Is Bob Cousy underrated on all-time lists?

He seems forgotten or at least underappreciated on all-time lists. And I mean more than just because he played in the 1950s and 1960s. Bob Pettit and George Mikan get more respect.

Before Bill Russell, Boston was an offensively-slanted team that was built around Bob Cousy's shot creation. And those offenses were strong; from 1950-51 to 1955-56, The Celtics rORtg was +3.3 - a great number for six seasons. It took 13 years for Boston's +5.0 rORtg in 1953-54 to be surpassed.

1950-51: +2.2 rORtg
1951-52: +3.5 rORtg
1952-53: +3.7 rORtg
1953-54: +5.0 rORtg (Best offense in NBA history until the 1967 Sixers)
1954-55: +3.2 rORtg
1955-56: +1.9 rORtg

1950-1956: +3.25 rORtg

The team made the playoffs every year, winning multiple playoff series. But they could never win it all, not until Russ came to town. But that doesn't change the fact that they were a strong team that could be described as contenders in some of those seasons.

Cousy was like the Nash of the '50s. He played the same primary shot creator role and likewise had two great supporting acts in Ed Macauley and Bill Sharman. The key cog in the strongest offenses of the era.

Now, if you purely looked at box scores, you'd probably think Macauley or Sharman were the better, more important players on the team. But it was Cousy who was garnering the most praise and winning the MVP awards. This leads me to my next point...

The NBA MVP Award was introduced in 1955-56 and was won by Bob Pettit. Cousy was third and would win the next year. But what some of you might not realize it that the media/press had an MVP award going back to the 1949-50 season. It was called the Metropolitan Sportwriters Sam Davis Memorial Award.

1949-50 - George Mikan, MPL
1950-51 - George Mikan, MPL
1951-52 - Paul Arizin, PHW
1952-53 - Bob Cousy, BOS
1953-54 - Neil Johnston, PHW
1954-55 - Bob Cousy, BOS

The way I look at it, Cousy was a three-time MVP. 1953, 1955, and 1957. Does that change your view of him as a player and his position on all-time lists? And it would seem reductive to disregard them because he won the last one over Bob Pettit and a rookie Bill Russell. And he did deserve it over Russ, which goes into the next point...

A lot of people may not know this, but Boston played better without Russell in the regular season during his rookie year. The team was 15-4 when healthy before Bill had even played a game. In the 48 games he did play, The Celtics were 28-20. With Cousy, Boston went 41-23.

[quote]Bringing up the '57 season, the team was spearheaded by Cousy/Sharman while Heinsohn helped shore up their rebounding, leading to a 15-4 full strength record pre-Russell. This Celtics team looked strong on both sides of the ball and were blowing the lid off every team in the league before Russell and Ramsey had arrived, leading to complaints from various teams regarding the Celtics and their plethora of talent on standby. Could Cousy have led this team to a championship without Russell? We'll never know. But what we do know is that Celtics team was already looking like a clear favorite without the addition of two future Hall of Famers.[/quote]

I'm not trying to denigrate Bill Russell. Nor am I suggesting Bob Cousy was better because he wasn't. I'm just validating Bob Cousy's 1957 MVP.

What was being said/written of Cousy during his prime:

[quote]Throughout the 50s, Cousy was not only regarded as the most important player on the Celtics, but one of the best players in the entire league. Before the official NBA MVP Award, the Sam Davis Memorial Award was the unofficial MVP award voted on by sportswriters--Cousy won this award in '53 and '55. He also finished 3rd in voting for the '56 MVP award that Pettit won, while Macauley didn't receive any votes. Macauley was a star, but Cousy was being touted as the greatest since Mikan. Players and coaches around the league had nothing but the highest praise for his play:

Paul Birch: "Cousy is the greatest basketball ever saw--and remember... I saw Nat Holman." - 1951

[img]https://i.ibb.co/2NByc0h/u8qQ09z.jpg[/img]

Joe Lapchick: "Greatest all-around ball player I've ever seen." - 1954

[img]https://i.ibb.co/7XNCqB2/HcsPq4h.jpg[/img]

George Senesky Likens Cousy to Babe Ruth - 1956

[img]https://i.ibb.co/d59Tnxs/247k6GT.jpg[/img][/quote]

More good Cousy stuff:

[QUOTE]I think suggesting that basketball minds were primarily overrating Cousy because of high pace and gaudy scoring numbers is a little too simplistic. I mean, these are players and coaches that correctly understood Russell's impact on defense, even though he wasn't putting up high scoring numbers--I'd give them a little more credit here, with extra value on Auerbach's opinion.

I would say the following contributed to the positive outlook on Cousy:

Cousy had an enormous amount of usage during the mid 50s and was churning out top offenses, including the single greatest relative offense until 1967. In '55 the Celtics still held strong at #1 even after Macauley likely fell off after suffering a finger injury on his shooting hand in the '54 playoffs that would have him considering retirement less than a year later.

Watching Cousy's ability to create for teammates firsthand. This is much of what is talked about in sources--he helped find open shots and create high value assists in an era where they were hard to come by. This is also why Macauley and Sharman were never praised to the level Cousy was, because a significant portion of their shots were a direct result of Cousy himself.

Bringing up the '57 season, the team was spearheaded by Cousy/Sharman while Heinsohn helped shore up their rebounding, leading to a 15-4 full strength record pre-Russell. This Celtics team looked strong on both sides of the ball and were blowing the lid off every team in the league before Russell and Ramsey had arrived, leading to complaints from various teams regarding the Celtics and their plethora of talent on standby. Could Cousy have led this team to a championship without Russell? We'll never know. But what we do know is that Celtics team was already looking like a clear favorite without the addition of two future Hall of Famers.

For as much people want to harp on Cousy for his efficiency, the Celtics won again and again with him playing heavy minutes in the playoffs past his prime. His genius coach/GM in Red Auerbach saw the value in him, as did his teammates, and I believe the consistency of their winning shows that there is underlying impact that stats cannot truly show.[/QUOTE]

Some more good stuff. It's worth pointing out that Cousy's offensive game didn't fit with Russell's all that well.

And also, there are questions regarding Basketball Reference's numbers in the '50s, '60s, and early '70s. They use league-average turnover and offensive rebounding rate to account for missing data. Because of this, Boston's defenses are overstated and their offenses are understated. Thinking Basketball came up with a supposed better way and it looks favorably for Cousy.

[QUOTE]Cousy's efficiency was negatively impacted by Russell, but his shot creation and passing ability was still necessary for the Celtics' style of play. Not only was Cousy better with the ball in his hands than guys like Heinsohn, Sharman, and Russell--but Cousy having the ball and taking shots in place of other players allowed less energy to be expended for better defense, especially from Russell, who could pass up the court and save energy while Cousy created. Auerbach understood how important this was to the team, and that's part of the reason why Cousy is either leading or second on the team in playoff minutes until his last couple years.

And for what it's worth, Ben Taylor's Historical data is far more optimistic on the Celtics' Cousy-Russell era offense:

1957 Celtics rORTG: +2.2 - 2nd of 8
1958 Celtics rORTG: +1.4 - 3rd of 8
1959 Celtics rORTG: +1.7 - 4th of 8
1960 Celtics rORTG: +2.5 - 2nd of 8
1961 Celtics rORTG: -1.4 - 7th of 8
1962 Celtics rORTG: +0.9 - 5th of 9
1963 Celtics rORTG: -0.6 - 5th of 9
1964 Celtics rORTG: -2.4 - 8th of 9 (No Cousy)

The offense obviously takes a hit when Russell joins. Cousy, past his prime and oft-injured, is helping to keep the offense afloat until retirement.

I'd like to bring up the negative impact Russell had on the Celtics offense, particularly on shot creators, as a trade off for his defense. Cousy went from a career-high free throw rate to the lowest seasons of his career (excluding rookie) with Russell, which also hampered his efficiency:

‘54 TS+ (Pre-Russell): 105
'55 TS+ (Pre-Russell): 105
'56 TS+ (Pre-Russell): 101
'57 TS+ (Half-Russell): 101
'58 TS+ (With Russell): 92

‘54 FTr (Pre-Russell): .414
'55 FTr (Pre-Russell): .433
'56 FTr (Pre-Russell): .461
'57 FTr (Half-Russell): .350
'58 FTr (With Russell): .258

Looking deeper into Cousy's splits for the 1957 season, the addition of Russell and how it impacted Cousy becomes more clear:

First 24 Games Played (Pre-Russell): 23.2 PPG/8.7 FTA (Career highs)
Next 24 Games Played (With Russell): 20.4 PPG/5.8 FTA
Total in 40 Games Played (With Russell): 19.1 PPG/5.8 FTA (Lowest since rookie season)

14 Games of Full Box Score Data (Pre-Russell): 48.69 TS% (Career high)
28 Games of Full Box Score Data (With Russell): 44.32 TS% (Lowest since rookie season)

Something similar can be seen in John Havlicek, who was also the main offensive option for the Celtics before Russell's departure:

'68 TS+ (With Russell): 98
'69 TS+ (With Russell): 94
'70 TS+ (Post-Russell): 104
'71 TS+ (Post-Russell): 103
'72 TS+ (Post-Russell): 102

'68 FG+ (With Russell): 96
'69 FG+ (With Russell): 92
'70 FG+ (Post-Russell): 101
'71 FG+ (Post-Russell): 100
'72 FG+ (Post-Russell: 101

Havlicek has a substantial increase in FG%, rising to nearly 5-6% for the rest of his career following Russell. One thing to note is Havlicek’s increase in FT% is in part due to the ball change during the 1970 season that caused an increase in league wide FT%, although no other player had the increase in FG% that Havlicek did. While one could argue this increase in efficiency is due to Havlicek growing as a player, I do think his jump coinciding with Russell leaving is notable and is an interesting comparison to Cousy’s situation.

With the lack of spacing and Auerbach's shoot-at-will strategy, Cousy's efficiency was negatively impacted. The Celtics as a whole had few players that could actually create their own shot like Cousy, and in an effort for Russell to feel more involved, Auerbach made it a point to get him touches. It's clear why the offense gets worse with Russell when watching Celtics film: Russell hand-off into a contested jumper, Russell screen into a contested jumper, or a clogged lane into a contested jumper. The Celtics wanted to be in transition as much as possible because of this--their offense was most successful with the ball in Cousy's hands and the team running with him.[/QUOTE]

Here are the complete team numbers with Thinking Basketball's alleged better method:

[quote]If I remember correctly, Elgee came up with a better way to predict ratings for seasons before 1974 and basketball reference hasn't been updated to reflect this. Here are the updated numbers for the Celtics. (Not sure if this is allowed but I do feel like it's very interesting data that a lot of people would find relevant)

56-57: +2.2 rORtg -2.5 rDRtg
57-58:+1.4 rORtg -3.1 rDRtg
58-59:+1.7 rORtg -3.5 rDRtg
59-60:+2.5 rORtg -3.7 rDRtg
60-61: -1.4 rORtg -5.5 rDRtg
61-62: +0.9 rORtg -6.1 rDRtg
62-63: -0.6 rORtg -6.3 rDRtg
63-64: -2.4 rORtg -8.7 rDRtg
64-65: -0.4 rORtg -7.2 rDRtg
65-66: -0.5 rORtg -4.5 rDRtg
66-67: +2.3 rORtg -4.3 rDRtg
67-68: +0.5 rORtg -2.8 rDRtg
68-69: +0.1 rORtg -4.6 rDRtg

Essentially, the Celtics weren't as bad offensively, and weren't as good defensively as we previously thought. How that changes your perception of Russell and/or his supporting cast is up to you, but it is interesting.[/quote]

Cousy was easily the best player of the 50s (who played the entire decade.)
Bob was still All-NBA 1st teamer when the new wavers of Wilt, West, Baylor and Oscar came in.
It was a BIG DEAL when he came out of retirement for those few (terrible) games.
On the negative side ... is it really negative. I've heard that Bob Davies was the better PG in the early 50s.
Maybe like a CP3-Deron thing goin on.

Just about everyone before the merger is underrated. And the further back you go, the worse it gets. So much is different.

In 56-57, for example, The Celtics had 19 back to backs, an additional 4 stretches of three nights in a row, and one stretch of 5 games in a row. One of the three night sequences was a road trip where they had games in Minneapolis, Fort Worth, and St Louis on three consecutive nights. This involved flying coach in the mid-1950s. In general, the schedules were worse and life off the court was much worse for these players.

That says nothing about worse shoes, worse facilities, worse training, etc…

On top of that, the rules were so much different at the time that the game looks alien to us. People will say that Cousy couldn’t handle the ball, without realizing that none of the guys they admire for great handles could dribble in the 1950s — they would have to completely relearn the skill. Would Cousy have been able to learn to shoot better than he did? I don’t know - Westbrook hasn’t been able to.

What’s clear however is that Cousy changed people’s idea about what Basketball could be like. In that way, he’s a lot like Earl Monroe or Dr. J from my generation, or Steph now.

[QUOTE=Duffy Pratt;14892708]Just about everyone before the merger is underrated. And the further back you go, the worse it gets. So much is different.

In 56-57, for example, The Celtics had 19 back to backs, an additional 4 stretches of three nights in a row, and one stretch of 5 games in a row. One of the three night sequences was a road trip where they had games in Minneapolis, Fort Worth, and St Louis on three consecutive nights. This involved flying coach in the mid-1950s. In general, the schedules were worse and life off the court was much worse for these players.

That says nothing about worse shoes, worse facilities, worse training, etc…

On top of that, the rules were so much different at the time that the game looks alien to us. People will say that Cousy couldn’t handle the ball, without realizing that none of the guys they admire for great handles could dribble in the 1950s — they would have to completely relearn the skill. Would Cousy have been able to learn to shoot better than he did? I don’t know - Westbrook hasn’t been able to.

What’s clear however is that Cousy changed people’s idea about what Basketball could be like. In that way, he’s a lot like Earl Monroe or Dr. J from my generation, or Steph now.[/QUOTE]

Cousy was a strong free-throw shooter (80.3%) and was noted in articles of the time for having a good one-handed set shot. And that was done with the old four-panel ball that had less grip. League-wide FT% skyrocketed when they switched to the modern eight-panel ball in 1969-70.

Not to mention the often-cold arenas and wonky rims and backboards. Just a lack of quality and standardization to the equipment as you alluded to.

Good free-throw shooting is no guarantee, or else Westbrook and AD would've been far better outside shooters. But it's still the best thing to look at for those older-era players. Outliers exist but on the whole, good foul-line shooters tend to be good perimeter shooters.

I'm sure Cousy would've developed strong outside shooting to round out and modernize his game.

:bowdown:

[video=youtube;6gDLsZlLEPw]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6gDLsZlLEPw&pp=ygUUYm9iIGNvdXN5IGJsdWUgY2hpcHM%3D[/video]

[QUOTE=Im Still Ballin;14892795]:bowdown:

[video=youtube;6gDLsZlLEPw]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6gDLsZlLEPw&pp=ygUUYm9iIGNvdXN5IGJsdWUgY2hpcHM%3D[/video][/QUOTE]

Came in here to post this.

Bob was great for his time, and no one can take that away from him.
But he isn’t overlooked on all time great lists.
His entire generation is, and it’s not an injustice to do so.
That generation was very very primitive, and cannot be translated as any equivalent to the modern game.

I'll comment on your post, tl/dr for now, but from what I've seen in clips, it's pretty clear that Cousy was a revolutionary, he was the first flashy point guard.

Great series of posts OP!

Thinking Basketball indeed has better estimates of ORtg and DRtg compared to Basketball-Reference. It does sort of shatter the prevailing narrative that the Celtics were a defensive dynasty while struggling on offense. It's also interesting that in the playoffs, the Celtics did even better on offense.

Cousy was definitely the first great offensive engine in the NBA. Mikan too although he had more of a two-way impact.

In a sense YES! Because when you look at his team accolades, solo accolades, and his impact on the game (was the first showtime type of PG with the passing flair), he COULD make a case for top 5 GOAT PG status. Because GOAT status is largely based on your total career resume. People clown him for his handles, BUT his dime game ABSOLUTELY stands up.

But what hurts him is his PEAK-PRIME VALUE in comparison to other PG's. BECAUSE peak-prime status is ALSO a part of GOAT criteria. It's HARDER TO ENVISION Cousy being great in today's game AS OPPOSED to guards in the 60's like Oscar, West, and Earl The Pearl. I could see all three of them being great in today's game with ONLY some minor tweaks. With Cousy and others from the 50's, they would need MAJOR TWEAKS to be great in today's game. I'm not saying Cousy COULDN'T OF. But going off the EYE TEST the evidence isn't as strong for Cousy as it is for a West, Oscar, or Monroe.

So for those reasons, I think Cousy ranked ANYWHERE between 8-10 in the top 10 GOAT PG's AT BEST is more than fair. BUT once again his resume and impact on the game is top 5 PG GOAT caliber in general. When you throw in his peak-prime status that takes him OUT OF the top 5 PG GOAT group.