penbeast0 wrote:I put the modern league one in for those who value era portability; you know it's not high on my list either, though era strength certainly is.
Fair enough. And (to those who do value it a lot): it's not that it isn't an important question; it's just that the answer is so damn noisy. You might, for instance, have two guys discussing the
same 1950's player and how he would translate forward, with one thinking he would be an All-Star in the modern game, and the other thinking he wouldn't even be a decent college player. And we
wouldn't be able to say who's right, because it's all hypothetical conjecture. There is no real quality control on the result, and the margin for error is massive. That's why I still argue it should not comprise a BIG portion of one's criteria.
But if you are to use it, yeah: the one year or two years of training allowed for "adjustment" to a new era with the "time machine" method is little more than a gesture to give the impression of fairness. It simply would
not replace a lifetime of context/training/coaching/practice; it just wouldn't. If one is going to speculate on portability in a different era, one really needs to get his brain thinking in terms of assuming the player was born/raised in that time, and thinking hard on what was available (or not available) in that era. Thus, if moving an old player forward in time, assume he was born later and privy to all of the advances/advantages therein. Alternately, if moving a guy backwards thru time (
because era portability goes both ways, and I think a lot of people lose sight of that), assume he was born/raised in that time, and allowed only the circumstances, coaching/training/mentoring/etc that was available at that time, and how that might affect his game.
I too mostly think in turns of era strength. Perhaps I'm just not judging the 50's as harshly as you.
Though as I implied in my original ballot post above, Cousy's career accomplishment is arguably the largest left on the table even if you weight them very lightly due to strength of era. For instance, you could take every honor/award/accolade/title (with consideration of his role on each title team) or finals appearance/other misc achievement (like being at the helm of three #1 offenses, leading league in assists, etc) and only weight it at HALF the value you would give to the same achievement today......and he's still likely got the highest career achievement mark of anyone left.
penbeast0 wrote:My problems with Cousy are (a) his defense and efficiency isues, his playmaking should not be in question and (b) his terrible playoff performances throughout the Russell era. The 60s were a major step up from the 50s; a 50s star for me has to REALLY stand out (Mikan) or show the ability to dominate into the tougher era (Pettit, Baylor) for me to support him over a 60s or later era star. If anyone left really stands out statistically, it's Neil Johnston or Bob Cousy; Cousy didn't seem that effective into the 60s for me to assume his game could adapt the way Pettit's did, so it's about the era domination. I am just not sold on it here though I might still rate him over Price or Hardaway as the best point guard left. Too many questions for me at this point still but I'm open to listening.
I'm glad you're willing to listen.
wrt shooting efficiency.....
1) I'll copy the gist of something I'd written back in the #64 thread regarding shooting efficiency in these early eras. I'd written it in defense of Nate Thurmond's poor shooting efficiency, but ironically cited some early 60's Celtics observations as example. I've made minor augmentations for the context here:
I tend to be a bit more forgiving of guys from (approximately) pre-1970. Frankly, it seems that shooting efficiency was scarcely on the radar of coaching/management during the insane-paced late 1950's and 1960's.
Just as an example.....
Had been watching or re-watching the '62 and '63 finals, and noted some of the awful shot-selection of the Boston Celtics (READ: this is the best team in the land at the time). The sequences that stand out in my mind were Tom Sanders taking these awkward (even childish-looking) set-shots from ~20 feet from the rim. I KNOW Satch can't hit those more often than 36-38% of the time (if even that), and it's not like these were bail-out shots: there were 9-14 seconds left on the shot-clock in all instances I'm remembering. So this is very poor shot-selection, even by the standards of the time; and again, this by the best team in the land. It underscores my point that in this era, the whole philosophy of "take your time and find a good shot" was just not really in the strategic lexicon. This was the time of simply trying to outpace the opponent, particularly with the Russell Celtics (*more on that in #2 below). As far as I can tell (from the combine of eye-test, pace standards, and ts% standards), emphasis on shot-selection really wasn't well-underway until somewhere in the early 70's. 2) Taking the philosophy of the Russell Celtics a bit further, poor efficiency was to some degree
by design. I'd encourage people to read what fplii had posted elsewhere on this topic:
http://forums.realgm.com/boards/viewtopic.php?p=42005807#p42005807It's interesting to note (perhaps suggestive), too, that Cousy's decline in relative ts% coincides pretty simultaneously with this pace-driven trend, where "bad shots" are essentially encouraged (though I won't pretend there are not other potential factors). Anyway, here is his ts% relative to league avg by year:
'51: -1.26%
'52: +0.65%
'53: +0.06%
'54: +2.12%
'55: +2.47%
'56: +0.30%
'57: +0.28%
'58: -3.40%
'59: -0.38%
'60: -2.47%
'61: -3.36%
'62: -3.61%
'63: -4.44%
Now one might ask, "why don't we see Sharman's shooting efficiency suffer?" Well, in truth, we do; his shooting efficiency takes a dip (of similar proportion) around the same time. Here is his relative ts% by year:
'51: +1.34%
'52: +2.65%
'53: +7.56%
'54: +8.86%
'55: +5.31%
'56: +5.04%
'57: +4.60%
'58: +3.57%
'59: +1.89%
'60: +4.29%
'61: +1.46%
So one's second question might be, "how do we account for his generally much higher shooting efficiency?" imo, two ways: 1) He was a better shooter. If there's one thing Sharman did better than Cousy (or pretty much anyone else in that era, for that matter), it's shooting. And 2) He largely didn't have to create for himself, shoot off the dribble, or otherwise take many heavily-contested and difficult shots. His job was to get open and then hit those open---mostly open set-shots or "modified set-shots"---shots (which he did very well). But he was essentially feeding on what the rest of the offense (such as it was) could get him.
Most principally, he was feeding on what Cousy could make for him. Just as we see the shooting efficiencies of Shawn Marion, Stoudemire, Raja Bell, Leandro Barbosa, etc, ALL hit their highest ts% (in some instances by far) during the years playing next to a peak Steve Nash, I suspect Sharman was similarly a benefactor of likely the best play-maker of his era.
That's not to say Sharman wouldn't have been an effective and successful shooter/scorer in another setting; but I think he was fortunate to play essentially his entire career alongside Cousy.
wrt adapting to the 60's.....I have four schools of thought wrt his decline as he went into the 60's:
1) Maybe (as you try to imply) he couldn't.
2) Maybe he could, but simply didn't out of inertia. Maybe inwardly he figured "I've had a great deal of success (titles, MVP's, etc) doing things the way I've always done them, and hey: I'm
still a pretty good player doing it this way....so why change?"
3) Maybe he could and was in the process, but was a touch behind the curve in adapting (perhaps for reasons stated in #2); and just needed more time than age allowed (relates to one of my issues with the "time machine" method, fwiw); which brings me to #4......
4) Maybe he could/was adapting just fine, but his body was simply in decline. He was 31 years old going INTO the 1959-60 season, after all. A lot of guys are fading by that point, even guys with largely skill-based (as opposed to athleticism-based) games: Tim Duncan was beginning to fade a little by that time; Dirk would begin to fade by 32 or so; Pau began to fade around age 31; Louie Dampier around 31 or so; happened a bit later for guys like Nash and Stockton, but even they declined beginning around 34-35. Guys more reliant on their physical attributes typically begin to fade even earlier.
wrt to defense.....Where does this forum's concern for Cousy's defense come from? The reviews I've read of his defense ranges from neutral to good; don't think I've ever read anything to indicate it was poor. And based on the eye-test from the games I've watched, the effort is there on the defensive end. He seemed to have decent anticipation in going for steals, too. So why the big concerns?
Owly wrote:On some topics raised
In defense of Sharman: Sharman was the best shooter in his day, was committed to conditioning, was considered a rugged defender and might have had the best basketball mind on those teams (I'm saying might, I know people like Russell. Heinsohn was, so far as I can tell, a good man-management coach, Cousy not a great pro coach. Russell won with a system and players in place, and didn't without those things. Sharman won titles everywhere (ABL, ABA, NBA), wrote coaching books with John Wooden, and shooting textbooks by himself. If we are placing him in a time machine I'd lean that he (1) specialises in basketball sooner, (2) more than any other player from his era benefits from the three ball (he's high bbiq, the best shooter, a two guard, has awarness of different releases - so could adapt to different range - and elite conditioning to run his man through picks). He's small but athletic and if you figure he has a problem translating eras on D wouldn't that be a bigger problem for Cousy (admittedly it's hard to get a reliable gauge on his D, or anyones from that era really, but certainly people now seem more cynical on his defense. I don't know ...).
He's his era's Reggie with better D, better conditioning, and more winning (on a better team) and he's the best at his position at the time, but in weaker era (and shorter).
I would contest the notion that he was better conditioned than Reggie, but anyway....
Both Cousy and Sharman were listed as 6'1". Figuring with modern footwear and heights listed in shoes today, they'd be listed at 6'2". I don't see the height factor being too much of an issue for Cousy, who will obv be playing PG and
PG only. Even today, the avg PG height is still barely 6'3". Sharman, otoh (as you noted), is a SG. 6'2" is small for a SG. That could be a problem for him in a modern context, when the avg SG is about 6'6". That's a big length advantage they'll have in contesting his shots (reducing his offensive effectiveness as a modern SG), and a big length disadvantage he'll have in contesting theirs (not to mention he might get abused in the post). That's not to say that he necessarily HAS to guard the apposing SG; but if he's on the court with a more traditional-sized PG....one way or another, that's going to create match-up problems on defense (because either he or the other small will have to be guarding a much larger SG).
Now in this day and age where there are so many point-forwards and bit of muddying of the traditional positional roles, it might not be as big of an issue; but it still will be an occasional issue. And in basically modern eras where traditional roles were still very much in play (i.e. the 80's and 90's), having a 6'2" (barely) SG who was also of slight build would create more consistent match-up issues.
So even if we determine Sharman was a better defender than Cousy, for the above reasons, I don't see him being able to exert any significant of defensive advantage over Cousy in a modern context.
"Never argue with an idiot. They will only bring you down to their level and beat you with experience." -George Carlin
"The fact that a proposition is absurd has never hindered those who wish to believe it." -Edward Rutherfurd
). Tim Hardaway and Mark Price are the best long peak guys left. 
