Tyus Jones vs Bob Cousy

[JimmyFromNz]

The player comparison we really didn't need.

[dygaction]

Who you got?

1) LeBron James

2) random bench scrub on the 2090/91 Knicks

According to the logic of the OP, obviously #2.

Absolutely not a ridiculous choice.
Who you got? 100 meter sprint Olympic champion 100 years ago or a scrub in 2020 Olympic semi finals?

[tsherkin]

I think a lot of people are getting hung up on his shooting percentages without realizing the context of the time. In the 50s there was no such thing as a defensive 3 second violation or a three point shot and you actually had to dribble properly so bigs would just camp in the paint on defense which made it especially difficult for guards to score. A career shooting percentage of 37.5% for a 6' 1" high usage guard who mostly played in the 50s was actually an impressive number. The league average FG% was under 40% until 1960. Wilt became the first player in NBA history to shoot over 50% from the floor in 1961. Stick him in today's league with much looser dribbling rules, way better spacing and offensive sets and he would have an easier time finding points than you would think, although his passing would still be the star point of his game, he led the league in assists 8 times after all in the era where it was hardest to get assists

It's not about his shooting percentages in the raw form. If you look at that, he looks awful. It's more that he was inefficient relative to his peers, and his shooting percentages weren't good even for the time. He wasn't a good scorer in his own time; the only place he grades out well in that respect is in terms of volume. I wouldn't compare his raw FG% to today's players, because that just wouldn't make sense. The rims are different, the strategy is different, the training was different, etc. His career started 70+ years ago, so of course the particulars won't line up well in terms of raw shooting percentages. It was a different league environment.

Having said that, he was a career 96 2P+ player, and 98 TS+ (and considerably worse after 1957). Neither of those is good at all.

[TheGOATRises007]

Who you got?

1) LeBron James

2) random bench scrub on the 2090/91 Knicks

According to the logic of the OP, obviously #2.

Absolutely not a ridiculous choice.
Who you got? 100 meter sprint Olympic champion 100 years ago or a scrub in 2020 Olympic semi finals?

Very harsh.

Out of curiosity, does anyone know the times in this example?

[dygaction]

According to the logic of the OP, obviously #2.

Absolutely not a ridiculous choice.
Who you got? 100 meter sprint Olympic champion 100 years ago or a scrub in 2020 Olympic semi finals?

Very harsh.

Out of curiosity, does anyone know the times in this example?

Easy to find:
Olympic Record 10.6 Donald Lippincott (USA) Stockholm (SWE) July 6, 1912

The last one in the past Olympic Semifinal out of 24 players was 10.3; First person to ever run within 10sec was in 1968, but in last Olympic all qualified runners in the finals were within 10sec.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Athletics_at_the_2020_Summer_Olympics_%E2%80%93_Men%27s_100_metres

[NZB2323]

Bob Cousy walked so Tyus Jones could run.

By that logic the caveman who invented the wheel is just as knowledegable about engineering as a modern physicist.

It’s kind of like saying all the Generals today are better than Napoleon because they know how to use modern forces.

Or that physicists today are better than Einstein because they have more knowledge now.

[One_and_Done]

Bob Cousy walked so Tyus Jones could run.

By that logic the caveman who invented the wheel is just as knowledegable about engineering as a modern physicist.

It’s kind of like saying all the Generals today are better than Napoleon because they know how to use modern forces.

Or that physicists today are better than Einstein because they have more knowledge now.

The question is whether they could adapt to today's game. Einstein was a genius so he clearly could. A caveman could not, because all his greatness is based on being first, not on any inherent and objectuve genius.

[OhMyGodBecky]

The MVP winner, 12x all league and 8x assist champ.

[NZB2323]

By that logic the caveman who invented the wheel is just as knowledegable about engineering as a modern physicist.

It’s kind of like saying all the Generals today are better than Napoleon because they know how to use modern forces.

Or that physicists today are better than Einstein because they have more knowledge now.

The question is whether they could adapt to today's game. Einstein was a genius so he clearly could. A caveman could not, because all his greatness is based on being first, not on any inherent and objectuve genius.

You think the first person to invent the wheel wasn’t smart and creative?

[xdrta+]

By that logic the caveman who invented the wheel is just as knowledegable about engineering as a modern physicist.

It’s kind of like saying all the Generals today are better than Napoleon because they know how to use modern forces.

Or that physicists today are better than Einstein because they have more knowledge now.

The question is whether they could adapt to today's game. Einstein was a genius so he clearly could. A caveman could not, because all his greatness is based on being first, not on any inherent and objectuve genius.

You know this...how? Oh, right, because they lived a long time ago.

[maradro]

Absolutely not a ridiculous choice.
Who you got? 100 meter sprint Olympic champion 100 years ago or a scrub in 2020 Olympic semi finals?

Very harsh.

Out of curiosity, does anyone know the times in this example?

Easy to find:
Olympic Record 10.6 Donald Lippincott (USA) Stockholm (SWE) July 6, 1912

The last one in the past Olympic Semifinal out of 24 players was 10.3; First person to ever run within 10sec was in 1968, but in last Olympic all qualified runners in the finals were within 10sec.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Athletics_at_the_2020_Summer_Olympics_%E2%80%93_Men%27s_100_metres

Ok, so if the time machine is like in the terminator movies... Wouldn't it stand to reason that the runner from 1912 would improve with 2020 shoes, and that the 2020 runner would suffer with 1912 shoes?

[maradro]

I think the 2020 race, the 1912 runner would slightly improve but the 2020 runner would still win.. but in the 1912 race the 2020 runner would struggle more

So in basketball terms, I think someone like cousy could hang today but would probably not have the same impact they did in their era, but Jones would be worse in the past, don't agree at all that "playing a level down" had anything to do with it and agree with the person who questioned if youve ever dribbled a basketball

[SportsGuru08]

I think the 2020 race, the 1912 runner would slightly improve but the 2020 runner would still win.. but in the 1912 race the 2020 runner would struggle more

So in basketball terms, I think someone like cousy could hang today but would probably not have the same impact they did in their era, but Jones would be worse in the past, don't agree at all that "playing a level down" had anything to do with it and agree with the person who questioned if youve ever dribbled a basketball

For comparison's sake, Jesse Owens and Usain Bolt. On paper, Bolt's 9.58 mark in the 100 meter race demolishes Owens's 10.2 mark. But it should also be noted that Bolt had access to specialized sneakers, a starting block, specifically-designed synthetic tracks, and an electronic timing system.

Owens wore leather shoes, did not have a starting block to give him a head start, typically ran on uneven tracks, and was timed with stopwatches, which are less accurate than electronic timers.

That's not to say Bolt would be a slowpoke in 1936. But it's doubtful he runs 100 meters in 9.58 seconds.

[One_and_Done]

It’s kind of like saying all the Generals today are better than Napoleon because they know how to use modern forces.

Or that physicists today are better than Einstein because they have more knowledge now.

The question is whether they could adapt to today's game. Einstein was a genius so he clearly could. A caveman could not, because all his greatness is based on being first, not on any inherent and objectuve genius.

You think the first person to invent the wheel wasn’t smart and creative?

I don't think it would translate.

[FarBeyondDriven]

Bob Cousy wasn't a good scorer in his own time; I struggle to imagine him being a better one today. He was bad at finishing shots by the standards of his own era, let alone this one. He did not age well into the 60s, not even as well as some of his peers. He was relatively small.

The game was different in his time, so there's something to be said about emphasis placed and all that stuff. He did some stuff in the 50s that we didn't see a lot until other electric players like Magic and what-not; dude definitely knew how to leverage the no-look and the behind-the-back pass, for example. He did the wrap-around-while-dribbling-into-a-pass thing, too, and he could bomb one hell of an outlet pass. He had a handle that would scale well if he were allowed to dribble like guys even from the 70s, let alone now, I suspect. So with that said, he'd probably find a way to be an impact player on offense with some contemporary training.

His playmaking was generally where his value was seen, so now we're talking more about the offensive equivalent of a Ricky Rubio or Rajon Rondo, presuming that he adapted well. Cousy is a guy who I think was very important to basketball, but ported forward? I think he would struggle a lot in today's game as a scoring threat. Not so much in other aspects, though. Teams today definitely wouldn't want to use him in the same volume-scoring role as Boston did in the 50s. Not without major changes in his scoring toolset, anyway.

He played a lot more in the post and using that lefty hook than would make sense in today's game... and he had the league's premiere shot blocker on his own squad; he'd struggle more in a league where that was the norm, finishing inside. But they also teach shooting differently in today's game, as well as differences in how to use screens. Given his competent (if unremarkable) FT shooting, it's hard not to envision him as a 34%+ 3pt shooter with appropriate training time if he'd been born in the modern era. It's tough to project, because his scoring game was so archaic by today's standards and the game so different. He didn't have a modern scoring game at all.

But his vision was pretty excellent and his technical passing game stands up today just fine, so that's a nice foundation.

Tyus Jones isn't good. But he's a decent enough perimeter shooter and he's actually pretty solid from 3, and has been markedly better from the corners these past couple of seasons. So I don't know. If Cousy could be a league-average scorer, then of course his playmaking would elevate him easily over someone like Jones in terms of overall value, that's for sure.

you typed all that, with such certainty, yet are dead wrong. He was quite literally one of the best scorers in the league until the Celtics added Hall of Famers Heinsohn and Russell in 1956, he aged, and a bunch of great and younger players came into the league like Wilt, Pettit, West, Oscar and Bellamy. Basically a top 10 scorer for a decade. Not bad for "wasn't a good scorer in his time"

Cousy points scored per season

9th (rookie)
3rd
3rd
2nd
3rd
7th
8th
16th
9th
12th
17th
27th

I think a lot of people are getting hung up on his shooting percentages without realizing the context of the time. In the 50s there was no such thing as a defensive 3 second violation or a three point shot and you actually had to dribble properly so bigs would just camp in the paint on defense which made it especially difficult for guards to score. A career shooting percentage of 37.5% for a 6' 1" high usage guard who mostly played in the 50s was actually an impressive number. The league average FG% was under 40% until 1960. Wilt became the first player in NBA history to shoot over 50% from the floor in 1961. Stick him in today's league with much looser dribbling rules, way better spacing and offensive sets and he would have an easier time finding points than you would think, although his passing would still be the star point of his game, he led the league in assists 8 times after all in the era where it was hardest to get assists

yep, it's why engaging in these discussions is so futile. He was a magician with the ball in his hands. A good comp for about how good he'd be in today's NBA (if he could adjust to the lax rules) would be Chris Paul. A below the rim, pass first PG with flash and ability to hit big shots. Certainly better than Tyus Jones

[doogie_hauser]

OP has spent too much time listening to a clueless moron like Gilbert Arenas

[FarBeyondDriven]

I think a lot of people are getting hung up on his shooting percentages without realizing the context of the time. In the 50s there was no such thing as a defensive 3 second violation or a three point shot and you actually had to dribble properly so bigs would just camp in the paint on defense which made it especially difficult for guards to score. A career shooting percentage of 37.5% for a 6' 1" high usage guard who mostly played in the 50s was actually an impressive number. The league average FG% was under 40% until 1960. Wilt became the first player in NBA history to shoot over 50% from the floor in 1961. Stick him in today's league with much looser dribbling rules, way better spacing and offensive sets and he would have an easier time finding points than you would think, although his passing would still be the star point of his game, he led the league in assists 8 times after all in the era where it was hardest to get assists

It's not about his shooting percentages in the raw form. If you look at that, he looks awful. It's more that he was inefficient relative to his peers, and his shooting percentages weren't good even for the time. He wasn't a good scorer in his own time; the only place he grades out well in that respect is in terms of volume. I wouldn't compare his raw FG% to today's players, because that just wouldn't make sense. The rims are different, the strategy is different, the training was different, etc. His career started 70+ years ago, so of course the particulars won't line up well in terms of raw shooting percentages. It was a different league environment.

Having said that, he was a career 96 2P+ player, and 98 TS+ (and considerably worse after 1957). Neither of those is good at all.

except he wasn't. Not to mention, Cousy was leading the league in assists and helping lead his teams to championships while he was scoring so well for a PG.

Top 3 scoring point guards FG% by year

1950

Cousy - 35%
Scolari - 32%
Davies - 37%

1951

Cousy - 37%
Davies - 38%
Scolari - 33%

1952

Cousy - 35%
Davies - 39%
Scolari - 34%

1953

Cousy - 39%
Davies - 37%
Phillips - 38%

1954

Cousy - 40%
Martin- 38%
George - 39%

1955

Cousy - 36%
Martin- 36%
George - 37%

1956

Cousy - 38%
Braun- 38%
Leonard - 35%

you're left with a guy leading the league in assists every season, among the leading scorers and easily the highest scoring PG in the game and his efficiency was in line with the other much less impactful point guards (his peers) yet your take is "he wasn't a good scorer" basically based on nothing. Poor efficiency for point guards was a product of the time for a variety of reasons and does not equate to him not being a good scorer. Just take the L

[zeebneeb]

you typed all that, with such certainty, yet are dead wrong. He was quite literally one of the best scorers in the league until the Celtics added Hall of Famers Heinsohn and Russell in 1956, he aged, and a bunch of great and younger players came into the league like Wilt, Pettit, West, Oscar and Bellamy. Basically a top 10 scorer for a decade. Not bad for "wasn't a good scorer in his time"

Cousy points scored per season

9th (rookie)
3rd
3rd
2nd
3rd
7th
8th
16th
9th
12th
17th
27th

I think a lot of people are getting hung up on his shooting percentages without realizing the context of the time. In the 50s there was no such thing as a defensive 3 second violation or a three point shot and you actually had to dribble properly so bigs would just camp in the paint on defense which made it especially difficult for guards to score. A career shooting percentage of 37.5% for a 6' 1" high usage guard who mostly played in the 50s was actually an impressive number. The league average FG% was under 40% until 1960. Wilt became the first player in NBA history to shoot over 50% from the floor in 1961. Stick him in today's league with much looser dribbling rules, way better spacing and offensive sets and he would have an easier time finding points than you would think, although his passing would still be the star point of his game, he led the league in assists 8 times after all in the era where it was hardest to get assists

The "context" being "everyone sucked back then, including at shooting". Why should we reward you for playing in a sucky league? If someone who was 5% above average at shooting was ported into today's game, they wouldn't be 5% better than today's shooters. They'd be just terrible at shooting (and everything else in most cases).

Cousy would fit in perfectly on the G-League Ignite as a back-up janitor during the offseason. I don't see much use for him dribbling on a basketball court today other than with a mop.

If you were honest when you started this thread, it would have been closed by the moderators quickly.

Thread title-Bob Cousy sucks and would have been a g-league janitor.

So you used deception, to just tell anyone who'd listen to your opinion of a former league MVP. For some reason you hate this man, and most players from that era.

The real question is why?

[FarBeyondDriven]

I think the 2020 race, the 1912 runner would slightly improve but the 2020 runner would still win.. but in the 1912 race the 2020 runner would struggle more

So in basketball terms, I think someone like cousy could hang today but would probably not have the same impact they did in their era, but Jones would be worse in the past, don't agree at all that "playing a level down" had anything to do with it and agree with the person who questioned if youve ever dribbled a basketball

they say that just sneakers, starting blocks, electronic times and surface changes would potentially shave .3 to .4 seconds off of Jesse Owens' 10.2 time putting him in the Finals of any 100m race in history. If Owens also had modern training and nutrition he's likely pushing Usain Bolt.

They actually did an experiment where they took a modern Olympic medalist 100m sprinter, Andre De Grasse and had him run in similar sneakers, digging his own starter's block and on a similar track as Owens. And guess what...he ran it in 11 seconds?!

Point is, people way underrate older athletes and way overrate modern ones. We really haven't gotten much stronger, faster, taller, more skilled. The only things that have changed is access to PEDs, better training/nutrition and rules changes allowing the games to be easier.

[70sFan]

By that logic the caveman who invented the wheel is just as knowledegable about engineering as a modern physicist.

It’s kind of like saying all the Generals today are better than Napoleon because they know how to use modern forces.

Or that physicists today are better than Einstein because they have more knowledge now.

The question is whether they could adapt to today's game. Einstein was a genius so he clearly could. A caveman could not, because all his greatness is based on being first, not on any inherent and objectuve genius.

Do you genuinely believe that there were no geniuses among "cavemen"? Seriously?

Not to mention that Cousy was born way later than Einstein, he's alive and yet he's the one compared to a caveman. Would you say that to Cousy with a straight face? Are you 15 or what?