Why isn't Bob Cousy considered as one of the best little men?

[tgan3]

It's always Iverson or Isiah.

Cousy averaged 18.4ppg 7.5apg in 14 seasons. He is a 6 times NBA champion and 1 NBA MVP. He has 13 All Star selection and 10 NBA first team selections. Very very impressive resume if you ask me.

[moe94]

Same reason Pettit gets no respect.

[JimmyMcAdocious]

Same reason Pettit gets no respect.

Prejudice against people named Bob.

[La Frescobaldi]

Because nobody ever saw him so they have no clue.

[MavsSuperFan]

Because they played in a league with less overall talent.

Primarily because;

1. Racial discrimination.
2. Much lower financial incentives attracting talent. (people were better off becoming a doctor than an NBA player. Lots of players had to work second jobs to get by.)
3. Much smaller population pool (eg. zero international players).

Lol at all the 60s nut huggers who are going to neg this.

Edit:
The first point is self explanatory

2. Lots of kids today who display talent at basketball, basically dedicate their whole lives to trying to make the NBA. Turning over their lives to AAU coaches. While this has obvious negatives, it cant be argued that this focus on basketball better develops basketball skills. Note that I recognize that the kid is screwed if he cant make it to the NBA, but we are only talking about the effect on the overall talent/skills of the NBA. Back when the financial incentives of the NBA were much lower, no one would have done this.

I learned from a guy on ISH that Bob Pettit got a law degree. What pro athlete today gets a law degree? No one. Even supposedly smart ones like Peyton Manning get joke degrees in communications. Pro Athletes today need to focus on getting better at their sports.

3. This is also obvious. A guy like dirk in the 1960s would never have joined the NBA.

[yobore]

Because they played in a league with less overall talent.

Primarily because;

1. Racial discrimination.
2. Much lower financial incentives attracting talent. (people were better off becoming a doctor than an NBA player. Lots of players had to work second jobs to get by.)
3. Much smaller population pool (eg. zero international players).
truth.

[moe94]

Lol at all the 60s nut huggers who are going to neg this.

They're coming for you.

[ballup]

As shown before, some people think that since Cousy played in the 60s and before, so he's not viewed as up to standards of today's players.

Cousy played with Russell, who was and is viewed as the main man of those Celtics. Most great players from that era get eclipsed by the whole Wilt vs Russell.

Another thing is footage availability. Footage of that era isn't as easy to come by as later eras.

[Mr. Jabbar]

you don't get to be white, short, play on a shity era, and get away with it

[inclinerator]

6'1 , too tall for a small little guy

[Beatlezz]

Because

http://i33.tinypic.com/25q817l.jpg

[Mr. Jabbar]

Because

http://i33.tinypic.com/25q817l.jpg

:roll: :roll: :roll:

[moe94]

Because

http://i33.tinypic.com/25q817l.jpg
:oldlol:

[Kblaze8855]

My reasons are very different than those above. I don't really rank him that highly because despite being one of 3 all NBA first teamers on the Celtics before Russell he never made the finals despite needing only one series win to get there all but I think 1 of his years. Bill arrives and a guy who admitted to being a capable but unwilling defender was forced to play winning ball by Russell who pretty much leaks victory. Bill decided dude was awful on D told him to just let his man by if he had to and he would block it....but to go to set spots so Bill recovers the block and knows where to find him to start the break out in front of the defense. Bill did what winners do...make the best of his teammates weaknesses.

So they win it all in Bills rookie season powered almost totally by Bill and fellow rookie Tommy Heinson who combined for 56 points and 55 rebounds in game 7 while cousy went 2-20 for 12 points and 11 assists.

Next season when Bill broke his ankle in the finals and they needed Cousy to lead them again he went I believe 4-18 in the game 6 loss and 4-16 in game 7 while Bob Pettit showed who was boss and dropped 50 with the last 20 points for his team in the 4th to win it all.

Bill is healthy after that and they win 8 straight titles....3 straight after Cousy retired and 5 of Bills 11 in total.


He won rings with Bill shooting 32%, 32%, and .305...he shot under 36% 7 years in a row in the playoffs.


This dude put up 21 points a game on 28% shooting in the playoffs a couple years before Russell arrived......

And its not like he couldn't score...or couldn't shoot even. He was a good Ft shooter and considered an elite scorer of his era. But he would have runs where he makes like 6 shots in 50 over 3-4 games. I saw an article where he questioned if Red just started him out of respect when he had shot like 10% for a week or so and played no defense.

By all accounts the best Celtics team of that era was the year after he left for(surprise surprise) defensive reasons.

He was great in his time....and more well rounded than he gets credit for. He played center from time to time before Bill believe it or not. But I wouldn't want him on my team.

That isn't to say id want no guard from his time on my team. Id take Jerry West all day. Oscar. Even KC Jones who couldn't shoot at all. But he would try hard on both ends and not....go 2-20 in game 7 or miss almost every shot for a week while still leading the NBA in shot attempts.

You can always work with a KC Jones type who knows the game and plays hard defense. Bit of a playmaking Tony Allen.

I cant accept a guy who shot 33% in the 60s when teams would let you run that much, admits to not trying on defense, and did nothing without Bill except lose with one of the most talented teams in the NBA with the best coach to go with it.

Just not my style of pointguard. Its like Ricky Rubio minus defense and not accepting that he isn't a good scorer and going out and forcing things to the tune of 4-26 being a fairly common night for him.

Playmaking only gets you so far.

The way people hate on guys today for shooting 45% fans would be calling for the head of a guy like Cousy. Even if he didn't shoot that poorly for his time....you cant lead the league in shot attempts shooting 35% with two teammates shooting 44 and 45 who can score just as well as you.

Easy Ed led the NBA in shooting percentage back to back years. Bill Sharman shot pretty well for his time and put up 20/5/4 as the best shooter of the 50s. Both all nba first team and elite scorers. I gotta believe some of Cousys misses could have gone their way.

Its like AI shooting 27 times a game when hes playing with Dirk and Ray Allen. At some point I question your decision making even if you are a great playmaker.

[rhowen4]

Because

http://i33.tinypic.com/25q817l.jpg
was waiting for this

[MavsSuperFan]

Because

http://i33.tinypic.com/25q817l.jpg
I cant believe there are people who think that league was as good as the league ever was.
And that stats accumulated in that era should be directly compared to stats in the 1980s and later.

[MavsSuperFan]

I'll keep negging you until you stop making asinine comments doe
Ok please enlighten me on how it was an asinine comment?

Asinine-extremely stupid or foolish.

What have I said that was incorrect?

:lol its funny as much as I used to hate on Lebron, none of his stans got sensitive about it. Deep down they knew Lebron was great.

60s stans, and kevin love stans are more defensive cause deep down they know the truth.

[Psileas]

Because

http://i33.tinypic.com/25q817l.jpg

He's the dribbler, not the fool that was guarding him. :confusedshrug:

[moe94]

60s stans, and kevin love stans are more defensive cause deep down they know the truth.
What's your beef with Love? If it's "empty stats", don't bother replying.


He's the dribbler, not the fool that was guarding him. :confusedshrug:
Are you arguing that entire sequence isn't hilarious for everyone involved and the league itself? Forget homey who dropped on the worst hesitation of all time, look at the other guy. That defense puts Bargs and Harden to absolute shame.

[Marchesk]

you don't get to be white, short, play on a shity era, and get away with it

But you can be white, short and win MVPs over guys like Shaq, Lebron, Kobe and Wade. Or you can be white, short and be considered one of the best PGs ever without winning a title.

Good thing you added that "shitty era" comment. Except it wasn't a shitty era for bigs, unlike today.

[Marchesk]

Regardless of how weak or strong an era is considered, it absolutely should not count against a player's all-time ranking. This is because you don't have a choice who your competition is or what era you're born into. Also because later eras are considered to have advantages not available to players in earlier eras.

So you can mock Cousy for being a shortish, white dude balling it up in the 50s and 60s. But take your favorite PG, have him grow up in that era, and ask yourself if he would have done better?

As for that video, how many times does it have to be pointed out that the rules for dribbling were much stricter? You couldn't get away with the kind of handles you see today. The only real way we have to judge players across eras is how well they did relative to their respective competition.

[moe94]

So you can mock Cousy for being a shortish, white dude balling it up in the 50s and 60s. But take your favorite PG, have him grow up in that era, and ask yourself if he would have done better?

Lettuce be reality, I'd dominate that era. :rockon: :cheers: :banana:

[aj1987]

As for that video, how many times does it have to be pointed out that the rules for dribbling were much stricter? You couldn't get away with the kind of handles you see today.
What's the defenders excuse though? I know that the rules were different for dribbling, but those defenders make JV players look like NBA DPOY's.

[Marchesk]

Lettuce be reality, I'd dominate that era. :rockon: :cheers: :banana:

So you do have access to a time machine? I don't know your height. Will you be dominating Russell, Wilt and Thurmond too? Or just guards like Robertson and West? How about this dude:

http://media.cleveland.com/plutoblog_impact/photo/gus-johnson-2jpg-2f9bff038493bcf4.jpg

[Marchesk]

I don't know if Cavs wants this shared (although I think he's posted it before), but here's a different look at players from the 60s where they look a bit more like pro athletes than that one crappy gif:

http://youtu.be/4seN0mugh1k

[sick_brah07]

Regardless of how weak or strong an era is considered, it absolutely should not count against a player's all-time ranking. This is because you don't have a choice who your competition is or what era you're born into. Also because later eras are considered to have advantages not available to players in earlier eras.

So you can mock Cousy for being a shortish, white dude balling it up in the 50s and 60s. But take your favorite PG, have him grow up in that era, and ask yourself if he would have done better?

As for that video, how many times does it have to be pointed out that the rules for dribbling were much stricter? You couldn't get away with the kind of handles you see today. The only real way we have to judge players across eras is how well they did relative to their respective competition.


I do not dis agree with what your saying because it does make sense and you are right when you say " take your favorite PG, have him grow up in that era, and ask yourself if he would have done better?" obviously the players from then had no video no advance training techniques and based on money being made had no reason to push themselves to the brink like today's players. Obviously with more money being involved the talent pool expands and there is higher competition for that number 1 spot.

However it is also ludacris to assume that you could take a player from then and insert him into today's game and expect similar results, reality is the player would not be able to adjust as a lot of the skills required in the sport have become more advanced. Although players from the past poses certain skills that could translate or natural gifts that could be noticed in todays game all in all they would struggle as the simplest things like how to shuffle your feet on defense or how and when to double the post and who to double off have advanced so far that the general basketball fan TODAY who has never played competitive basketball would struggle to understand or adapt to the X's and O's of the NBA game let alone someone from the 60s who hasn't seen the game develop in 50 years.


For comparison sake, if you took a player from today and put him in the 60's (with a time machine of course) it is a lot more reasonable to assume that the player from today would be able to adapt physically and mentally to the game then, although they might struggle with dribbling or certain particular skills all in all there is a very good chance that player wouldn't struggle to dominate the game based on the simple fact that the game was played more on instinct rather than actually dissecting the game to finer little points like it is today.

I agree it is not fair to discredit all time ratings based on time of play because its not the players fault and it should not dull there accomplishments but it is also crazy to say that if your families life was on the line you would not choose Eric Bledsoe to completely destroy Bob Cousy in a game of one on one with either 60's rules or today's rules

[Marchesk]

I agree it is not fair to discredit all time ratings based on time of play because its not the players fault and it should not dull there accomplishments but it is also crazy to say that if your families life was on the line you would not choose Eric Bledsoe to completely destroy Bob Cousy in a game of one on one with either 60's rules or today's rules

Fair enough, although Cousy isn't the guard I'm thinking of when picking a 60s player to go 1 on 1 with a player today, given time travel.

So there are two concepts here. One is where a player ranks all-time. Era shouldn't be held against them. Another is more hypothetical, and that's ranking based on how good an overall player is perceived to be. And that perception often involves thinking that modern players are more highly conditioned, better trained, and more skilled in general than past players.

All that being said, I'm betting my life on Oscar against Bledsoe.

[sick_brah07]

Fair enough, although Cousy isn't the guard I'm thinking of when picking a 60s player to go 1 on 1 with a player today, given time travel.

So there are two concepts here. One is where a player ranks all-time. Era shouldn't be held against them. Another is more hypothetical, and that's ranking based on how good an overall player is perceived to be. And that perception often involves thinking that modern players are more highly conditioned, better trained, and more skilled in general than past players.

All that being said, I'm betting my life on Oscar against Bledsoe.


Look like i said i agree with what your saying to an extent but because i dont really want to get into a massive debate about it right now ( i am at work lol), i am going to say i respect your opinion and definitely agree that a players all time status should not be affected by all this talk of the game changing over time. But i find it very hard to believe that athletes are not far superior today, maybe using bledsoe wasn't a good example, maybe i should have said steve nash.

In regards to you bringing up the big O, although i respect the man and he has a MASSIVE place in history as one of big time legends of the game who is defiantly under appreciated, i personally do not believe there is a chance in hell that he could go toe to toe in a game of basketball with Lebron James. The man couldn't dribble consistently with his left hand

Just like in other sports like sprinting, marathon running, and swimming, humans adapt and get better at things overtime. We study, analyze things and where there is big money involved we become a lot better at them. Like i said before the more money involved the more amounts of people will invest time into the study of the game and perfecting there craft. I know we are creatures of instinct but we are also creatures of intelligence and to say that we have not gotten smarter and better in the last 50 years at the game of basketball is a little ridiculous

based on prior ISH conversations I'm going to assume you will respond by saying human evolution takes longer than 50 years, to that i will simple say in the last 30 years thanks to TV and Computers( ability to analyze things numerous times and dissect the tiniest things like technique of each movement in sport ) we as humans have advanced and passed on more information and knowledge to each other in 30 years then we have in the 500 years prior to that

like i said i respect your opinion and agree with you that players all time ratings should not be that affected by the game changing but i stand by my opinion in regards to game improvement, players physical and mental development over the years

I am not some young kid who has never watched 80's or 90's basketball, so don't get me wrong its not some stab at the previous eras because i love 80's and 90's basketball (i think it was the most entertaining to watch). I'm just saying from a logical stand point, judging how humans have improved drastically in pretty much all aspects of life and sport in the last 60 years it is in my opinion ridiculous to assume that basketball players haven't drastically improved as well

[cuad]

They haven't. Ever watched the Knicks?

[Pointguard]

Because

http://i33.tinypic.com/25q817l.jpg
So you gonna act like you didn't get vertigo watching this?

[Psileas]

Sick_brah07, the problem is, apart from the mere existence of that ludicrous "time machine" argument that I've never seen used in comparisons of any other aspect, be it athletes or non-athletes - it's only basketball fans the ones that use this stupidity (if it's so easy to get on a time machine and go back to dominate the 60's, go on, challenge accepted, but I'm telling you, I won't hold my breath), for some it seems too easy to assume what a certain player could or could not do, even if his knowledge about this player is limited on Youtube and BBR.
I could comment similarly that a prime Dr.J or a prime Jordan would get destroyed if they participated in a modern Slam Dunk contest, since there are even high schoolers who can perform dunks that would earn 50's back then. How correct would I be? Would I be right to assume that they would never be able to perform a between-the-legs dunk, since I've never seen them execute it? Well, the problem is, I haven't seen them try it even once, let alone dedicate time to "study" it, so making assumptions regarding what they could do would be asinine on my part. Same with someone who would believe that Cousy wouldn't be able to execute things that are now considered basic and not necessarily difficult ("basic" and "difficult" usually don't go together, even for NBA standards).


I know we are creatures of instinct but we are also creatures of intelligence and to say that we have not gotten smarter and better in the last 50 years at the game of basketball is a little ridiculous

The only thing we've become is, as in any other field, better technologically equipped, knowledgeable and prepared. We have absolutely not gotten any smarter (=any more capable of naturally thinking correctly and adapting) and there's no reason to think we have. Whatever we call smartness is only like 1% (maybe even less) innovation and 99+% previous knowledge.

[tgan3]

I cant believe there are people who think that league was as good as the league ever was.
And that stats accumulated in that era should be directly compared to stats in the 1980s and later.

If that is true, why are Wilt and Russell widely considered to be GOAT candidates?

[Psileas]

If that is true, why are Wilt and Russell widely considered to be GOAT candidates?

In short:
1) Not by the same people. The ones whose arguments end with that Cousy clip are not likely to consider Wilt and Russell serious GOAT candidates.
2) Centers developed differently from guards. A center might be easier to adapt in a new era, although he can't prove it.
3) Cousy and someone like Wilt belonged to the same era the same way Jordan and Dr.J belonged to the same era. 1955 is not 1965. When Cousy retired (not counting his comeback), Wilt was only 26.

[LAZERUSS]

I cant believe there are people who think that league was as good as the league ever was.
And that stats accumulated in that era should be directly compared to stats in the 1980s and later.

Interesting...how about this video of some kids in 1962?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=soLH6bau9uo

And then how about this guy in COLLEGE in the late 60's?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gfWkiO2Iz08

[iamgine]

Because of the perception that he was not very good, inefficient and played in a weaker era. Whether this perception is true or not is up for debate but that is the perception.

Just like the perception that there's no good big today so if hypothetically Dwight dominates, it's no big deal.

[TheBigVeto]

Racism.