. But if he does...and I say 09 Wade>cousy. Nobody will argue.

Its amazing to me.

[Kblaze8855]

Something I just came across:

http://img155.imageshack.us/img155/2548/birdcc.jpg


Jerry Sloan had Bird as the GOAT in May of 1981. Having accomplished less than Wade has right now. This is before he so much as won a ring or an MVP. He was 2 times all NBA. And in his second playoffs having lost in the ECF his first year.

I just found it interesting. Not really too related to this.

[D-Wade316]

I do wonder at times why people are so selective when acknowledging reality. In the mid 80s people were asking if Bird was the GOAT. before 1990 people were saying MJ might be the GOAT. Ive seen players in interviews say Oscar robertson was the best guard of all time in 1960. Wilt was probably the best or second best player of all time as a rookie.

If ISH existed in 1990 would we pretend not to know the obvious and rank Cousy over Jordan even while discussing if he was in fact the best player ever already as people were doing?

Its like common sense and seeing the obvious are optional. We just decide to see it when we feel like it?

1987 Jordan was better than Cousy ever was. We all know that t obe true. yet if I say it in 87 I bet someone would present the same empty arguments seen here in an attempt to pretend they didnt know it too.

But years later...Jordan is..in retrospect...much better?

Why wait?

If Wade wins 3 more rings is he gonna be better in 2009? Of course not. But if he does...and I say 09 Wade>cousy. Nobody will argue.

Its amazing to me.
People often misuse that word. Lets define "Better" shall we? Better means statistically better. Someone who impacts the game more than others. Someone who could make the teammates around him better. That clearly goes to Wade. When people say Cousy>Wade, they mean that Cousy's legacy is greater than that of Wade. Cousy's influence>Wade's influence.

I'm leaning to your side. You're presenting a strong argument for Wade.

[DMAVS41]

I do wonder at times why people are so selective when acknowledging reality. In the mid 80s people were asking if Bird was the GOAT. before 1990 people were saying MJ might be the GOAT. Ive seen players in interviews say Oscar robertson was the best guard of all time in 1960. Wilt was probably the best or second best player of all time as a rookie.

If ISH existed in 1990 would we pretend not to know the obvious and rank Cousy over Jordan even while discussing if he was in fact the best player ever already as people were doing?

Its like common sense and seeing the obvious are optional. We just decide to see it when we feel like it?

1987 Jordan was better than Cousy ever was. We all know that t obe true. yet if I say it in 87 I bet someone would present the same empty arguments seen here in an attempt to pretend they didnt know it too.

But years later...Jordan is..in retrospect...much better?

Why wait?

If Wade wins 3 more rings is he gonna be better in 2009? Of course not. But if he does...and I say 09 Wade>cousy. Nobody will argue.

Its amazing to me.

Because its not always that clear.

What do you do about T-Mac or Grant Hill? In 00 Grant Hill was better than a lot of players ever were that are ranked ahead of him. How do you interpret that player? Does longevity matter to you on his occasion and not others?

Seems like that would be inconsistent.

Or how about t-mac in 03 iirc. I think that was his best year. Something like 30/6/6....well, he was better than Cousy ever was. Do you also rank T-Mac over Cousy?

I think that is the question. Where is the cut off? How much information do you need? How many years?..etc.

I think those are some of the arguments that people who like to wait until a career is over to judge it would have.

[Kblaze8855]

Of course. But as I said...if we are gonna throw ability to play the game out the window we should probably call it the Top legacies ever and not even leave room for discussion on who is best. because you cant even open that door and not have guys like Cousy drop out.

Note...I did not say all players from the 60s.

I said Cousy.

I will say if I felt he played some defense id be less annoyed. Hes the worst offender of players being ranked by pretty offense no matter how one sided their game is.

When your biggest supporter(Russell) says you didnt play a game he could win with...you didnt play the right way.

This is Nash vs Payton all over again only Nash is better than Cousy at everything and probably twice the defender. At least Nash tries. He wants to be a good defender. Cousy just didnt give a ****.

[Kblaze8855]

Hill and Tmac id have to do case by case.

And of course it would be inconsistient. It must be in order to be accurate. People arent better than everyone for the reasons they are better than individuals compared to them.

[DMAVS41]

Hill and Tmac id have to do case by case.

And of course it would be inconsistient. It must be in order to be accurate. People arent better than everyone for the reasons they are better than individuals compared to them.

Exactly. So people saying that haven't seen enough from Wade yet because he's been in the league only 8 years and has suffered through some injuries have a valid point.

You might still rank Wade over Cousy all time if Wade never played another game, but for others that might not be enough because of differing views and criteria.

If you did what you are saying with T-Mac when he was playing great from about 01 to 05...you would have reached the wrong conclusion. Or I at least think Cousy should be ranked over T-Mac....maybe you don't.

Do you?

[1987_Lakers]

1987 Jordan was better than Cousy ever was. We all know that t obe true. yet if I say it in 87 I bet someone would present the same empty arguments seen here in an attempt to pretend they didnt know it too.

But years later...Jordan is..in retrospect...much better?

Why wait?

If Wade wins 3 more rings is he gonna be better in 2009? Of course not. But if he does...and I say 09 Wade>cousy. Nobody will argue.

Its amazing to me.

I know exactly what you mean. Over a year ago I made a thread saying how LeBron might be the 2nd best SF of all time in terms of peak play & alot of people responded highly offended, saying how I was disrespecting players like Julius Erving & John Havlicek and saying LeBron isn't on their level when I was clearly only talking about peak play, not career wise. Most fans today just don't appreciate its current superstar players.

[Kblaze8855]

I suspect my answer while hard to argue with basketball wise would enrage some people I dont feel like arguing with right now.

But ill say this...

In 6 seasons without Russell he won 10 total playoff games. For Comparisons sake...so nobody thinks its was the era not giving as many games to play....Bob Davies won 9 in 1952 alone. But the Celtics for all their flash were the worst defense in the NBA. Which im sure had nothing to do with Cousy....

I find it unlikely that you give tmac an all nba first team bigman, an all nba second team 2 guard, and one of the 2-3 best coaches in history and get 10 playoff wins in 6 years.

Like taking the 05 Rockets and adding Ray Allen...and making Pat Riley the coach.

Though had the teams been setup so they had 2 first team guards Sharman would have been first team. The first team was Cousy and 4 bigmen. So perhaps its like adding Wade?

Either way...I dont buy that a Tmac team with him and 2 other top 10 players cant win a playoff series. And thats all anyone can hate on him for.

Just saying is all.

[nycelt84]

My vote goes to Dwayne Wade

[DMAVS41]

I suspect my answer while hard to argue with basketball wise would enrage some people I dont feel like arguing with right now.

But ill say this...

In 6 seasons without Russell he won 10 total playoff games. For Comparisons sake...so nobody thinks its was the era not giving as many games to play....Bob Davies won 9 in 1952 alone. But the Celtics for all their flash were the worst defense in the NBA. Which im sure had nothing to do with Cousy....

I find it unlikely that you give tmac an all nba first team bigman, an all nba second team 2 guard, and one of the 2-3 best coaches in history and get 10 playoff wins in 6 years.

Like taking the 05 Rockets and adding Ray Allen...and making Pat Riley the coach.

Though had the teams been setup so they had 2 first team guards Sharman would have been first team. The first team was Cousy and 4 bigmen. So perhaps its like adding Wade?

Either way...I dont buy that a Tmac team with him and 2 other top 10 players cant win a playoff series. And thats all anyone can hate on him for.

Just saying is all.

So you would rank T-Mac over Cousy?

[Kblaze8855]

http://cdn2.maxim.com/maxim/files/2007/08/22/most-obscure-simpsons-characters/johnny_tightlips_l1.jpg

Who says I have a mother?

[Gotterdammerung]

...snipped...

Actually I listed the criteria for choosing either one in the second post of this thread and I was proven correct.

You're right, though, that I should focus on the players more than the criteria of this board of illiterates.

Bob Cousy was closer to Steve Nash than any other point guard we see today (minus the accurate shooting from outside). He was a poor defender but an absolute magician with the ball-- and always fastbreaking and an aggressive scorer.

As a player without context he would probably not crack the top 10 all time point guards. But in the 50s he was the prototype & he helped create the culture of winning in Boston with Auerbach & Russell.

GOAT is more than just playground basketball, more than just NBA2K ratings, more than just dunkability. It's about impact, titles, creating a prototype for several eras.

Otherwise our criteria is skewered and biased towards today and rather self-serving.

[magnax1]

KBlaze, you just sound like you're saying Cousy was never a top 5 player. It's not like we're comparing 13 seasons of Reggie Miller to 8 seasons of Wade. We're talking about two guys who were both top 3 players in the league at their best.
As for TMac, I still can't believe he's as low as he is on this list. It always seems like people just apply unfair claims to him like he's a choker with no heart, when there is nothing to back it up. Taking Miller over him seems insane to me. I know I've said this a couple times already.... but it just doesn't add up in any way to me.

[tontoz]

Actually I listed the criteria for choosing either one in the second post of this thread and I was proven correct.

You're right, though, that I should focus on the players more than the criteria of this board of illiterates.

Bob Cousy was closer to Steve Nash than any other point guard we see today (minus the accurate shooting from outside). He was a poor defender but an absolute magician with the ball-- and always fastbreaking and an aggressive scorer.

As a player without context he would probably not crack the top 10 all time point guards. But in the 50s he was the prototype & he helped create the culture of winning in Boston with Auerbach & Russell.

GOAT is more than just playground basketball, more than just NBA2K ratings, more than just dunkability. It's about impact, titles, creating a prototype for several eras.

Otherwise our criteria is skewered and biased towards today and rather self-serving.


I think KBlaze laid out some good points questioning Cousy's impact, one of which was the fact that they won 5 rings after he retired.

Secondly a bias towards today's players is inevitable in something like this. There is no getting around it.

[Gotterdammerung]

I think KBlaze laid out some good points questioning Cousy's impact, one of which was the fact that they won 5 rings after he retired.

He is right to question Cousy's relevance to the team, but wrong to deduce that it was marginal and he could be replaced by any other PG.

Cousy established the team's fastbreak culture, which continued after he retired due to the fact Auerbach reloaded well with hall of famers. Each starter was a mentor of his back-up who stepped up once the elder stepped away.
That Kblaze neglects to mention this clearly demonstrates his prejudices.


Secondly a bias towards today's players is inevitable in something like this. There is no getting around it.
Inevitable only for those incapable of objectivity.

If we look at our criteria, before we assess the value of something, we are already stepping away from our prejudices/biases because we aren't taking them for granted.

[DRose1899]

What the F with Cousy creating "fast break culture?"
I thought that is tactical product?

We gonna applause other player for establishing "pick and roll" etc or what?

[tontoz]

He is right to question Cousy's relevance to the team, but wrong to deduce that it was marginal and he could be replaced by any other PG.

Cousy established the team's fastbreak culture, which continued after he retired due to the fact Auerbach reloaded well with hall of famers. Each starter was a mentor of his back-up who stepped up once the elder stepped away.
That Kblaze neglects to mention this clearly demonstrates his prejudices.



I have a feeling the coach probably had a bigger say than Cousy in the team's offense and in teaching younger players how to run it.


Inevitable only for those incapable of objectivity.

If we look at our criteria, before we assess the value of something, we are already stepping away from our prejudices/biases because we aren't taking them for granted


One person's objective analysis is another person's obvious bias. This entire project is based on people's opinions which will inevitably conflict.

[Kblaze8855]

I think its odd that anyone would try to paint picking Wade as a playground/video gamish decision when Cousy was among the most playground and unfundamental players in history. Cousy was a no defense playing, bad shot taking, flashy play making circus act. Id say if anything taking wade shows a maturity and willingness to look beyond the face value of a lot of the things we are looking at.

Doesnt mean smarter people take Wade. Or more mature. But I think that Cousy is a player who the more information you gather the less impressive he is. For one...

He led the league in assists. Impressive no doubt. More impressive before you look into it though. Leading the L in assists on teams that at times shot almost a thousand more times than the slow teams. And Cousy in his youth played 40+ minutes. Why wouldnt the point lead the league in assists? When Guy Rodgers broke Cousys streak...his team was second in shots. And the only year he played 40 minutes on such a team he broke Cousys single season record. Ive read stories on coaches saying Guy was better than Cousy...but nobody even remembers him. He wasnt A celtic.

Cousy scored a lot for a point...sure. He also took the most shots in the NBA a couple times and the most of a guard several times despite hsooting 35%. Let a good scorer shoot the most in the league even if its at 35%...he probably should score 20 a game.

Guy mentioned innovation. Importance of being a prototype.

Yet what did Bill Russell and Red say? Bill said Cousys style couldnt win and Red said the Celtics DEFENSE became the prototype for how to win.

Cousy dribbled fancy and threw risky passes. He wasnt the first. Bob Davis was doing it and being called Houdini in the 40s. The globetrotters were sure as hell doing it earlier. And were probably the best team in the world for the record...they did beat the Lakers playing straight up...

And if we rank guys off innovation...why is it Cousy is so known but other innovators are not? I'll tell you why. Cousy was a Celtic on Russells dynasty. And thus is always remembered. But there were PLENTY of other innovators.

Hell...I wanna see where Joe Fulks and Paul Arizin rank to some people on the forward list. Talk about setting the prototype...these guys pioneered the gotdamn jump shot. Joe Fulks pretty much invented shooting a jumper with one hand. The text book jumpers of everyone since...came from Paul and Joe. Paul played back when you had to play on irregular floors...dance floors and all. Said the floors were slippery. So he would jump then shoot. Joe Fulks had a 2 hand set shot then went to two hands rising...but shooting with just one. As we do today.

These guys invented modern scoring. And nobody gives a ****...because they didnt win a grip of rings off being on Russells team.

Innovation only gets you remembered when you have a hook to get people to care. Cousys hook? Being a Celtic. Being a winner. Being a champ. Because of Bill Russell.

Everything about the guy is impressive at a glance. 6 rings. Crazy imressive till you notice they won 5 without him and the teams leader has more total rings than Cousy won individual playoff games without him. Assists impressive...then you notice he was on the highest tempo teams in history often far more so than the other teams.

That he was all NBA so long is very impressive. Yet ive read him say himself he wondered in 61 if he should even be starting. He was all NBA playing just 30 minutes a game at times going 6-45 in a couple playoff games questioning his deserving his starting spot over KC jones. Anyone else think he might have gotten the nod because hes Bob Cousy? The same reason Red said he would always start him?

Its impressive he won 6 rings. Then you see they won 5 without him.

Hes innovative...till you wonder why the innovators of everything else from modern dribbling(Bob Davies) to jumper(Fulks and Paul) arent remembered...and are forced to conclude its his Celtic dynasty ties. Not him being a greater innovator. He seems like a prototype...till you notice his own team tried to get away from his style and if the league were going towards it not away from it he might not have fallen off as sharply as he did in the 60s.

He is a very impressive player. Who just loses the shine when you look past the surface. Which I dont consider immature to do.

The surface hides a lot.

[Kblaze8855]

I would like to add in cousys favor that he was probably more well rounded than we know. Not on d but its said he played center at times pre russell. Can find no footage of it but i think it would be interesting to see. I hate how so much is lost to time.

[L.Kizzle]

Of course. But as I said...if we are gonna throw ability to play the game out the window we should probably call it the Top legacies ever and not even leave room for discussion on who is best. because you cant even open that door and not have guys like Cousy drop out.

Note...I did not say all players from the 60s.

I said Cousy.

I will say if I felt he played some defense id be less annoyed. Hes the worst offender of players being ranked by pretty offense no matter how one sided their game is.

When your biggest supporter(Russell) says you didnt play a game he could win with...you didnt play the right way.

This is Nash vs Payton all over again only Nash is better than Cousy at everything and probably twice the defender. At least Nash tries. He wants to be a good defender. Cousy just didnt give a ****.
Not tryin to take away anything, but were others really goin all out at defense i those times? You rarely hear the word defense come up pre Russell and that's with the whole league not the Celtics.? Russell changed the whole game/league, not just the Celtics.

I've never heard anyone before Russell joined the league credited for their defense. Never heard anything about Mikan's d, Paul Arizin, Dolph Schayes, Bob Davies, ect.

Back then, I think the motto was just score more than the other team, not try and stop the other team. :confusedshrug:

[Gotterdammerung]

Kblaze, like anyone from today, is a prisoner of the current zeitgeist. Such folks readily rank Nash & Stockton ahead of Cousy due to statistics.

But the case for Cousy is context-laden, rather than the raw numbers.

1. Poor shooting was deceptive. From 1951 to 1960, those who played 500 games, the FG leader was Neil Johnston with 44%. Cousy was 15th with 37%. Ahead of supposedly accurate shooter Schayes.

Point guard rivals? Shue shot 39.9%. McGuire shot 39.6%. Wanzer shot 39.2%. Cousy was fourth with 37% and his teams consistently averaged more points and shots than all the rest.

Now, look at the supposedly "golden age" of the 80s. High watermark was Artis Gilmore with 63%. Elston Turner dead last at 43%. Isiah Thomas? 105th at 46%. Point Guards alone? Mo Cheeks was 1st with 53%. Isiah was 15th.

Isiah was a worse shooter than Cousy wrt his era.

Kidd? 7th worst shooter from 1995 to 2008 of anyone who played 500 plus games with 40%. Much worse than them both. Other bad shooters Davis, Anderson, Iverson, Hardaway were all worse shooters for their era than Cousy.

Illiterates don't understand that statistics are misleading. Cousy is being penalized for playing in a quantity over quality era of shot selection.

Next.

2. Cousy was penalized by the pre-shotclock era for 4 years where no team averaged more than 70-85 ppg. He averaged 8.9 assists for the 1959 Celtics that averaged 116.4 ppg. Stockton averaged 12.4 assists for a 1994 Jazz that averaged 101.9 ppg. But their numbers aren't set to identical standards. Cousy would've gotten 15-16 dimes per game had the statisticians applied today's liberal standards.

He averaged 30% more assists than the number 2 guy. He was significantly better than his peers.

Next.

3. As a pioneer he's criminally underrated for making the game fun. Warren Wind from SI in '56 says:



Cousy is regarded by experts as nothing less than the greatest all-around player in the 64 year history of basketball... In recent years, when the game was coming close to developing a race-horse shooting match between men who had developed unstoppable shots & who could do very little else, Bob Cousy above and beyond anyone else has blazed the trail back to good basketball. Cousy has, in truth, gone much further: he has opened the road to better basketball. Perhaps no player or coach in the game's history has understood the true breath of basketball as well as he. He has shown, in what has amounted to an enlightened revolution, that basketball offers a hundred and one possibilities of maneuvers no one ever dreamed of before. Reversing your dribble or passing behind your back and so on - those stunts have been done for years, but if you combine those moves with a sense of basketball, then you are going some place. Increase your repertoire of moves & the man playing you, by guarding against one, gives you the opening you need to move into another. It is not unlike learning to speak a new language. The larger your vocabulary, the better you will speak it, as long you are building on a sound foundation.

This should do for now.

[Gotterdammerung]

One person's objective analysis is another person's obvious bias. This entire project is based on people's opinions which will inevitably conflict.

Not necessarily. We can reach consensus on many things together. It's not all subjective goo where some yahoo from today says Derrick Rose was the greatest PG of all time, and be taken seriously just cuz he has an opinion.

Other factors figure into the consensus: analysis, numbers, legacy, impact, clutch performances, etc., and none of them have to do with subjective feel-good opinions. :no:

[Kblaze8855]

Not tryin to take away anything, but were others really goin all out at defense i those times? You rarely hear the word defense come up pre Russell and that's with the whole league not the Celtics.? Russell changed the whole game/league, not just the Celtics.

I've never heard anyone before Russell joined the league credited for their defense. Never heard anything about Mikan's d, Paul Arizin, Dolph Schayes, Bob Davies, ect.

Back then, I think the motto was just score more than the other team, not try and stop the other team. :confusedshrug:

I will give Russell credit for a great great many things. My admiration of his game is great and he has my respect more than perhaps anyone in all sports.

However...I will not credit him for creating the concept of good defense. Red himself pre cousy coached a team that was the #2 offense and the best defense in the league. They went 49-11. I dont think that happens without someone talking about defense. It didnt just come out of nowhere.

I will credit Russells dominance for showing a lot more teams the light and having them wish to follow his teams model. But if Cousy or anyone else needed Bill to come along 50 years after the games creation to suggest that stopping the other team from scoring would be pretty neat....he and they are idiots.

I dont believe that to be the case. I think he just stepped in and did it so well you had to copy it or never catch up.

[tontoz]

Not necessarily. We can reach consensus on many things together. It's not all subjective goo where some yahoo from today says Derrick Rose was the greatest PG of all time, and be taken seriously just cuz he has an opinion.

Other factors figure into the consensus: analysis, numbers, legacy, impact, clutch performances, etc., and none of them have to do with subjective feel-good opinions. :no:


Two people can look at those exact same factors and come to completely different conclusions. One person might weigh legacy more heavily, another might weigh impact on the team more heavily, etc.

[Kblaze8855]

Kblaze, like anyone from today, is a prisoner of the current zeitgeist. Such folks readily rank Nash & Stockton ahead of Cousy due to statistics.

Umm...wouldnt a prisoner of the moment rank everyone from then behind players now? If its a time issue...why arent I saying Wade would be the best player in the 60s?

And it is not his numbers alone. Its common sense.



But the case for Cousy is context-laden, rather than the raw numbers.

1. Poor shooting was deceptive. From 1951 to 1960, those who played 500 games, the FG leader was Neil Johnston with 44%. Cousy was 15th with 37%. Ahead of supposedly accurate shooter Schayes.

Point guard rivals? Shue shot 39.9%. McGuire shot 39.6%. Wanzer shot 39.2%. Cousy was fourth with 37% and his teams consistently averaged more points and shots than all the rest.

Now, look at the supposedly "golden age" of the 80s. High watermark was Artis Gilmore with 63%. Elston Turner dead last at 43%. Isiah Thomas? 105th at 46%. Point Guards alone? Mo Cheeks was 1st with 53%. Isiah was 15th.

Isiah was a worse shooter than Cousy wrt his era.

Kidd? 7th worst shooter from 1995 to 2008 of anyone who played 500 plus games with 40%. Much worse than them both. Other bad shooters Davis, Anderson, Iverson, Hardaway were all worse shooters for their era than Cousy.

Illiterates don't understand that statistics are misleading. Cousy is being penalized for playing in a quantity over quality era of shot selection.


Shooters for their era?

This is where the basic problem lies.

If Wade shoots better than Cousy(and I mean ability...not percentage) he just does. If Cousy goes 2-20 in game 7 of the finals(and he did) its not ok because its a long time ago. Its a bad shooting game. If Wade goes 18-28 for 45 points its not less impressive than Cousy going 12-20 because players today shoot better.

If Cousy misses 80% of his shots in the playoffs he just missed them. Its not admirable because more people back then did that. If anything its evidence that the way they/he played was not very good basketball and decision making was an issue. If you miss 79% of your shots in the playoffs I dont care if its 1921 or 2040. Its not a good thing.




2. Cousy was penalized by the pre-shotclock era for 4 years where no team averaged more than 70-85 ppg. He averaged 8.9 assists for the 1959 Celtics that averaged 116.4 ppg. Stockton averaged 12.4 assists for a 1994 Jazz that averaged 101.9 ppg. But their numbers aren't set to identical standards. Cousy would've gotten 15-16 dimes per game had the statisticians applied today's liberal standards.

He averaged 30% more assists than the number 2 guy. He was significantly better than his peers.

Just depends on the year. one year he had 7.8 second guy had 7.7 third had 7.6. One year Oscar got 11, Guy Rodgers 8, and Cousy 7.8. One year the leader had 8.2 Cousy 7.6. And he was all nba first team. One year he won by less than 1 a game. Its not like yeari n year out he was blowing away the league. When players like Guy were in situations to get as many they did. In fact they got more. Guy Rodgers had more assists per minute in 3 seasons than Cousy ever did. 3 times he topped Cousys career high assists per game despite never playing as many minutes as Cousy at his peak.

Cousy at times blew the rest of the points away...usually on the worst defense in the NBa on teams that score more than anyone else. There is little evidence to suggest others couldnt do the same. Tricky Dick put up 7.6 assists a game in 32 minutes to Cousys 7.6 in 39 on a team that scored over 10 more ppg.

Lets not act like no other points were hanging with him.





3. As a pioneer he's criminally underrated for making the game fun. Warren Wind from SI in '56 says:

Edited.

Saw it was from 56.

Lets say cousy was the best total player ever in 56. Lets assume nobody else played defense.

That would mean what in a comparison to wade?

And even were it true....it wouldnt be in 2 or 3 years with baylor oscar and so on coming along

[pauk]

This.

in terms of talent-skill-productions i would take wade over Cousy any freakin day tho.... but career wise bob cousy might have an edge...

[magnax1]

Shooters for their era?

This is where the basic problem lies.

If Wade shoots better than Cousy(and I mean ability...not percentage) he just does. If Cousy goes 2-20 in game 7 of the finals(and he did) its not ok because its a long time ago. Its a bad shooting game. If Wade goes 18-28 for 45 points its not less impressive than Cousy going 12-20 because players today shoot better.

If Cousy misses 80% of his shots in the playoffs he just missed them. Its not admirable because more people back then did that. If anything its evidence that the way they/he played was not very good basketball and decision making was an issue. If you miss 79% of your shots in the playoffs I dont care if its 1921 or 2040. Its not a good thing.
You do have to put shooting %s into context. The league was different back then, and players did not have nearly as cushy of circumstances in any way. I've even read that up until the early 60s you wouldn't get quite the same rims on the hoops everywhere you went. It's actually interesting that despite being plainly worse, Cousy's %s went up at the tail end of his career.
My point is that you can't say that 40% in 1960 when the league average was 41% is worse then 45% in 85, when the league average was 49%

[iamgine]

Shooters for their era?

This is where the basic problem lies.

If Wade shoots better than Cousy(and I mean ability...not percentage) he just does. If Cousy goes 2-20 in game 7 of the finals(and he did) its not ok because its a long time ago. Its a bad shooting game. If Wade goes 18-28 for 45 points its not less impressive than Cousy going 12-20 because players today shoot better.

If Cousy misses 80% of his shots in the playoffs he just missed them. Its not admirable because more people back then did that. If anything its evidence that the way they/he played was not very good basketball and decision making was an issue. If you miss 79% of your shots in the playoffs I dont care if its 1921 or 2040. Its not a good thing.

Can we really think about it like that?

If lets say the guard standard in the 1950s were so bad that today's high school guard would match them, how should we put that into context? Do we penalize them for that? How do we balance this accomplishment vs skills? Because skill and athleticism wise, good ole' Bob was too far behind even if he was the best guard in his era.

[Kblaze8855]

I dont think everyone is grasping the extent of his shot missing.

He shot well in 4 of 13 playoff runs. And by "well" I mean he shot 40, 38, 38, and 50% in those runs. And just to be a dick ill mention that the 50% was during a 3 game first round series loss the season before Russell arrived.

this is the rest of his career in the playoffs...

14/8/6 on 21% shooting

21/5/6 on 28% shooting

20/9/6 on 32% shooting

18/8/7 on 34%

20/11/7 on 32%

15/9/4 on 30%

17/9/4 on 34%

16/9/5 on 36%

14/9/3 on 35%

That is ****ing epic isnt it?

Hes shooting 2-20 in game 7 of the finals. 6 of 20 in game 6 of the same finals. But Russell and heinson won them the series anyway. Next year with Russell banged up he shoots 34% in the finals incuding 4-15 and 5-17 the last 2 games as they lose. 3-15 the game Bill went down. he shot 31% in the 61 finals including games of 1-13, 3-16, ad 3-17.

Some might say "Well they won..." which I would as well normally. But cmon. he had Russell to do the dirty work. And he...



got 30 rebounds or more the last 3 games of the 59 finals. In game 7 of the 60 finals he had 22 points and 35 rebounds. He had 30 points and 38 rebounds to close out the 61 finals. He had 30 points and 40(yes...40) rebounds in the OT game 7 win vs the Lakers in the 62 finals. He was just under a triple double to close out the 63 finals with 12/24/9 assists. In 65 he had 22 points and 30 rebounds to win the title also setting the finals record for shooting percentage over 70%. Next year? Game 7....2 point win...25 points...32 rebounds.


Just because you have someone on your team to win you the games anyway doesnt make it irrelevant when you miss 65-82% of your shots yeari n and year out in the playoffs.

Im not even saying scoring was cousys primary duty.

Im just saying...dude would miss 70% of his shots in the playoffs.

Im not sure how we "So what..." that one.

[iamgine]

Cousy would have something like 8-9 FTA/game though.

[Kblaze8855]

Yes. And he ran the offense and even if he missed most of his shots he could probably score better than most of his teammates. These are the reason he is a good player despite missing 65-82% of his shots in most of his playoffs runs.

Im just saying...

I dont think your era alone makes you miss that much.

At some point you just have to be taking bad shots...or be bad at scoring.

Im guessing people assume he was taking a lot of bad shots and not caring because...the year you are in determines how many awful shots are ok.

[iamgine]

Yes. And he ran the offense and even if he missed most of his shots he could probably score better than most of his teammates. These are the reason he is a good player despite missing 65-82% of his shots in most of his playoffs runs.

Im just saying...

I dont think your era alone makes you miss that much.

At some point you just have to be taking bad shots...or be bad at scoring.

Im guessing people assume he was taking a lot of bad shots and not caring because...the year you are in determines how many awful shots are ok.But then we'd be saying that every guard from that era is bad shooter?

[Kblaze8855]

A good number would be yes. Many guards didnt even shoot the way we think of when we talk about a shooter. But there were guys like Bill sharman having years scoring more than cousy and shooting 44-45% while cousy shot 36% on the same team. Or sharman shooting .424 and cousy 35% and sharman scores 4 more ppg on the same shots. Or when the Celtics top 4 scorers aside from Cousy were at 42%(Heinson), 47%(russell) and 46%(sharman) and Cousy was at 38%. Or when hes the only one of their top 6 scorers not shooting 40%. Dude would go a week or two at a time shooting 18-25% and shit. He might go 3-4 games where in total hes 17 out of 70. Not me pulling numbers out of the air. Look at some of the google news archives or the few playoff game logs from those days online.

I cant speak on exactly why. He wasnt always taking the most shots. He just missed...a lot.

When I watch him I see him taking just god awful shots. Something similar to a layup but he might just..flick it at the general direction of the rim from 8-10 feet. Throw a hook from 10-12 feet. Look at a shot for 6 seconds then throw it up from 15 feet and miss. Then score 2-3 times on the break. Then miss. And miss. And miss. And this is just parts of old games and ASG footage and all.

Im sure I missed his best because you dont get his reputation as a scorer by not being able to score. Im just saying...dont we kinda have to bring it up when a guy who does nothing on defense...also shoots 30% in the playoffs?

How do we just act like we dont notice?

[iamgine]

But then the point would be since other guards were not doing that much better, his %age might just be kind of average? So could it be he was an okay volume scorer for that era? Kind of like what Monta Ellis is now? But with much better playmaking. So he would be a hybrid of Monta Ellis scoring and Chris Paul playmaking if translated to this era. Would that be fair?

[Kblaze8855]

I dont know. Derrick Rose on an off day minus the athletic ability mixed with Nash and worse defense?

I watch clips and some of those games and their offense is just a straight cluster**** at times. It was somewhat controlled chaos....with one constant...Cousy misses shots. Ive been watching a little from the 63 finals.(game 6 is entirely on youtube). Game 6 is the one game cousy shot well. But you can see hes not just...making shots exactly. He will get an easy quick look here and there. Make a quick jumper in the lane that almost looks like a prayer.

And I see that every clip I catch of him. 2-3 layups and a bunch of misses from the foul line area or missed hooks and so on.

And whatever magic kept balls out of the basket in the early 60s didnt seem to impact a lot of others I see. Cousy shot 8-20, 3-14, 3-11, 4-15, 5-17, and 8-16 for a total of 33%. It was at the end of his career but he was still al nba second team so...at least someone felt he was an elite player. Anyway West is dropping 40 all over the place and Sam Jones is doing 25 on 45% shooting. West 29 on 49%. You can watch West calmly stroll up and wet long jumpers like nothing. Same for Sam Jones.

But we pretend people then just couldnt shoot?

It wasnt that people then couldnt shoot.

Bob Cousy couldnt shoot. Its true that a lot of guards in his day couldnt. What was their motivation to learn anything but the quick strike run and gun get up some garbage and run back style?

But the great guards in history really came along just after cousys day. He was kinda the bridge between "**** it..." offenses and players trying to get a good shot.

That isnt his fault. But im not gonna say nobody in 1958 could shoot either just because he couldnt. They go to the finals...cousy is still all nba first team....Ramsey 49%, Sharman 43%, Jones 47%...Cousy 31%?

Is there really no question to be asked about how that happened over and over and over? Guy just missed....more than seems possible. And he did it year after year after year. But got to win and win and win...because russell wouldnt let them lose.

It just seems like one has to pretend not to smell so much shit when trying to rank Wade undeR cousy.

It feel like the voting went that way(ive not counted).

But I cant do it. I cant pretend the guy is better than a Wade/West/kobe/Lebron/whoever level player. Especially not one who led his team to a title while Cousy managed only 10 total playoff wins in 6 years without a superior player on his team.

Wade won with Shaq. but Shaq wasnt better than him at the time. Cousy was carried to success. Wade took his team to it. I think we are downplaying that a bit too much.

Especially considering that career success is the only reason not to laugh at this comparison.

All Cousy has is his career success. And his career success is as side kick. A sidekick of epic levels who had nothing even nearing his teams leaders impact on winning.

Cousy didnt even robin his way to rings. Robin was needed. You dont win 5 rings without Robin.

He kinda....Alfreded his way to rings. At times he was just...there. Out there shooting 4-45 in the playoffs in back to back games they needed to win. Not really playing a terribly high level.

His success so greatly outpaces his impact on who wins and loses I dont see how anyone uses it to rank him over Wade.

[iamgine]

Ah but are you saying then, that Bill Sharman was a better guard than Cousy?

[Kblaze8855]

I am not. I dont know enough to conclude that.

From what ive heard he was a better defender though. I read a story claiming he once threw a punch at jerry West for going too hard at him and scoring on him a few times too many. I respect that.

[iamgine]

I've suspected in that era, big man's impact was much much more than a guard, especially one with athleticism like Russel and Chamberlain.


Lets take a hypothetical situation then. Lets say all the NBA's guards today are replaced by WNBA guards. Lets say only centers stays the same. Then Dwight Howard's team won a few with him having the best WNBA guard in his team. Would you say that's what happened with the 50s and Cousy?

[Pushxx]

Cousy was clearly overrated, but his impact on basketball was huge. Cousy revolutionized the guard position.

On the other hand, Wade is in the top 5 most skilled SGs in NBA history.

I'm torn because it's hard to compare such difference things. I'm going to go with Wade only because his natural-born skills are so elite and he gets such a bad rep because of how he carries himself on and off the court.

[Story Up]

If we ranked players based sole on their ability, guys like Bill Walton and McGrady would be way higher. I mean what exactly separated Tracy from Kobe, James or Wade? Injuries diminishes longevity and a chance to make your resume more exclusive, which is why Cousy should win this matchup until Wade improves his resume further.

[tontoz]

If we ranked players based sole on their ability, guys like Bill Walton and McGrady would be way higher. I mean what exactly separated Tracy from Kobe, James or Wade? Injuries diminishes longevity and a chance to make your resume more exclusive, which is why Cousy should win this matchup until Wade improves his resume further.


I always felt like McGrady forced up too many contested perimeter shots. He could get them off because of his elevation and high release. His shot was virtually impossible to block so i think that lured him into shooting too many.

Wade is a more efficient scorer and a better all around player than McGrady was.

[DMAVS41]

If we ranked players based sole on their ability, guys like Bill Walton and McGrady would be way higher. I mean what exactly separated Tracy from Kobe, James or Wade? Injuries diminishes longevity and a chance to make your resume more exclusive, which is why Cousy should win this matchup until Wade improves his resume further.

Which is why the most commonly used criteria is a combination of longevity, team and individual success, stats, impact, talent, and intangibles.

I still think there needs to be more weight given to "impact"....but when you compare players 50 plus years apart its very hard to do that. We don't know what Cousy would be like playing today. Maybe he develops a great shot....maybe with adaptation he's steve nash or better. We just don't know.

The game and its players have evolved so much since the 50's.

[Kblaze8855]

I've suspected in that era, big man's impact was much much more than a guard, especially one with athleticism like Russel and Chamberlain.

Im sure Russell was more effective than any guard. Arguably Mikan as well. But guys like Bob Davies did lead teams to rings as smaller players than Cousy without being on a team with 2 nba first teamers and a second teamer. And Davies went through Mikans lakers on the way. Before he coached the Celtics Red got his Washington team to the finals and it was led by a guard. Joe Fulks wasnt a guard but he was only like 2 inches taller than Cousy. He led his team to a title. Plenty of small guys in the old days had more playoff success than Cousy did in his 6 years pre Russell.

Cousy was taking teams with at least 3 of the best players in the NBA and not getting it done. For a guy being painted by some as by far the best player in the league that seems like something to question doesnt it?

Especially when compared to a guy like Wade who has already done the only thing anyone can ask a player to do winning wise. There is nothing else for Wade to prove as a winner. Cousy never did it.

Im not sure how we sit that aside.


Lets take a hypothetical situation then. Lets say all the NBA's guards today are replaced by WNBA guards. Lets say only centers stays the same. Then Dwight Howard's team won a few with him having the best WNBA guard in his team. Would you say that's what happened with the 50s and Cousy?

Nah. that would be a bit harsh. Bob was no doubt one of the best players in the world in the early 50s.

He just didnt win anything....even though some other guards did.

It just makes me wonder what people are talking about when speaking on his success. Its as if they are really convincing themselves Cousy not Russell is the reason his teams won. Because if not...how do you rank a guy over someone who is both factually superior and led his team to more playoff success for merely coexisting with a guy who won 11 rings and says the team was better without Cousy?

I just dont see the case.

Wade doesnt just have ability. He has winning.

He just doesnt have...being Bill Russells teammate.

[Kblaze8855]

If this is for #7...id have to assume the last 6 are Jordan, Oscar, West, Kobe, Magic, and Isiah Thomas. Im not sure which is next in whatever list he was using though. I assume its Isiah because I cant see him beating any of the others but who knows. Im not seeing a list anywhere.

[Kblaze8855]

Its only been 2 hours past the 48 its supposed to be. I dont see reason to hurry. He might show up in 20 minutes.

[iamgine]

Im sure Russell was more effective than any guard. Arguably Mikan as well. But guys like Bob Davies did lead teams to rings as smaller players than Cousy without being on a team with 2 nba first teamers and a second teamer. And Davies went through Mikans lakers on the way. Before he coached the Celtics Red got his Washington team to the finals and it was led by a guard. Joe Fulks wasnt a guard but he was only like 2 inches taller than Cousy. He led his team to a title. Plenty of small guys in the old days had more playoff success than Cousy did in his 6 years pre Russell.

Cousy was taking teams with at least 3 of the best players in the NBA and not getting it done. For a guy being painted by some as by far the best player in the league that seems like something to question doesnt it?

Especially when compared to a guy like Wade who has already done the only thing anyone can ask a player to do winning wise. There is nothing else for Wade to prove as a winner. Cousy never did it.

Im not sure how we sit that aside.



Nah. that would be a bit harsh. Bob was no doubt one of the best players in the world in the early 50s.

He just didnt win anything....even though some other guards did.

It just makes me wonder what people are talking about when speaking on his success. Its as if they are really convincing themselves Cousy not Russell is the reason his teams won. Because if not...how do you rank a guy over someone who is both factually superior and led his team to more playoff success for merely coexisting with a guy who won 11 rings and says the team was better without Cousy?

I just dont see the case.

Wade doesnt just have ability. He has winning.

He just doesnt have...being Bill Russells teammate.
Wait, Boston didn't ever finish first in the league pre Russel, why would we expect them to win one?

Keeping that in mind, it doesn't make sense that you are calling Bob one of the best player in the leaque and also praising his teammates as "3 of the best players". It's either or. Either Bob was one of the best player and played with some crappy teammates. Or Bob wasn't that good and played with people who was perhaps just decent.

[Kblaze8855]

The best record doesnt always win the title. Didnt then either. The celtics were often inthe mix. Red managed to lose with a 49-11 team after all. And a guy people were calling the best player ever has 2 all nba teammates why shouldnt he be expected to have elite records? Is there anyone else in history you can say that of and not expect a contending team?

And im not sure I understand the second part. I meant he was one of the 3 players on his team that were elite. Some years he and a teammate were both all nba first team and a third was second team. Or he was first and 2 guys were second. It was back when you didnt have positional all nba team though. Some years sharman would have been all nba first team with Cousy with teams built as they are now(And he was when they changed it). One year cousy was 3rd in MVP voting sharman was 5th. One year they were 6th and 7th. Ed was all nba first team before cousy was and both were first team when Cousy arrived..

Any way you want to look at it...the Celtics had 3 of the top 10 players before Russell and doing nothing of note with them.

[PowerGlove]

People always gotta ruin shit on this forum. It was fun reading these threads.:(

a lot of knowledge was being dropped by kblaze and others.:applause:

[iamgine]

The best record doesnt always win the title. Didnt then either. The celtics were often inthe mix. Red managed to lose with a 49-11 team after all. And a guy people were calling the best player ever has 2 all nba teammates why shouldnt he be expected to have elite records? Is there anyone else in history you can say that of and not expect a contending team?

And im not sure I understand the second part. I meant he was one of the 3 players on his team that were elite. Some years he and a teammate were both all nba first team and a third was second team. Or he was first and 2 guys were second. It was back when you didnt have positional all nba team though. Some years sharman would have been all nba first team with Cousy with teams built as they are now(And he was when they changed it). One year cousy was 3rd in MVP voting sharman was 5th. One year they were 6th and 7th. Ed was all nba first team before cousy was and both were first team when Cousy arrived..

Any way you want to look at it...the Celtics had 3 of the top 10 players before Russell and doing nothing of note with them.
My point was that their team was not even the best team in the regular season. Why expect them to win the title? Usually we expect the best team to win no?

Or perhaps it was because the other teams had superior big men, which I suspected carry a lot more weight than the guards of that era?

[Legends66NBA7]

People always gotta ruin shit on this forum. It was fun reading these threads.:(

a lot of knowledge was being dropped by kblaze and others.:applause:

+1.

Who knows ? Maybe G.O.A.T is making the next thread page as we post. Just getting some extra things done for the next brackets ?

One thing for sure, i've really apperciated these threads, so much info and different view points, different angles, etc...

[Kblaze8855]

The celtics had an all nba first team bigman too.

I cant speak with a lot of insight on why they were not better. Im just saying...its hard for me to say a team with 3 people the league votes into its top 10 isnt stacked.

Considering that im not sure how we credit Cousy for success when he did less as a leader than Wade did. Everything one can say to support him being a winner happened playing with a guy who won 5 rings without him. I just find that odd when the guys success is the main point in his favor.

[L.Kizzle]

Justice has been served, ISH was scaring me for a minute. Wade is becomg the most overrated player ever. Hell, Kobe wasn't even ranked thi high after his 8th season. An some of y'all think he should be even higher.

[tontoz]

I had never really given much thought to Cousy before reading this thread. I didn't know how bad his shooting was and the extent that he is given credit for team success that he may not have deserved. Not to mention that there is no D in Cousy.

Suspect pick here.

[Kblaze8855]

Thank goodness a worse player who accomplished less as his teams best player is ranked ahead of aguy because the same line of thinking that had idiots saying doctor j and earl monroe were still better than jordan in 88 lives on and blinds more people to the obvious. I stay firmly on the side of common sense. I dont go back and decide guys got better at 25 when they are 40. I knew mj was all time great in the 80s. I repped hakeem over drob before the rings. I dont need 15 years to decide how good a guy was in his prime which in the end is what people rank anyway.

ill just watch as once more fans see the guy pile up accomplishments and bump him up despite playing worse than he does now. I watched it with mj and kg and karl malone and kobe and on and on. Never made sense. Wont with wade either.

[L.Kizzle]

I had never really given much thought to Cousy before reading this thread. I didn't know how bad his shooting was and the extent that he is given credit for team success that he may not have deserved. Not to mention that there is no D in Cousy.

Suspect pick here.
There is a reason Cousy was the only guard making all nba teams in the early 50s (b4 they webtby position.)

[tontoz]

There is a reason Cousy was the only guard making all nba teams in the early 50s (b4 they webtby position.)


Clearly that reason is not shooting or defense.

[IGOTGAME]

Justice has been served, ISH was scaring me for a minute. Wade is becomg the most overrated player ever. Hell, Kobe wasn't even ranked thi high after his 8th season. An some of y'all think he should be even higher.

Kobe wasn't even ranked this high after his 11th season. In 2007 board voted John Stockton over Kobe. In 2011 board votes Wade over Stockton.

Not saying Wade over Stock is wrong but it is interesting.

[tontoz]

Kobe wasn't even ranked this high after his 11th season. In 2007 board voted John Stockton over Kobe. In 2011 board votes Wade over Stockton.

Not saying Wade over Stock is wrong but it is interesting.


They had GOAT projects like this before? I don't remember them. Granted i don't post a lot in the offseason but i would think i'd have noticed them before.

[L.Kizzle]

Clearly that reason is not shooting or defense.
His shooting was similar to contemps Davies, Phillip, McGuirre, Martin ect. We don't know their defense though.

[Kblaze8855]

We did a top 100 thing with some laughable results. I think payton was 28th.

[Kblaze8855]

His shooting was similar to contemps Davies, Phillip, McGuirre, Martin ect. We don't know their defense though.

We know russell said cousy had defense as a maybe and cousy himself said he was a capable but not always willing defender.

Pretty much......we can conclude he didnt give a **** about defense. But some repping him still claim its the less videogamish decision

[IGOTGAME]

They had GOAT projects like this before? I don't remember them. Granted i don't post a lot in the offseason but i would think i'd have noticed them before.


here is a link to some of the threads

#22 - Kobe vs. Stock
http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showthread.php?t=49285

#23 - Bob Cousy Vote
http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showthread.php?t=49372

#28 - Gary Payton Vote
http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showthread.php?t=50064

[DMAVS41]

Thank goodness a worse player who accomplished less as his teams best player is ranked ahead of aguy because the same line of thinking that had idiots saying doctor j and earl monroe were still better than jordan in 88 lives on and blinds more people to the obvious. I stay firmly on the side of common sense. I dont go back and decide guys got better at 25 when they are 40. I knew mj was all time great in the 80s. I repped hakeem over drob before the rings. I dont need 15 years to decide how good a guy was in his prime which in the end is what people rank anyway.

ill just watch as once more fans see the guy pile up accomplishments and bump him up despite playing worse than he does now. I watched it with mj and kg and karl malone and kobe and on and on. Never made sense. Wont with wade either.

It can't always work like that though. What if Wade and Lebron fail to ever win together? That won't impact where you rank them?

And you never answered the t-mac and grant hill questions. It seems to me you just want to rank players by their peak. I'm not saying there is anything wrong with that, but that is generally not the goal with lists like this.

At some point you have to reward or penalize players for what they actually do. Dirk deserves a bump on his all time ranking for doing what he did this season. You might have always thought he was capable of doing that with the right team, but there has to be something to players actually performing.

I mean, do you still feel the exact same way about Lebron as you did going into the Finals? For years I and others have been saying that if only Lebron had some help he'd win the title. Same thing people said about KG in Minny. Well, there has to be something to a player actually doing something. KG actually did lead a team to a title. Lebron hasn't so far. If actually doing things doesn't matter all that much then its a different conversation. If so, then all you are really doing is ranking on peak and talent...and ignoring in large part impact and production over careers.

[97 bulls]

What's the score on the wade/cousey debate?

[tontoz]

here is a link to some of the threads

#22 - Kobe vs. Stock
http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showthread.php?t=49285

#23 - Bob Cousy Vote
http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showthread.php?t=49372

#28 - Gary Payton Vote
http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showthread.php?t=50064


I am a little confused here. There were a couple of posts about Kobe not being ranked this high when he was younger but those previous lists are for all players, not just guards.

It looks to me like the previous threads were a completely different format so you can't realitically compare the results of the two.

[tontoz]

His shooting was similar to contemps Davies, Phillip, McGuirre, Martin ect. We don't know their defense though.


If his shooting was similar to a lot of other players then obviously it was not the reason he was 1st team All-NBA.

[Ikill]

Justice has been served, ISH was scaring me for a minute. Wade is becomg the most overrated player ever. Hell, Kobe wasn't even ranked thi high after his 8th season. An some of y'all think he should be even higher.
Maybe because Wades first 8 years>Kobes first 8 years

[AlphaWolf24]

Maybe because Wades first 8 years>Kobes first 8 years


UMAD?:confusedshrug:

[IGOTGAME]

I am a little confused here. There were a couple of posts about Kobe not being ranked this high when he was younger but those previous lists are for all players, not just guards.

It looks to me like the previous threads were a completely different format so you can't realitically compare the results of the two.

formats were different. sentiments were the same. differences were not meaningful.

[tontoz]

formats were different. sentiments were the same. differences were not meaningful.



Unless i am missing someone i only see 6 guards ahead of Kobe in that old thread.

Not to mention that Kobe didn't even averaged over 20 ppg until his 4th season since he came straight out of high school.

[IGOTGAME]

I dont see how a ranking of guards only can be comparable to a ranking of all players. Unless i am missing someone i only see 6 guards ahead of Kobe in that old thread.

Not to mention that Kobe didn't even averaged over 20 ppg until his 4th season since he came straight out of high school.

a ranking of Stockton vs. Dwayne Wade can be compared to a ranking of Stockton vs. Kobe Bryant. Positions be damned, they both play basketball and bound by the same rules. I'll never understand this whole you can't compare people of different position. Just doesn't make sense to me. It more difficult but it is definitely doable because in essence they are still playing bball.


And to the bolded. Are you trying to say that Kobe after 2006-2007 season wasnt better than John Stockton.

By that time Kobe was in the league 11 years. Kobe's 11 years gives a team more chances to win a title then Stockton's whole career. John Stockton was never once as good as Kobe was in his prime. It wasnt even close, 2 totally different calibers of players.

[Kblaze8855]

It can't always work like that though. What if Wade and Lebron fail to ever win together? That won't impact where you rank them?

Considering that I suspect neither of them ever play better than we have seen already....so them winning...would be as worse players than they were while losing....

No not really.

As you may or may not remember(im not sure what your name was at the time) I was on here in like 2002 asking what a number of legends did to justify ranking over Kobe, Duncan, Kg, and so on. In fact I remember saying in 2003 that in 5-6 years when hes stacked up a gang of awards people will look back and pretend he was a lot better in 03 than they are willing to admit now. And what happened? I saw not long ago people comparing 03 Kobe to peak Bird and really discussing it. If I ask in 2003....laughable.

Lebron and Wade are what they are. the players we have in the league now are who people in 50 years will be comparing to guys before and after them. Wade will get no better. Lebron wont either. And in 10 years when people ask 09 Lebron vs 89 Jordan....Lebrons case wont be helped or hurt by what might happen next year.



And you never answered the t-mac and grant hill questions. It seems to me you just want to rank players by their peak. I'm not saying there is anything wrong with that, but that is generally not the goal with lists like this.

Not just peak. General level of play first...with some respect shown for what they were able to do with it. Unfair as that may be considering how different situations change that.


At some point you have to reward or penalize players for what they actually do. Dirk deserves a bump on his all time ranking for doing what he did this season. You might have always thought he was capable of doing that with the right team, but there has to be something to players actually performing.

I said id take Dirk over Malone in 2007 AFTER his GS collapse and got laughed at. And now suddenly...Dirk is as good as Karl Malone. Despite the fact he might be a worse all around player now(worse defender....doesnt rebound...id call hi ma better passer though).

Im not as up and down as a lot of people are. And what I think generally stays close to what guys are remembered as. Some let their opinions swing wildly up and down from year to year. I try not to. Not when guysh ave clearly gotten as good as they are gonna get.


I mean, do you still feel the exact same way about Lebron as you did going into the Finals? For years I and others have been saying that if only Lebron had some help he'd win the title. Same thing people said about KG in Minny. Well, there has to be something to a player actually doing something. KG actually did lead a team to a title. Lebron hasn't so far. If actually doing things doesn't matter all that much then its a different conversation. If so, then all you are really doing is ranking on peak and talent...and ignoring in large part impact and production over careers.

For one...Lebron is 26. I have little evidence that he won win a title. Im not terribly concerned about it right now. If Dirk twists an ankle and they win that doesnt make Lebron anything he isnt today. And KG...he won it all...playing worse than he did while losing. And people who acted like it was a joke to still have him as an elite player in 06 acted like he found some lost game in 08.

Its worse and worse each time to me. I feel like by now I cant be the only one who see it. But every time...new guy comes along....hes gotta prove ____ before hes as good as ____. 10 years later...the version of him that had yet to ____ is in retrospect one of the greatest players ever. As if we have a clearer view of him 10 years later than we had watching him live.

I will never be one of those people.

In the end everyone tends to see what I will come out and say 10 years earlier.

I still know people who argued with me that Nique was better than MJ in like 1990.

And believe me...they hear about it.

[DMAVS41]

Considering that I suspect neither of them ever play better than we have seen already....so them winning...would be as worse players than they were while losing....

No not really.

As you may or may not remember(im not sure what your name was at the time) I was on here in like 2002 asking what a number of legends did to justify ranking over Kobe, Duncan, Kg, and so on. In fact I remember saying in 2003 that in 5-6 years when hes stacked up a gang of awards people will look back and pretend he was a lot better in 03 than they are willing to admit now. And what happened? I saw not long ago people comparing 03 Kobe to peak Bird and really discussing it. If I ask in 2003....laughable.

Lebron and Wade are what they are. the players we have in the league now are who people in 50 years will be comparing to guys before and after them. Wade will get no better. Lebron wont either. And in 10 years when people ask 09 Lebron vs 89 Jordan....Lebrons case wont be helped or hurt by what might happen next year.




Not just peak. General level of play first...with some respect shown for what they were able to do with it. Unfair as that may be considering how different situations change that.



I said id take Dirk over Malone in 2007 AFTER his GS collapse and got laughed at. And now suddenly...Dirk is as good as Karl Malone. Despite the fact he might be a worse all around player now(worse defender....doesnt rebound...id call hi ma better passer though).

Im not as up and down as a lot of people are. And what I think generally stays close to what guys are remembered as. Some let their opinions swing wildly up and down from year to year. I try not to. Not when guysh ave clearly gotten as good as they are gonna get.



For one...Lebron is 26. I have little evidence that he won win a title. Im not terribly concerned about it right now. If Dirk twists an ankle and they win that doesnt make Lebron anything he isnt today. And KG...he won it all...playing worse than he did while losing. And people who acted like it was a joke to still have him as an elite player in 06 acted like he found some lost game in 08.

Its worse and worse each time to me. I feel like by now I cant be the only one who see it. But every time...new guy comes along....hes gotta prove ____ before hes as good as ____. 10 years later...the version of him that had yet to ____ is in retrospect one of the greatest players ever. As if we have a clearer view of him 10 years later than we had watching him live.

I will never be one of those people.

In the end everyone tends to see what I will come out and say 10 years earlier.

I still know people who argued with me that Nique was better than MJ in like 1990.

And believe me...they hear about it.


I agree with most of this. However, there has to be a value in a player actually doing something. Lebron likely won't be better than he was in 09 from an all around player, but he might reach a level that helps his team win more.

There has to be an inherent value in players performing. Take next year for example. Lebron could shoot 2% less from the field and see all of his major stats slightly decline. But if he performs great in the playoffs/finals and doesn't completely choke like he did this year....I'd say he'd be a better player for it.

Of course all of this needs to be done on a case by case basis. I will judge guys like Wade and Lebron critically if they fail to win titles. That will impact where I rank them all time. Doesn't matter to me so much that they were better players in the past. They have to prove that can translate into winning titles when there is no excuse to not be dominating the NBA for the next 5 or so years based on their circumstances.

And as for Lebron in 09. We simply don't know what would have happened had Lebron made the finals. What if he completely chokes under the pressure? We don't know. We need to see Lebron not do that.

So while I agree that overall Lebron might not ever be better than 09....we also don't know if that version of Lebron was good enough to win the title for a team. Given the evidence now with a stacked team and Lebron choking in the finals.

Its one thing to play great and come up short like Lebron did in 09. Its another thing crumble and play awful and be the main reason a team comes up short.

If you are basically saying that stuff doesn't matter....well...then you are just ranking off peaks. Again, that is fine, but that is not what lists like that are for.

Its more about ranking the impact of a player over their career. Its about what they do given their circumstances.

So I can't get behind your notion that it doesn't matter that Lebron choked in the finals this year because "his best days are behind him".....just don't see the logic in that.

[tontoz]

a ranking of Stockton vs. Dwayne Wade can be compared to a ranking of Stockton vs. Kobe Bryant. Positions be damned, they both play basketball and bound by the same rules. I'll never understand this whole you can't compare people of different position. Just doesn't make sense to me. It more difficult but it is definitely doable because in essence they are still playing bball.


And to the bolded. Are you trying to say that Kobe after 2006-2007 season wasnt better than John Stockton.

By that time Kobe was in the league 11 years. Kobe's 11 years gives a team more chances to win a title then Stockton's whole career. John Stockton was never once as good as Kobe was in his prime. It wasnt even close, 2 totally different calibers of players.


Back then Kobe was the 7th ranked guard unless i miscounted. i remember he had a lot of haters back then, much moreso than he does now. There was the rape trial, the Shaq feud and Jackson's book detailing how tough it was to deal with Kobe.

People aren't always going to be objective in their analysis. They may be more inclined to vote for Wade now than Kobe at that time simply because Wade isn't carrying the baggage that Kobe did. Or maybe it was Jordan fans voting against him just because people were comparing Jordan and Kobe.

I don't think it is unreasonable to suspect that some people didn't vote for Kobe just because they didn't like him. I took a brief look at that Kobe vs Stock thread and saw a few people pick Stockton with no explanation.

[AlphaWolf24]

Considering that I suspect neither of them ever play better than we have seen already....so them winning...would be as worse players than they were while losing....

No not really.

As you may or may not remember(im not sure what your name was at the time) I was on here in like 2002 asking what a number of legends did to justify ranking over Kobe, Duncan, Kg, and so on. In fact I remember saying in 2003 that in 5-6 years when hes stacked up a gang of awards people will look back and pretend he was a lot better in 03 than they are willing to admit now. And what happened? I saw not long ago people comparing 03 Kobe to peak Bird and really discussing it. If I ask in 2003....laughable.

Lebron and Wade are what they are. the players we have in the league now are who people in 50 years will be comparing to guys before and after them. Wade will get no better. Lebron wont either. And in 10 years when people ask 09 Lebron vs 89 Jordan....Lebrons case wont be helped or hurt by what might happen next year.




Not just peak. General level of play first...with some respect shown for what they were able to do with it. Unfair as that may be considering how different situations change that.



I said id take Dirk over Malone in 2007 AFTER his GS collapse and got laughed at. And now suddenly...Dirk is as good as Karl Malone. Despite the fact he might be a worse all around player now(worse defender....doesnt rebound...id call hi ma better passer though).

Im not as up and down as a lot of people are. And what I think generally stays close to what guys are remembered as. Some let their opinions swing wildly up and down from year to year. I try not to. Not when guysh ave clearly gotten as good as they are gonna get.



For one...Lebron is 26. I have little evidence that he won win a title. Im not terribly concerned about it right now. If Dirk twists an ankle and they win that doesnt make Lebron anything he isnt today. And KG...he won it all...playing worse than he did while losing. And people who acted like it was a joke to still have him as an elite player in 06 acted like he found some lost game in 08.

Its worse and worse each time to me. I feel like by now I cant be the only one who see it. But every time...new guy comes along....hes gotta prove ____ before hes as good as ____. 10 years later...the version of him that had yet to ____ is in retrospect one of the greatest players ever. As if we have a clearer view of him 10 years later than we had watching him live.

I will never be one of those people.

In the end everyone tends to see what I will come out and say 10 years earlier.

I still know people who argued with me that Nique was better than MJ in like 1990.

And believe me...they hear about it.


hey just curious KBlaze.....

where would you rank Michael jordan if instead of winning 6 Championships...He lost every year while playing on multiple Great teams capable of winning it all....in fact just say he played in 3 - 4 NBA Finals and never won 1....and played like crap.

so basically a 4 - 5X MVP with 0 championships....

is he still #1 alltime.....if not please explain since you said you will never be "one of those"

[AlphaWolf24]

Back then Kobe was the 7th ranked guard unless i miscounted. i remember he had a lot of haters back then, much moreso than he does now. There was the rape trial, the Shaq feud and Jackson's book detailing how tough it was to deal with Kobe.

People aren't always going to be objective in their analysis. They may be more inclined to vote for Wade now than Kobe at that time simply because Wade isn't carrying the baggage that Kobe did. Or maybe it was Jordan fans voting against him just because people were comparing Jordan and Kobe.

I don't think it is unreasonable to suspect that some people didn't vote for Kobe just because they didn't like him. I took a brief look at that Kobe vs Stock thread and saw a few people pick Stockton with no explanation.


I clearly remember him bieng regarded as the 2nd greatest SG of alltime by the majority of fans/"experts"

[magnax1]

I agree with most of this. However, there has to be a value in a player actually doing something. Lebron likely won't be better than he was in 09 from an all around player, but he might reach a level that helps his team win more.
Isn't that what being a better all around player is? Isn't it measured by how much you help your team win? What else could be the definition of how good of a player you are?
But I agree with KBlaze about people ranking players. That's why I always freak out when people rank Dirk as the best in the league despite him playing better in 09, and nobody saying much about it.

[tontoz]

I clearly remember him bieng regarded as the 2nd greatest SG of alltime by the majority of fans/"experts"


I would agree. But that doesn't mean all the people voting were experts. It doesn't mean that some of the people voting didn't have a personal bias against him.


In that old thread Stockton was picked ahead of Cousy. Now Cousy is several places ahead of Stockton. Both guys were retired before the previous vote.

Did Cousy suddenly get better decades after he retired?

[L.Kizzle]

Its worse and worse each time to me. I feel like by now I cant be the only one who see it. But every time...new guy comes along....hes gotta prove ____ before hes as good as ____. 10 years later...the version of him that had yet to ____ is in retrospect one of the greatest players ever. As if we have a clearer view of him 10 years later than we had watching him live.

Did you predict the collapse of Tracy McGrady ten years ago?

What about Grant Hill, did you know his career was gonna turn out that way?

Did you have Penny Hardaway as an All-Time great in 1996?

Derrick Rose is already a top 40 player all time?

That's basically what I'm gettin from you. You predict that such and such will go down as a top player ever? Anything could happen. You said you had Jordan down as an all-time great in the mid 80s? It looks like an excellent choice now, but dude could have easily been at the wrong place at the wrong time and turned up dead in a CNN breaking news story before the 88' season begin.

No one ranks Maurice Stokes as a top 50 player, though his first 3 seasons he seemed to be headed that way, things happen and he was paralyzed. People were probably saying the same thing back in the day. This guy will go down as a top 10 talent, but he ended up goin down before he was chosen into the top ten.

[DMAVS41]

Isn't that what being a better all around player is? Isn't it measured by how much you help your team win? What else could be the definition of how good of a player you are?
But I agree with KBlaze about people ranking players. That's why I always freak out when people rank Dirk as the best in the league despite him playing better in 09, and nobody saying much about it.

But we don't know. What if Lebron had choked in the finals in 09. We saw Lebron do something weird against the Celtics in 10. Then we just saw him choke in the finals in 11.

What if next year he plays a little worse throughout the season but steps up in the playoffs/finals and leads his team to a title?

I don't think we can just discount what happens with these players both before and after they play their "best".....that is simply ranking the peaks of each player.

And sometimes those peaks are just stats and not actual impact.

[DMAVS41]

Did you predict the collapse of Tracy McGrady ten years ago?

What about Grant Hill, did you know his career was gonna turn out that way?

Did you have Penny Hardaway as an All-Time great in 1996?

Derrick Rose is already a top 40 player all time?

That's basically what I'm gettin from you. You predict that such and such will go down as a top player ever? Anything could happen. You said you had Jordan down as an all-time great in the mid 80s? It looks like an excellent choice now, but dude could have easily been at the wrong place at the wrong time and turned up dead in a CNN breaking news story before the 88' season begin.

No one ranks Maurice Stokes as a top 50 player, though his first 3 seasons he seemed to be headed that way, things happen and he was paralyzed. People were probably saying the same thing back in the day. This guy will go down as a top 10 talent, but he ended up goin down before he was chosen into the top ten.

Exactly. This is why its hard to rank players before their legacies have been written. Kobe/Dirk/KG...its easy to rank them all time now because we've seen pretty much their entire careers. Lebron and Wade? Its only been 8 years and what they do over the next 5 years will define them. Is what it is.

That is why I think his notion of ranking players is inherently flawed. He's basically saying that nothing that happens in the future for Wade and Lebron impacts where they should be ranked all time. I could not disagree more.

And like you said....T-Mac, Penny, Hill...and a host of other players don't fit this "i don't need to see anything else" idea.

[IGOTGAME]

Exactly. This is why its hard to rank players before their legacies have been written. Kobe/Dirk/KG...its easy to rank them all time now because we've seen pretty much their entire careers. Lebron and Wade? Its only been 8 years and what they do over the next 5 years will define them. Is what it is.

That is why I think his notion of ranking players is inherently flawed. He's basically saying that nothing that happens in the future for Wade and Lebron impacts where they should be ranked all time. I could not disagree more.

And like you said....T-Mac, Penny, Hill...and a host of other players don't fit this "i don't need to see anything else" idea.

I rank current players under the assumption that this is where I would put them if they died tommorrow? is that logical?

[magnax1]

But we don't know. What if Lebron had choked in the finals in 09. We saw Lebron do something weird against the Celtics in 10. Then we just saw him choke in the finals in 11.
That's a fair question, if only because Lebron has played pretty badly against great defensive teams in every other playoffs. He wouldn't have played a great defense in the 09 finals, but I don't really think Lebron in 09 is as good as Lebron in 10, as he just seemed to do more for his team in 10, and took a really messed up team to 60 wins.


What if next year he plays a little worse throughout the season but steps up in the playoffs/finals and leads his team to a title?

I don't think we can just discount what happens with these players both before and after they play their "best".....that is simply ranking the peaks of each player.
I never really said that, but doing things like having Dirk jump from top 40 to top 20 this year, or KG doing the same thing in 08, just doesn't make sense. Both of them were barely raised at all for me when they won titles.

[DMAVS41]

I rank current players under the assumption that this is where I would put them if they died tommorrow? is that logical?

yes. that makes sense to me.

[DMAVS41]

That's a fair question, if only because Lebron has played pretty badly against great defensive teams in every other playoffs. He wouldn't have played a great defense in the 09 finals, but I don't really think Lebron in 09 is as good as Lebron in 10, as he just seemed to do more for his team in 10, and took a really messed up team to 60 wins.


I never really said that, but doing things like having Dirk jump from top 40 to top 20 this year, or KG doing the same thing in 08, just doesn't make sense. Both of them were barely raised at all for me when they won titles.

I can't speak to the KG and Dirk stuff because I had them much higher than the consensus group did.

But this goes back to what criteria you are using. Going into this year, there is just no way there were 40 players that deserved to be ranked over Dirk. Just like there was no way there were 40 players that deserved to be ranked over KG going into 08.

That is just my opinion though.

I do think that some people questioned whether or not Dirk and KG could be the alpha dogs on a title winning team. I personally never had a doubt for either...especially with Dirk. Dirk had been good enough since the 06 season to be the best player on a title winning team in my opinion. I think why you saw such a huge jump from the consensus group is that Dirk proved he could do something and really that was the only knock against him. Now there really aren't any using their line of thinking. He's done everything.

Same with KG after 08.

But again that gets back to the question of criteria and how much it matters to actually see a player do something. Take Lebron for example. I'm now questioning whether he can be the best player on a title winning team. If he does that...it will answer a big question for me and I'll move him up in my rankings.

I think there has to be some value in a player actually doing something.

[Warriors fan]

is this bitch GOAT comin back or what do i have to take over this shit














WARRIOR TIME!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[L.Kizzle]

And why do people keep bringin up Bill Russell and not one mention of Shaq? Don't act like Wade would have a ring without Shaq.

[NugzHeat3]

And why do people keep bringin up Bill Russell and not one mention of Shaq? Don't act like Wade would have a ring without Shaq.

This guy just makes me :facepalm everytime he posts.

Wade wouldn't have a ring without Gary Payton, either.

[IGOTGAME]

And why do people keep bringin up Bill Russell and not one mention of Shaq? Don't act like Wade would have a ring without Shaq.

no one would win a ring without their second best/most important person. But lets not compare Miami Shaq to Bill Russel.

[catch24]

And why do people keep bringin up Bill Russell and not one mention of Shaq? Don't act like Wade would have a ring without Shaq.

And Kobe wouldn't have a ring without a big man. Jordan wouldn't have a ring without an all-star caliber teammate.

This line of thinking is just as bad as people claiming a player like Wade winning more MVP's and titles down the road wouldn't matter because his legacy is "etched in stone".

[magnax1]

I can't speak to the KG and Dirk stuff because I had them much higher than the consensus group did.

But this goes back to what criteria you are using. Going into this year, there is just no way there were 40 players that deserved to be ranked over Dirk. Just like there was no way there were 40 players that deserved to be ranked over KG going into 08.

That is just my opinion though.

I do think that some people questioned whether or not Dirk and KG could be the alpha dogs on a title winning team. I personally never had a doubt for either...especially with Dirk. Dirk had been good enough since the 06 season to be the best player on a title winning team in my opinion. I think why you saw such a huge jump from the consensus group is that Dirk proved he could do something and really that was the only knock against him. Now there really aren't any using their line of thinking. He's done everything.

Same with KG after 08.

But again that gets back to the question of criteria and how much it matters to actually see a player do something. Take Lebron for example. I'm now questioning whether he can be the best player on a title winning team. If he does that...it will answer a big question for me and I'll move him up in my rankings.

I think there has to be some value in a player actually doing something.
I think with players like Ben Wallace, Isiah Thomas, and Dennis Johnson winning titles as the best on their team, I can infer that Lebron is more then good enough to win as the best player on his team. It's just a matter of putting players around him that are good enough. The only real issue that Lebron has anymore is that he's a massive ball hog that's useless without the ball, so guys like Wade are worse off around him. If you traded Wade for 2 other great role players like who Dirk had, I'm pretty sure he would've won (same for trading Lebron and putting different guys around Wade, though he's not the same level of ball hog)

[DMAVS41]

I think with players like Ben Wallace, Isiah Thomas, and Dennis Johnson winning titles as the best on their team, I can infer that Lebron is more then good enough to win as the best player on his team. It's just a matter of putting players around him that are good enough. The only real issue that Lebron has anymore is that he's a massive ball hog that's useless without the ball, so guys like Wade are worse off around him. If you traded Wade for 2 other great role players like who Dirk had, I'm pretty sure he would've won (same for trading Lebron and putting different guys around Wade, though he's not the same level of ball hog)

I totally agree. However...don't you think its important...or that there is value in that player actually doing it? Or forget winning...just how about Lebron play well throughout a run and not have these "weird" games or series in which he's not himself.

In theory I totally agree, but there has to be something to a player actually doing this stuff.

This notion that Wade winning the MVP, Finals MVP, and a title next year wouldn't really do anything for his ranking because he might not play as well as he did in 09 just doesn't make sense to me.

Consistency, longevity, ability to play through pain, ability to adapt to different players/teams/coaches, ability to adapt to new competition, ability to improve and add new dimensions to your game...etc. All that stuff matters in my opinion as to where a player ends up ranking.

The fact that Kobe is still as good as he is at his age....same with Dirk and Nash...that matters to me.

I guess it just comes down to what the criteria is. Kblaze is basically ranking peak/prime...I think others are taking the entire body of work into account. Apples and oranges.

[L.Kizzle]

no one would win a ring without their second best/most important person. But lets not compare Miami Shaq to Bill Russel.
I'm not comparing them, Y'all make it seem like Wade pulled a Rick Barry in 75 or something.

[DMAVS41]

I'm not comparing them, Y'all make it seem like Wade pulled a Rick Barry in 75 or something.

Yep. I'm a huge Wade fan, but the 06 Heat are under-rated. Entering the season they were the favorites to win the East and only the Spurs were more favored to win the title.

A lackluster regular season due to injuries and coaching issues has made people forget how good that team actually was. IIRC that team went something like 10-10 with Van Gundy and like 42-20 with Riley.

Wade was amazing in the finals and deserves credit, but Shaq was still a top 10 player at worst....and Riley alone is worth a lot.

[Kblaze8855]

Did you predict the collapse of Tracy McGrady ten years ago?

What about Grant Hill, did you know his career was gonna turn out that way?

Did you have Penny Hardaway as an All-Time great in 1996?

Derrick Rose is already a top 40 player all time?

That's basically what I'm gettin from you. You predict that such and such will go down as a top player ever? Anything could happen. You said you had Jordan down as an all-time great in the mid 80s? It looks like an excellent choice now, but dude could have easily been at the wrong place at the wrong time and turned up dead in a CNN breaking news story before the 88' season begin.

No one ranks Maurice Stokes as a top 50 player, though his first 3 seasons he seemed to be headed that way, things happen and he was paralyzed. People were probably saying the same thing back in the day. This guy will go down as a top 10 talent, but he ended up goin down before he was chosen into the top ten.

Predict the fall of Tmac? Of course not. But it was pretty clear before he fell off totally he had gone as high as he could. I was never one to talk about what Tmac might go on to do. I talked about how good he was. Which I still do.

Hill?

He was as good as he was getting as well.

Penny...I was never blown away by. 7-8 more years of 97 Penny wouldnt have changed my mind.

And no Rose isnt top 40. I can think of more than 40 players to play better than ive seen him play.

And if Jordan died in 88 id have nobody to enter the league since ahead of him as a player...since id have seen nobody play better with 1-2 possible exceptions as he was still improving. Wade is not.

This really isnt very difficult.

I see why people have to include other factors. Especially with players from years ago. But to flat out ignore the fact that Wade plays the game better....and on top of it...actually won as his teams best player?

By eyesight or accomplishments Wade seems the clear cut winner. What does he have left to prove? That hecan do what hes already done? That he can be MVP level when hes been better than at least 3 people to win MVPs this decade?

What else? What does he need to do wit hthe rest of his career? Just...repeat himself?

Hes been to the top. He has nothing left to prove. He had proven in 3 years what cousy didnt in 14. He proved that a team on his back can win it all.

Nothing more to ask of him.

[DMAVS41]

Predict the fall of Tmac? Of course not. But it was pretty clear before he fell off totally he had gone as high as he could. I was never one to talk about what Tmac might go on to do. I talked about how good he was. Which I still do.

Hill?

He was as good as he was getting as well.

Penny...I was never blown away by. 7-8 more years of 97 Penny wouldnt have changed my mind.

And no Rose isnt top 40. I can think of more than 40 players to play better than ive seen him play.

And if Jordan died in 88 id have nobody to enter the league since ahead of him as a player...since id have seen nobody play better with 1-2 possible exceptions as he was still improving. Wade is not.

This really isnt very difficult.

I see why people have to include other factors. Especially with players from years ago. But to flat out ignore the fact that Wade plays the game better....and on top of it...actually won as his teams best player?

By eyesight or accomplishments Wade seems the clear cut winner. What does he have left to prove? That hecan do what hes already done? That he can be MVP level when hes been better than at least 3 people to win MVPs this decade?

What else? What does he need to do wit hthe rest of his career? Just...repeat himself?

Hes been to the top. He has nothing left to prove. He had proven in 3 years what cousy didnt in 14. He proved that a team on his back can win it all.

Nothing more to ask of him.

Wade plays the game better in comparison to what? His peers or Cousy? I don't think its fair to compare a player from 2011 to a player from 1951. It just doesn't work.

And as far as comparing them to their peers. Cousy was actually very similar to Wade....

None of us saw Cousy's career unfold so its difficult to say. Cousy was voted to first team all nba for 10 straight years I think.

And what is the cut off. How many years does it take? T-Mac gave us 5 or 6 quality years. Is that enough to say nothing else matters?

Not for me.

[L.Kizzle]

Predict the fall of Tmac? Of course not. But it was pretty clear before he fell off totally he had gone as high as he could. I was never one to talk about what Tmac might go on to do. I talked about how good he was. Which I still do.

Hill?

He was as good as he was getting as well.

Penny...I was never blown away by. 7-8 more years of 97 Penny wouldnt have changed my mind.

And no Rose isnt top 40. I can think of more than 40 players to play better than ive seen him play.

And if Jordan died in 88 id have nobody to enter the league since ahead of him as a player...since id have seen nobody play better with 1-2 possible exceptions as he was still improving. Wade is not.

This really isnt very difficult.

I see why people have to include other factors. Especially with players from years ago. But to flat out ignore the fact that Wade plays the game better....and on top of it...actually won as his teams best player?

By eyesight or accomplishments Wade seems the clear cut winner. What does he have left to prove? That hecan do what hes already done? That he can be MVP level when hes been better than at least 3 people to win MVPs this decade?

What else? What does he need to do wit hthe rest of his career? Just...repeat himself?

Hes been to the top. He has nothing left to prove. He had proven in 3 years what cousy didnt in 14. He proved that a team on his back can win it all.

Nothing more to ask of him.
What if in the next 8 years or so, Wade wins about 5 more Titles and maybe 3 MVP Awards, does he still say the same for you? No, he moves up in the rankings right?

Like it or not MVP and titles move players up. If not, we'd just be ranking players on skill and talent (which is basically what you're doin in this match up.) Cousy basically doubles him in everything titles, All-Star games, All-NBA teams. That has to factor into something right? IF not, we should just throw them all away, titles, MVPs, All-Stars and All-NBA and just watch them play ball. The ranking would be totally different.

If Steve Nash doesn't win 2 MVPs, would even even be in anyone's top 100 list. No MVP's basically means he's Tim Hardaway. Those 2 MVPs put him on a whole other level.

[DMAVS41]

What if in the next 8 years or so, Wade wins about 5 more Titles and maybe 3 MVP Awards, does he still say the same for you? No, he moves up in the rankings right?

Like it or not MVP and titles move players up. If not, we'd just be ranking players on skill and talent (which is basically what you're doin in this match up.) Cousy basically doubles him in everything titles, All-Star games, All-NBA teams. That has to factor into something right? IF not, we should just throw them all away, titles, MVPs, All-Stars and All-NBA and just watch them play ball. The ranking would be totally different.

If Steve Nash doesn't win 2 MVPs, would even even be in anyone's top 100 list. No MVP's basically means he's Tim Hardaway. Those 2 MVPs put him on a whole other level.

Yep. Its the whole Kobe vs Lebron debate. I personally think 09 Lebron was better than any version of Kobe.

Is 09 and 10 enough to warrant ranking Lebron over Kobe....that overcomes the 5 titles and two finals mvps and great longevity...etc.

No way does Lebron deserve to be ranked over Kobe all time now. But I think most would agree that Lebron had the better peak.

[Kblaze8855]

You and I are different people. Not like im saying you are an idiot to need more time. I dont so much mind opinions not my own...as I mind stupid reasons used to support them. Or even worse...reasons in conflict with the conclusion.

And I dont have much trouble comparing Wade to anyone ive seen a few times. Of course its harder to do the less of the other side you see...but ive seen enough of Cousy not playing defense, missing what seemed like every shot that wasnt a gimme(and half the gimmes too), and playing overall bad basketball. Not like im saying...all players from his day played it.

I dont feel that way watching Jerry West. Or Oscar. Ive thought Sam Jones played great off the ball and had a solid jumper. Ive been impressed with Bob Petitt going coast to coast and wetting long jumpers. Nobody ever heard me badmouth Bill Russell.

Cousy...is not those player. He was a relic from an older day and his time came and went. And it went a long long time ago. It went before even the 60s greats had peaked.

Im not gonna pretend I cant see or that missing 70% of your shots in the playoffs is not something to raise an eyebrow at. I do not want him or anyone with his "Defense? Whats defense?" mentality anywhere near my team.

Im aware that 60 years ago people didnt have a problem with it. I am not telling those people that they were wrong to think Cousy was great.

But that is not the approach to the game I want. And there clearly were players in the 50s who knew better. Such as Bill Russell. Who would not allow Cousys nonsense to keep him from playing winning basketball.

[Ikill]

What if in the next 8 years or so, Wade wins about 5 more Titles and maybe 3 MVP Awards, does he still say the same for you? No, he moves up in the rankings right?

Like it or not MVP and titles move players up. If not, we'd just be ranking players on skill and talent (which is basically what you're doin in this match up.) Cousy basically doubles him in everything titles, All-Star games, All-NBA teams. That has to factor into something right? IF not, we should just throw them all away, titles, MVPs, All-Stars and All-NBA and just watch them play ball. The ranking would be totally different.

If Steve Nash doesn't win 2 MVPs, would even even be in anyone's top 100 list. No MVP's basically means he's Tim Hardaway. Those 2 MVPs put him on a whole other level.
:roll:

[DMAVS41]

You and I are different people. Not like im saying you are an idiot to need more time. I dont so much mind opinions not my own...as I mind stupid reasons used to support them. Or even worse...reasons in conflict with the conclusion.

And I dont have much trouble comparing Wade to anyone ive seen a few times. Of course its harder to do the less of the other side you see...but ive seen enough of Cousy not playing defense, missing what seemed like every shot that wasnt a gimme(and half the gimmes too), and playing overall bad basketball. Not like im saying...all players from his day played it.

I dont feel that way watching Jerry West. Or Oscar. Ive thought Sam Jones played great off the ball and had a solid jumper. Ive been impressed with Bob Petitt going coast to coast and wetting long jumpers. Nobody ever heard me badmouth Bill Russell.

Cousy...is not those player. He was a relic from an older day and his time came and went. And it went a long long time ago. It went before even the 60s greats had peaked.

Im not gonna pretend I cant see or that missing 70% of your shots in the playoffs is not something to raise an eyebrow at. I do not want him or anyone with his "Defense? Whats defense?" mentality anywhere near my team.

Im aware that 60 years ago people didnt have a problem with it. I am not telling those people that they were wrong to think Cousy was great.

But that is not the approach to the game I want. And there clearly were players in the 50s who knew better. Such as Bill Russell. Who would not allow Cousys nonsense to keep him from playing winning basketball.

Sure, that is all reasonable. But the point becomes where is the line. Is Gary Payton better than Cousy? Kidd? Nash? Allen? How far do we take your line of thinking?

[Kblaze8855]

What if in the next 8 years or so, Wade wins about 5 more Titles and maybe 3 MVP Awards, does he still say the same for you? No, he moves up in the rankings right?

If he wins them playing worse than ive seen him play...no. He would not.

I am not that type. I was asking why Kobe wasnt top 25 in 2003 and being hated on for saying there were 15 or more players ive seen play about as well or better in 2010. All an MVP and 2 more rings did for Kobes ranking to me was move him from borderline top 20 into...somewhere I cant say exactly in the top 20. And I am not too worried if anyone doesnt like it.



Like it or not MVP and titles move players up. If not, we'd just be ranking players on skill and talent (which is basically what you're doin in this match up.)

You say that as if all evidence doesnt point to the fact that Idont care what the rankings are to the general public.

I dont care if...you...or..whoever..bumps a guy up. Means nothing to me. I suspect my opinion means little to you as well.




Cousy basically doubles him in everything titles, All-Star games, All-NBA teams. That has to factor into something right? IF not, we should just throw them all away, titles, MVPs, All-Stars and All-NBA and just watch them play ball. The ranking would be totally different.


Means nothing without the reasons they happened. Especially the titles. Im just not gonna weight 6 titles heavily when the best player won 5 without you and said the team was better the year you left.



If Steve Nash doesn't win 2 MVPs, would even even be in anyone's top 100 list. No MVP's basically means he's Tim Hardaway. Those 2 MVPs put him on a whole other level.

Playing well enough to win them put him on a whole other level to me. Id have given him neither. Doesnt mean I wouldnt see how good he was and adjust my opinion accordingly when he ate up the Mavs.

[L.Kizzle]

If he wins them playing worse than ive seen him play...no. He would not.

I am not that type. I was asking why Kobe wasnt top 25 in 2003 and being hated on for saying there were 15 or more players ive seen play about as well or better in 2010. All an MVP and 2 more rings did for Kobes ranking to me was move him from borderline top 20 into...somewhere I cant say exactly in the top 20. And I am not too worried if anyone doesnt like it.




You say that as if all evidence doesnt point to the fact that Idont care what the rankings are to the general public.

I dont care if...you...or..whoever..bumps a guy up. Means nothing to me. I suspect my opinion means little to you as well.






Means nothing without the reasons they happened. Especially the titles. Im just not gonna weight 6 titles heavily when the best player won 5 without you and said the team was better the year you left.




Playing well enough to win them put him on a whole other level to me. Id have given him neither. Doesnt mean I wouldnt see how good he was and adjust my opinion accordingly when he ate up the Mavs.
I can respect that, but answer me this

Would Jordan still be considered the best ever if he didn't win multiple championships and multiple titles? Winning counts for something and he wond titles and mvps.

Don't matter how great you are on the court, if he didn't win anything he wouldn't be number one (if you have him number one.)

[DMAVS41]

If he wins them playing worse than ive seen him play...no. He would not.

I am not that type. I was asking why Kobe wasnt top 25 in 2003 and being hated on for saying there were 15 or more players ive seen play about as well or better in 2010. All an MVP and 2 more rings did for Kobes ranking to me was move him from borderline top 20 into...somewhere I cant say exactly in the top 20. And I am not too worried if anyone doesnt like it.




You say that as if all evidence doesnt point to the fact that Idont care what the rankings are to the general public.

I dont care if...you...or..whoever..bumps a guy up. Means nothing to me. I suspect my opinion means little to you as well.






Means nothing without the reasons they happened. Especially the titles. Im just not gonna weight 6 titles heavily when the best player won 5 without you and said the team was better the year you left.




Playing well enough to win them put him on a whole other level to me. Id have given him neither. Doesnt mean I wouldnt see how good he was and adjust my opinion accordingly when he ate up the Mavs.

But what about Cousy? You didn't see him play in 57 when he won MVP. Maybe that would have changed your view on him.

If you are judging these players pretty much solely by watching them play...how can you so easily write off a player that you didn't see play?