Tyus Jones vs Bob Cousy

[dhsilv2]

If you gave Einstein the books that explain modern physics, there's no reason to believe he wouldn't still be a genius at physics. You give Cousy video tape and a rule book showing how the league has changed... and he's still out of the league, because his skillset wouldn't let him adapt no matter how he studied the game.

A caveman can't even read, he would have too much to learn to become a genius in physics, and the whole thing is too speculative. We can say the same about Cousy. Maybe there was a 60s YMCA player who could have beaten Jordan , but we'll never know it because he didn't do it. I might as well argue Len Bias would have been the GOAT. It's too speculative.

You have no problem speculating the other way though.. if it's an even comparison they are at least playing on the same rules / sneakers / ball right? So why do you assume this Jones can do step back 3 pointers when he has never used those sneakers, ball, and the court doesn't even have a 3 pt line? If given time to acclimate he could probably still be good, even a star back then.. but straight in a game, with a ball and sneakers he's never used? Good chance he gets injured and can't even finish the game much less be a shooting god.

Your average just graduated astronomer, if teleported to 5000 years back to England they wouldn't be able to design Stonehenge (with all of its astrological alignments, proportions etc) much less build it, unless you sent them with a computer, gps, telescope, and so on.

That's exactly why (reasonable) people don't compare across eras and consider contextual impact

The barriers on Tyus are all easily overcome. Wow, adapting to new shoes. How will he manage. I also generally compare players operating at the highest level, which is a modern setting, not how will these guys play on ashpalt next to a volcano. But here it's irrelevant, as Jones would maybe be considered the GOAT in the 50s & 60s.

A modern scientist could definitely be taught and understand how to build stonehenge if teleported back. They may not have that specific knowledge, but it would easily be within their ability to learn. Cousy can't be teleported to our time and learn to play; he'll just be a water boy.

WTF? Cousy might not make the league as today he'd be undersized and his athletic ability even as the league transitioned into the 60's started to get tested. But he's sure as hell be able to adapt and learn to play the modern game. The game hasn't changed that much for crying out loud.

[Godymas]

When I see these posts put up for the sole purpose of disrespecting players of a different era, I think of Nikola Jokic. If he played exactly the way he does now, only did it in the 50's, he'd be laughed at. You'd be seeing it in black and white and the same people who make these posts would disrespect him.
What is the purpose of this type of post? Can the OPS eliminate them?

pretty sure if Jokic had 70% TS in the 1950s he'd be great no matter what

Bob Cousy was a 44% career TS. Even someone like Wilt was 55% TS for his career

Jokic's efficiency in 1950 would probably blow people's minds, he'd be like a Wayne Gretzky, no one would be able to dispute it

[tsherkin]

A modern scientist could definitely be taught and understand how to build stonehenge if teleported back. They may not have that specific knowledge, but it would easily be within their ability to learn. Cousy can't be teleported to our time and learn to play; he'll just be a water boy.

This is still a problematic analogy.

A modern scientist with all the benefits of decades/centuries of extra knowledge packed into them which was built on the back of what and who came before them being teleported backward isn't the same as considering the unbenefited individuals who figured the rudiments out from nothing. The intellectual potential is there, they simply didn't have the benefit of standing on the shoulders of giants. The implication, then, that there is some degree of superiority in the modern scientist is errant, and rooted entirely in opportunity, not ability/capacity.

Cousy was taught to shoot and score in a manner very different from how he would learn in today's game. That's a product of era, not ability. He shot FTs well enough, if his mechanics were cleaned up, it's not unreasonable to think he could learn how to shoot the way contemporary guys do as long as you don't project him to suddenly be Steph.

Yeah, there's an upper bound to how well Cousy could perform in today's game and his lack of elite-level quickness would be a barrier, but we see guys who aren't stunning athletes do all kinds of stuff. Add to that how screen usage has changed and offensively, things become much more interesting with a competent FT shooter who had objectively great vision and technical passing ability. Dude was throwing passes in the 50s we still get excited about today, it's worth noting.

If you're going to craft a comparison, you can't do so in a manner very specifically tilted against one side and then claim that it's a fair/sensible comparison, dude. It's kinda BS. It's like saying, "okay, but if Jordan was alive today, he wouldn't be a good center."

Well, maybe, but that's a somewhat fool-hardy starting premise, you know what I mean? You afford the modern guys all the benefit of being modern going backward, and deny any benefits of modernity to the older guy being brought forward when those benefits are the major separation between the eras...

[tsherkin]

Bob Cousy was a 44% career TS. Even someone like Wilt was 55% TS for his career

TBF...

1) Wilt sucked donkeys at the line
2) He was a hyper-volume shooter, and there is a threshold of shooting volume which starts to erode scoring efficiency
3) He led the league in FG% 9 times, the last 5 of which were 58%+ (and once did it at 59.5% on 16.8 FGA/g)
4) As far back as 67, he led the league in TS% at 63.7%; 67 forward, he posted 59.2% TS... while shooting 61.7% FG and 44.9% FT


"Even someone like Wilt was 55% TS for his career" escapes a lot of context.

[batmana]

...
The other thing I find funny is when people have to make the past players better than they actually were to compare them to today’s players. They’ll say well Mj or Larry would be a better 3 point shooter or something like that and at that point im always wondering what’s the point. We know how good Larry was at everything, and we know how good MJ was at everything. What’s the point of playing with their ability sliders like its a game of 2k or something....

OK, sure, just because you say so, Bird would only manage to make less than 1 three in today's game even though before Curry existed Bird was basically the greatest shooter ever.
We all know how good Larry was but you don't seem to know it. He has some of the highest scores in the 3-point shootout before they added the bonuses we have now. When he was growing up, the 3-point line didn't exist. He was probably experimenting with long-range shots but didn't have any incentive to practice shooting 1000 3s a day. He literally still is on the shortlist for greatest shooters of all time without practicing 3s. But because you said so, he wouldn't become an all-world 3-point shooter today because he is obviously a worse shooter than Channing Frye, Brook Lopez, Mike Muscala and other guys who in the past and present years have been shooting 3s.

[RSP83]

What's the point of this thread?

You can't just copy paste any player from the 60s and expect them to excel in the 2000s. The rules are different, and skills today is much more advanced compared to the 60s (the game is still at its infancy).

However, if Bob Cousy, talent and all, is born today and grow in today's basketball culture, I have no doubt Cousy will be the better option over Tyus Jones.

[GSWFan1994]

What's the point of this thread?

You can't just copy paste any player from the 60s and expect them to excel in the 2000s. The rules are different, and skills today is much more advanced compared to the 60s (the game is still at its infancy).

However, if Bob Cousy, talent and all, is born today and grow in today's basketball culture, I have no doubt Cousy will be the better option over Tyus Jones.

The point of this thread is to spread awareness about cognitive dissonance.

[Haldi]

...
The other thing I find funny is when people have to make the past players better than they actually were to compare them to today’s players. They’ll say well Mj or Larry would be a better 3 point shooter or something like that and at that point im always wondering what’s the point. We know how good Larry was at everything, and we know how good MJ was at everything. What’s the point of playing with their ability sliders like its a game of 2k or something....

OK, sure, just because you say so, Bird would only manage to make less than 1 three in today's game even though before Curry existed Bird was basically the greatest shooter ever.
We all know how good Larry was but you don't seem to know it. He has some of the highest scores in the 3-point shootout before they added the bonuses we have now. When he was growing up, the 3-point line didn't exist. He was probably experimenting with long-range shots but didn't have any incentive to practice shooting 1000 3s a day. He literally still is on the shortlist for greatest shooters of all time without practicing 3s. But because you said so, he wouldn't become an all-world 3-point shooter today because he is obviously a worse shooter than Channing Frye, Brook Lopez, Mike Muscala and other guys who in the past and present years have been shooting 3s.

Im not saying he couldn’t in some alternate universe where he’s born later, Im saying he didn’t, and that’s a fact, that you yourself seem to agree. It’s exactly like you said, he didn’t spend all that time perfecting it, because back then every coach would tell you you’re wasting time. Today we know better.

I don’t see what the point of imagining Bird in an alternate universe is, when I compare players, I compare how they actually were, not some imagined version of them. Obviously if you make Larry a way better 3 point shooter, give him a euro step and add a bunch of other cool stuff that’s evolved from when he played, he’d be a way better player. But that’s not Larry anymore. Its ok to say today’s players are better BECAUSE of the Birds and the Magics and the MJs and Kobes of the world. But saying that Larry as he was is just as good as Lebron or Durant because superstars back then are just as good as today’s is just wrong.

Think of other very young sports like skateboarding lets say for example. Do we say Stacy Peralta is the GOAT skateboarder. Of course not, the tricks he did were very basic compared to what they do today (is skateboarding still a thing? Lol). What we say is that it’s thanks to him that it went where it went. That’s how you honour legends. Not by pretending that Peralta could do 1080s on a half pipe or by pretending Larry is anywhere close to as good of a shhoter as tons of great shooters today.

Like I said, basketball seems to be the only sport where the egos of older fans and older players don’t want to admit this, its legit weird.

[tsherkin]

...
The other thing I find funny is when people have to make the past players better than they actually were to compare them to today’s players. They’ll say well Mj or Larry would be a better 3 point shooter or something like that and at that point im always wondering what’s the point. We know how good Larry was at everything, and we know how good MJ was at everything. What’s the point of playing with their ability sliders like its a game of 2k or something....

OK, sure, just because you say so, Bird would only manage to make less than 1 three in today's game even though before Curry existed Bird was basically the greatest shooter ever.
We all know how good Larry was but you don't seem to know it. He has some of the highest scores in the 3-point shootout before they added the bonuses we have now. When he was growing up, the 3-point line didn't exist. He was probably experimenting with long-range shots but didn't have any incentive to practice shooting 1000 3s a day. He literally still is on the shortlist for greatest shooters of all time without practicing 3s. But because you said so, he wouldn't become an all-world 3-point shooter today because he is obviously a worse shooter than Channing Frye, Brook Lopez, Mike Muscala and other guys who in the past and present years have been shooting 3s.

Im not saying he couldn’t in some alternate universe where he’s born later, Im saying he didn’t, and that’s a fact, that you yourself seem to agree. It’s exactly like you said, he didn’t spend all that time perfecting it, because back then every coach would tell you you’re wasting time. Today we know better.

I don’t see what the point of imagining Bird in an alternate universe is, when I compare players, I compare how they actually were, not some imagined version of them. Obviously if you make Larry a way better 3 point shooter, give him a euro step and add a bunch of other cool stuff that’s evolved from when he played, he’d be a way better player. But that’s not Larry anymore. Its ok to say today’s players are better BECAUSE of the Birds and the Magics and the MJs and Kobes of the world. But saying that Larry as he was is just as good as Lebron or Durant because superstars back then are just as good as today’s is just wrong.

Think of other very young sports like skateboarding lets say for example. Do we say Stacy Peralta is the GOAT skateboarder. Of course not, the tricks he did were very basic compared to what they do today (is skateboarding still a thing? Lol). What we say is that it’s thanks to him that it went where it went. That’s how you honour legends. Not by pretending that Peralta could do 1080s on a half pipe or by pretending Larry is anywhere close to as good of a shhoter as tons of great shooters today.

Like I said, basketball seems to be the only sport where the egos of older fans and older players don’t want to admit this, its legit weird.

Okay, BUT... specifically in Bird's case?

As he was, Bird was a 24 ppg guy on 56.4% TS, sure. But at his peak, he was a 59.6% TS guy from 85-88, while posting 28.1 / 9.7 / 6.8.

There are some basic things about today's game which would change, so it's fairly likely that without changing a thing, we would see some changes in his efficacy which would benefit his raw efficiency. It's likely he wouldn't just suddenly be a 107-114 TS+ player, sure, but he'd still be very good just based on his size and skill set. And with minimal adaptation, you'd start to see him taking advantage of such things. This isn't the same deal like with Cousy where he needs fundamental reteaching of some of his core skills. You could literally tell Bird to do what he did in his own career, which was "figure out that shooting more 3s is good" and he would do it. Would he maintain 40% on 7+ 3PA/g? Who knows, maybe, maybe not. But he wouldn't have an issue scaling up his volume from outside, and he was a good above-break shooter to begin with in reality.

So he's a poor example for the specific argument you're making.

[Haldi]

OK, sure, just because you say so, Bird would only manage to make less than 1 three in today's game even though before Curry existed Bird was basically the greatest shooter ever.
We all know how good Larry was but you don't seem to know it. He has some of the highest scores in the 3-point shootout before they added the bonuses we have now. When he was growing up, the 3-point line didn't exist. He was probably experimenting with long-range shots but didn't have any incentive to practice shooting 1000 3s a day. He literally still is on the shortlist for greatest shooters of all time without practicing 3s. But because you said so, he wouldn't become an all-world 3-point shooter today because he is obviously a worse shooter than Channing Frye, Brook Lopez, Mike Muscala and other guys who in the past and present years have been shooting 3s.

Im not saying he couldn’t in some alternate universe where he’s born later, Im saying he didn’t, and that’s a fact, that you yourself seem to agree. It’s exactly like you said, he didn’t spend all that time perfecting it, because back then every coach would tell you you’re wasting time. Today we know better.

I don’t see what the point of imagining Bird in an alternate universe is, when I compare players, I compare how they actually were, not some imagined version of them. Obviously if you make Larry a way better 3 point shooter, give him a euro step and add a bunch of other cool stuff that’s evolved from when he played, he’d be a way better player. But that’s not Larry anymore. Its ok to say today’s players are better BECAUSE of the Birds and the Magics and the MJs and Kobes of the world. But saying that Larry as he was is just as good as Lebron or Durant because superstars back then are just as good as today’s is just wrong.

Think of other very young sports like skateboarding lets say for example. Do we say Stacy Peralta is the GOAT skateboarder. Of course not, the tricks he did were very basic compared to what they do today (is skateboarding still a thing? Lol). What we say is that it’s thanks to him that it went where it went. That’s how you honour legends. Not by pretending that Peralta could do 1080s on a half pipe or by pretending Larry is anywhere close to as good of a shhoter as tons of great shooters today.

Like I said, basketball seems to be the only sport where the egos of older fans and older players don’t want to admit this, its legit weird.

Okay, BUT... specifically in Bird's case?

As he was, Bird was a 24 ppg guy on 56.4% TS, sure. But at his peak, he was a 59.6% TS guy from 85-88, while posting 28.1 / 9.7 / 6.8.

There are some basic things about today's game which would change, so it's fairly likely that without changing a thing, we would see some changes in his efficacy which would benefit his raw efficiency. It's likely he wouldn't just suddenly be a 107-114 TS+ player, sure, but he'd still be very good just based on his size and skill set. And with minimal adaptation, you'd start to see him taking advantage of such things. This isn't the same deal like with Cousy where he needs fundamental reteaching of some of his core skills. You could literally tell Bird to do what he did in his own career, which was "figure out that shooting more 3s is good" and he would do it. Would he maintain 40% on 7+ 3PA/g? Who knows, maybe, maybe not. But he wouldn't have an issue scaling up his volume from outside, and he was a good above-break shooter to begin with in reality.

So he's a poor example for the specific argument you're making.

I don’t really disagree with what you’re saying here. I don’t doubt Bird, exactly as he was, would be a great player today. He has a toolkit that would do great things today im sure. What im saying is that he wouldn’t be the clear best or top 2 player in the league like he was in his days. That any gms in the league would pick a bunch of guys before him if they could pick anyone in a redraft or something. But around here, we constantly hear about how Larry Legend would show up the entire league and be the clear best player, oh and my favourite, the good ole “this guy would average 40 today against all these pussies” lol.

And also, that’s just Bird because he was so special and great all around. The amount of guys from Birds era that wouldn’t even come close to the NBA today is quite vast actually, and to undermine today’s players constantly when thats the actual reality is just dumb.

[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 have some of the worst arguments I've ever heard. You start off with deriding the "cavemen" who invented the wheel. First of all, the Sumerians, as far as we know, invented the wheel. Along with arithmetic, geometry, script (yes they could read), a wide variety of tools, even beer. They created civilization as we understand it. Yet, according to you, there couldn't possibly be any genius's among them, apparently because they did things first. As if it doesn't take intelligence to invent something, rather than just improve it. You really need to finish high school before taking on these subjects.

[tsherkin]

I don’t really disagree with what you’re saying here. I don’t doubt Bird, exactly as he was, would be a great player today. He has a toolkit that would do great things today im sure. What im saying is that he wouldn’t be the clear best or top 2 player in the league like he was in his days.

That one is a little hard to decide, though. He certainly had the skillset to do it. Looking at peak Bird, anyway, a 28/16/7 guy on strong efficiency (even of the +3% rTS variety and not better) would be pretty wild. He'd certainly be a challenger at the top of the league.

And then there are things which would almost certainly change about how he approached the game due to the culture around shooting now, mirroring things which happened in his own career. I'd be fairly surprised if he wasn't a 28/10/7 guy on more like 63% TS in this league. That isn't guaranteed, of course, but it's worth considering because it doesn't involve much more than him literally just shooting more from three, which he proved willing to do in his own time.

Of course, you did say "clear best or top 2," so there is that. He'd have a lot of work to do in order to clear Jokic and healthy Embiid, that's certainly true. Maybe even Giannis. But it becomes an interesting discussion, if nothing else.

[batmana]

...
The other thing I find funny is when people have to make the past players better than they actually were to compare them to today’s players. They’ll say well Mj or Larry would be a better 3 point shooter or something like that and at that point im always wondering what’s the point. We know how good Larry was at everything, and we know how good MJ was at everything. What’s the point of playing with their ability sliders like its a game of 2k or something....

OK, sure, just because you say so, Bird would only manage to make less than 1 three in today's game even though before Curry existed Bird was basically the greatest shooter ever.
We all know how good Larry was but you don't seem to know it. He has some of the highest scores in the 3-point shootout before they added the bonuses we have now. When he was growing up, the 3-point line didn't exist. He was probably experimenting with long-range shots but didn't have any incentive to practice shooting 1000 3s a day. He literally still is on the shortlist for greatest shooters of all time without practicing 3s. But because you said so, he wouldn't become an all-world 3-point shooter today because he is obviously a worse shooter than Channing Frye, Brook Lopez, Mike Muscala and other guys who in the past and present years have been shooting 3s.

Im not saying he couldn’t in some alternate universe where he’s born later, Im saying he didn’t, and that’s a fact, that you yourself seem to agree. It’s exactly like you said, he didn’t spend all that time perfecting it, because back then every coach would tell you you’re wasting time. Today we know better.

I don’t see what the point of imagining Bird in an alternate universe is, when I compare players, I compare how they actually were, not some imagined version of them. Obviously if you make Larry a way better 3 point shooter, give him a euro step and add a bunch of other cool stuff that’s evolved from when he played, he’d be a way better player. But that’s not Larry anymore. Its ok to say today’s players are better BECAUSE of the Birds and the Magics and the MJs and Kobes of the world. But saying that Larry as he was is just as good as Lebron or Durant because superstars back then are just as good as today’s is just wrong.

Think of other very young sports like skateboarding lets say for example. Do we say Stacy Peralta is the GOAT skateboarder. Of course not, the tricks he did were very basic compared to what they do today (is skateboarding still a thing? Lol). What we say is that it’s thanks to him that it went where it went. That’s how you honour legends. Not by pretending that Peralta could do 1080s on a half pipe or by pretending Larry is anywhere close to as good of a shhoter as tons of great shooters today.

Like I said, basketball seems to be the only sport where the egos of older fans and older players don’t want to admit this, its legit weird.

I'm sorry but without having to pretend, project or imagine, Bird is better than 99% of shooters today, and in the entire history of the league. That's him without shooting 1000 3s a day since a teen. And I don't care about stepbacks or any other skills which are more fluff than substance anyway.

Other than that, I get your point and agree with it but just because someone played in the old days doesn't mean he can't look like a modern player. Do we also have to believe Jerry West wouldn't make a single 3-pointer in today's league? Because during his actual playing career, he didn't make a single 3-pointer...

[One_and_Done]

A modern scientist could definitely be taught and understand how to build stonehenge if teleported back. They may not have that specific knowledge, but it would easily be within their ability to learn. Cousy can't be teleported to our time and learn to play; he'll just be a water boy.

This is still a problematic analogy.

A modern scientist with all the benefits of decades/centuries of extra knowledge packed into them which was built on the back of what and who came before them being teleported backward isn't the same as considering the unbenefited individuals who figured the rudiments out from nothing. The intellectual potential is there, they simply didn't have the benefit of standing on the shoulders of giants. The implication, then, that there is some degree of superiority in the modern scientist is errant, and rooted entirely in opportunity, not ability/capacity.

Cousy was taught to shoot and score in a manner very different from how he would learn in today's game. That's a product of era, not ability. He shot FTs well enough, if his mechanics were cleaned up, it's not unreasonable to think he could learn how to shoot the way contemporary guys do as long as you don't project him to suddenly be Steph.

Yeah, there's an upper bound to how well Cousy could perform in today's game and his lack of elite-level quickness would be a barrier, but we see guys who aren't stunning athletes do all kinds of stuff. Add to that how screen usage has changed and offensively, things become much more interesting with a competent FT shooter who had objectively great vision and technical passing ability. Dude was throwing passes in the 50s we still get excited about today, it's worth noting.

If you're going to craft a comparison, you can't do so in a manner very specifically tilted against one side and then claim that it's a fair/sensible comparison, dude. It's kinda BS. It's like saying, "okay, but if Jordan was alive today, he wouldn't be a good center."

Well, maybe, but that's a somewhat fool-hardy starting premise, you know what I mean? You afford the modern guys all the benefit of being modern going backward, and deny any benefits of modernity to the older guy being brought forward when those benefits are the major separation between the eras...

I disagree it's punishing players for being born too eaely. Kareem is in my top 3 all-time. Players from earlier times can be good enough to transcend their bad era. Cousy wasn't one of those guys.

In fact era relativity is arguably more tilted; because you're not being "fairer", you're just punishing guys for being born too late.

Cousy was in a time where everything sucked, so surpassing that suck was hard. But if we extend that anaology a random black harlem street baller in 1930 had even more to overcome, so did the best 100 meter runner in his village in China during a 1936 famine. Shall we declare that this random Chinese fisherman has a comparable claim to fame to Jesse Owen? He might have been just as good "relative to his competition". His competition sucked though, and so did Cousy's. I'd rather ask who was the best objectively to the best of our ability. It's no less fair, and tells us something more useful.

[tsherkin]

I disagree it's punishing players for being born too eaely. Kareem is in my top 3 all-time. Players from earlier times can be good enough to transcend their bad era. Cousy wasn't one of those guys.

Right, but almost everything negative you have to say about him is rooted in how he was raised and trained, which is something mutable which altered in later eras. Yeah, he certainly wouldn't be an MVP in today's game, but you're discussing him as if he was laughable and couldn't make the league and stuff, and that's... not really strong logic with the particulars you are employing.

[One_and_Done]

It's not nice, but it's no less logical for that.

[tsherkin]

It's not nice, but it's no less logical for that.

Oh no, it's specifically illogical.

[One_and_Done]

It's not nice, but it's no less logical for that.

Oh no, it's specifically illogical.

Trying to determine who had the biggest sob story/adversity is illogical. Trying to work who was better at basketball is alot easier to work put logically and objectively.

[70sFan]

I disagree it's punishing players for being born too eaely. Kareem is in my top 3 all-time. Players from earlier times can be good enough to transcend their bad era. Cousy wasn't one of those guys.

Right, but almost everything negative you have to say about him is rooted in how he was raised and trained, which is something mutable which altered in later eras. Yeah, he certainly wouldn't be an MVP in today's game, but you're discussing him as if he was laughable and couldn't make the league and stuff, and that's... not really strong logic with the particulars you are employing.

I'm afraid it's a lost cause. Players from earlier eras can transcend bad eras but nobody before Kareem is worth even considering for today's league.

I wasted my time with him on this subject for too long.

[maradro]

A modern scientist could definitely be taught and understand how to build stonehenge if teleported back. They may not have that specific knowledge, but it would easily be within their ability to learn. Cousy can't be teleported to our time and learn to play; he'll just be a water boy.

This is still a problematic analogy.

A modern scientist with all the benefits of decades/centuries of extra knowledge packed into them which was built on the back of what and who came before them being teleported backward isn't the same as considering the unbenefited individuals who figured the rudiments out from nothing. The intellectual potential is there, they simply didn't have the benefit of standing on the shoulders of giants. The implication, then, that there is some degree of superiority in the modern scientist is errant, and rooted entirely in opportunity, not ability/capacity.

Cousy was taught to shoot and score in a manner very different from how he would learn in today's game. That's a product of era, not ability. He shot FTs well enough, if his mechanics were cleaned up, it's not unreasonable to think he could learn how to shoot the way contemporary guys do as long as you don't project him to suddenly be Steph.

Yeah, there's an upper bound to how well Cousy could perform in today's game and his lack of elite-level quickness would be a barrier, but we see guys who aren't stunning athletes do all kinds of stuff. Add to that how screen usage has changed and offensively, things become much more interesting with a competent FT shooter who had objectively great vision and technical passing ability. Dude was throwing passes in the 50s we still get excited about today, it's worth noting.

If you're going to craft a comparison, you can't do so in a manner very specifically tilted against one side and then claim that it's a fair/sensible comparison, dude. It's kinda BS. It's like saying, "okay, but if Jordan was alive today, he wouldn't be a good center."

Well, maybe, but that's a somewhat fool-hardy starting premise, you know what I mean? You afford the modern guys all the benefit of being modern going backward, and deny any benefits of modernity to the older guy being brought forward when those benefits are the major separation between the eras...

I disagree it's punishing players for being born too eaely. Kareem is in my top 3 all-time. Players from earlier times can be good enough to transcend their bad era. Cousy wasn't one of those guys.

In fact era relativity is arguably more tilted; because you're not being "fairer", you're just punishing guys for being born too late.

Cousy was in a time where everything sucked, so surpassing that suck was hard. But if we extend that anaology a random black harlem street baller in 1930 had even more to overcome, so did the best 100 meter runner in his village in China during a 1936 famine. Shall we declare that this random Chinese fisherman has a comparable claim to fame to Jesse Owen? He might have been just as good "relative to his competition". His competition sucked though, and so did Cousy's. I'd rather ask who was the best objectively to the best of our ability. It's no less fair, and tells us something more useful.

Ok so clearly you don't play basketball or maybe any sports. Of course adapting to different sneakers, rims, ball, even lights is a huge deal that would take at least a training camp to adapt to. Then add the rule changes. Then add no 3 pt line, no spacing, no shooters to kick out to, no defensive 3 seconds.. it changes the game significantly. Or is Jones taking all his teammates and his coach with him too?

I'm old (and poor non american) enough to have gone skiing with wooden skis as a kid. Cliff notes, injuries were frequent. My kids learn on parabolic skis that are lighter, more comfortable, and practically turn for you. I wouldn't be surprised if half the players you sent back got injured in those shoes, unless of course you give them time to acclimate. Same with the skater guy. He probably paved the way for the ramps and the gear those other guys did amazing tricks on. When he was out there what did he have?
I've been to Harlem and somehow I doubt there were street courts for any ballers to even play on back in the 30s. So it's exactly a guy getting punished for being born too early.

You clearly didn't watch the Ted video posted above, its filled with great examples of technology and rules changing everything.

And the only one bringing up no names is you. Cousy was influential regardless of how bad of a shooter or how small he was. Kind of like AI.. I'm sure you think tyus Jones could just teleport in and replace him too, he's much more efficient, he's bigger, hes more evolved, right?