Retro Draft: Winner is Stun704

[captaincrunk]

EDIT: Cousy's first season was 1950-51. His last was 1969-70

I can name 71 players who shot better than Cousy's career 37.5% during that time period. And that's just guards!

I'm starting to think this is all going right over your head.

[SWedd523]

Yeah he is. He had on season of 52 41 and like, 93 or so, and two more that were round ups to get it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/50%E2%80%9 ... %9390_Club

Calderon is directly addressed on that page.

Actually dude, it applies to literally everyone in the era. That's my point. You're being ignorant if you refuse to acknowledge that the game has changed drastically.

Read my edit, dude. 71 guards didn't have a problem shooting better than him.

Because he's miles better than Mark Price.

Over the course of their careers? Sure. We aren't debating careers.

From the first post in this thread:

- Players selected are assumed to be in their prime, not the old washed-up version from late in their careers or the raw version from their rookie season.

I'd really like to see you go out there and shoot with a lumpy ball into a rigid rim leaping from a wobbly floor on top of an ice rink. Tell me how it feels brah. You give these guys modern equipment and you'd see the percentages shoot up.

Read above, brah.

Then Wilt Chamberlain is by far the greatest player that ever lived for his 61-62 season with over 50 points per game and over 25 rebounds per game.

You finally seem to be understanding the point of this scavenger hunt. That was a truly dominant season.

[SWedd523]

EDIT: Cousy's first season was 1950-51. His last was 1969-70

I can name 71 players who shot better than Cousy's career 37.5% during that time period. And that's just guards!

I'm starting to think this is all going right over your head.

71 guards didn't have a problem with the ball, floor, sore vagina, etc. Stop making excuses.

[captaincrunk]

Yeah he is. He had on season of 52 41 and like, 93 or so, and two more that were round ups to get it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/50%E2%80%9 ... %9390_Club

Calderon is directly addressed on that page.

Already seen it, and already addressed it in my post. He belongs in the club, the distinction is arbitrary.

Because he's miles better than Mark Price.

Over the course of their careers? Sure. We aren't debating careers.

From the first post in this thread:

- Players selected are assumed to be in their prime, not the old washed-up version from late in their careers or the raw version from their rookie season.

The player themselves in their prime, not their stats, not their best season. If someone was an injury risk in their prime then, they will still be considered so now.

I'd really like to see you go out there and shoot with a lumpy ball into a rigid rim leaping from a wobbly floor on top of an ice rink. Tell me how it feels brah. You give these guys modern equipment and you'd see the percentages shoot up.

Read above, brah.

Then Wilt Chamberlain is by far the greatest player that ever lived for his 61-62 season with over 50 points per game and over 25 rebounds per game.

You finally seem to be understanding the point of this scavenger hunt. That was a truly dominant season.

If that's the case then I guess Mikan was a terrible defender, since he got N/A blocks per game, right?

EDIT: Cousy's first season was 1950-51. His last was 1969-70

I can name 71 players who shot better than Cousy's career 37.5% during that time period. And that's just guards!

I'm starting to think this is all going right over your head.

71 guards didn't have a problem with the ball, floor, sore vagina, etc. Stop making excuses.

You're either very ignorant, or a troll. Take your pick.

EDIT: In the 1957 season (When Cousy won one of his two MVP Awards) the best FG% of all the NBA players, was 44%. 44%! This was a league wide phenomenon. 37.5% would be considered decent for any player at the time, especially for a point guard whose job it was to fly around and generally wreak havoc on offense. In that season he was probably in the top 30 for FG%, and top ten for FT%.

EDIT: And I STILL haven't brought up how such low shooting percentages across the board affects Cousy's assist total (which would have been higher too, obviously).

[captaincrunk]

And I just took a look at one of Kobe's MVP seasons. His 45.9% FG% that year wasn't even top 150, and Kobe is a good shooter. Especially in 2008. This is ridiculous SWeed, I don't know why you're acting like this.

[SWedd523]

Already seen it, and already addressed it in my post. He belongs in the club, the distinction is arbitrary.

The plateaus exist for a reason. The "arbitrary" distinction was set in place from the point the 3PT line was implemented. If we stretch and round all the guys that are close, then what's the point in putting the limits out there?

The player themselves in their prime, not their stats, not their best season. If someone was an injury risk in their prime then, they will still be considered so now.

Okay? In his prime, Cousy was 20/9. In his prime Price was 20/9. Good value with the 52nd pick if you ask me.

If that's the case then I guess Mikan was a terrible defender, since he got N/A blocks per game, right?

Of course not silly. Allowances have to be made for older players. If blocks were recorded, guys like Russell and Wilt would have had incredible numbers.

You're either very ignorant, or a troll. Take your pick.

Neither.

1. Let the mods do their jobs
2. What part are you not understanding? You can make excuses for Cousy shooting a pathetic 37.5% for his career all you want. But his career overlapped with the following players:

Walt Frazier--49.9%
Oscar Robertson--48.9%,
Jerry West--47.2%
Sam Jones--45.6%
Hal Greer--45.5%

Also: Dick Van Arsdale, Al Attles, Earl Monroe, Gail Goodrich, Dave Bing, Bill Sharman, Lenny Wilkens, Jerry Sloan, Guy Rodgers

Those are just the big name guys who didn't have any problems shooting much better than Cousy. How do you account for them?

[SWedd523]

EDIT: In the 1957 season (When Cousy won one of his two MVP Awards) the best FG% of all the NBA players, was 44%. 44%! This was a league wide phenomenon. 37.5% would be considered decent for any player at the time, especially for a point guard whose job it was to fly around and generally wreak havoc on offense. In that season he was probably in the top 30 for FG%, and top ten for FT%.

That's obviously one of the risks you take with choosing such an old player. Not my fault.

EDIT: And I STILL haven't brought up how such low shooting percentages across the board affects Cousy's assist total (which would have been higher too, obviously).

You'r absolutely right. I never once said Cousy isn't a top 10 PG. Go back and read my post after your selection. I laid high praise on that pick... think I called him "Steve Nash before Steve Nash"

Cousy was very well known for his flash and his ability to set his teammates up. That's perfectly fine if that's what you're looking for.

Price was very well known for his ability to shoot from anywhere on the floor while also setting up his teammates up. We're obviously targeting two different skillsets in our PGs.

[captaincrunk]

Already seen it, and already addressed it in my post. He belongs in the club, the distinction is arbitrary.

The plateaus exist for a reason. The "arbitrary" distinction was set in place from the point the 3PT line was implemented. If we stretch and round all the guys that are close, then what's the point in putting the limits out there?

You're missing the point, I think.

The player themselves in their prime, not their stats, not their best season. If someone was an injury risk in their prime then, they will still be considered so now.

Okay? In his prime, Cousy was 20/9. In his prime Price was 20/9. Good value with the 52nd pick if you ask me.

Yeah, definitely ignorant and or trolling at this point.

If that's the case then I guess Mikan was a terrible defender, since he got N/A blocks per game, right?

Of course not silly. Allowances have to be made for older players.

Then stop being ignorant of the history of basketball. There's no excuse for it.

If blocks were recorded, guys like Russell and Wilt would have had incredible numbers.

And especially Mikan.

You're either very ignorant, or a troll. Take your pick.

Neither.

Then I guess it's both.

1. Let the mods do their jobs
2. What part are you not understanding? You can make excuses for Cousy shooting a pathetic 37.5% for his career all you want. But his career overlapped with the following players:

Walt Frazier--49.9%
Oscar Robertson--48.9%,
Jerry West--47.2%
Sam Jones--45.6%
Hal Greer--45.5%

Also: Dick Van Arsdale, Al Attles, Earl Monroe, Gail Goodrich, Dave Bing, Bill Sharman, Lenny Wilkens, Jerry Sloan, Guy Rodgers

Those are just the big name guys who didn't have any problems shooting much better than Cousy. How do you account for them?

This is pathetic, you aren't listening at all.

EDIT: In the 1957 season (When Cousy won one of his two MVP Awards) the best FG% of all the NBA players, was 44%. 44%! This was a league wide phenomenon. 37.5% would be considered decent for any player at the time, especially for a point guard whose job it was to fly around and generally wreak havoc on offense. In that season he was probably in the top 30 for FG%, and top ten for FT%.

That's obviously one of the risks you take with choosing such an old player. Not my fault.

Risk? The only "risk" is that ignorant people won't understand, not that he was a bad player.

EDIT: And I STILL haven't brought up how such low shooting percentages across the board affects Cousy's assist total (which would have been higher too, obviously).

You'r absolutely right. I never once said Cousy isn't a top 10 PG. He better be if he's picked that high. Cousy was very well known for his flash and his ability to set his teammates up. That's perfectly fine if that's what you're looking for.

So you're willing to admit the **** balls, floors, rims, and wildly variating temperatures due to literally playing on ice rinks might affect how often the shots go in for players other than Cousy, but when dealing with Cousy we have to ignore that. Got it.

Price was very well known for his ability to shoot from anywhere on the floor while also setting up his teammates up. We're obviously targeting two different skillsets in our PGs.

This is probably the only useful thing you've said.

[captaincrunk]

I'm sorry if I'm being offensive by the way. I don't intend to be. Especially not in this tight knit community.

[SWedd523]

You're missing the point, I think.

Actually no. Calderon missed the club by 16 FTs, though.

Yeah, definitely ignorant and or trolling at this point.

Your lack of real rebuttal cedes the point.

Then stop being ignorant of the history of basketball. There's no excuse for it.

^And again.

I'm the one giving you lists of players, percentages, etc. Much better than the, "You're ignorant!" babble you're tossing out there.

And especially Mikan.

Yep. Him too.

This is pathetic, you aren't listening at all.

Dude, how am I not listening?

You said Cousy was a bad shooter due to all of those outside influences. And that's all well and good if EVERY other player had the same bad percentages. I just named, what, 15 players who played during the same time as Cooz, yet shot much better. What are YOU not getting?

Risk? The only "risk" is that ignorant people won't understand, not that he was a bad player.

Is ignorant your new word to try and hurt my feelings? Reading comprehension isn't your strong suit.

So you're willing to admit the **** balls, floors, rims, and wildly variating temperatures due to literally playing on ice rinks might affect how often the shots go in for players other than Cousy, but when dealing with Cousy we have to ignore that. Got it.

Yep. Just Cousy. Not Oscar, West, Jones, Greer, etc. etc.

This is probably the only useful thing you've said.

I want my PG to be multidimensional. Is it my fault if I expect him to make an outside shot when the defense collapses on Kareem?

Sag off Cousy and force him to score the ball. Boom, he's toast. Sounds a lot like the current Celtics PG.

[captaincrunk]

You're missing the point, I think.

Actually no. Calderon missed the club by 16 FTs, though.

A paltry 16 free throws, and had several seasons where he was quite close to the mark. I'm saying that 50/40/90 is something that Jose Calderon is capable of, yet he isn't a very good basketball player. That's all I'm saying. Plus there is no official 50/40/90 club, many people consider him "in" it.

Yeah, definitely ignorant and or trolling at this point.

Your lack of real rebuttal cedes the point.

I've already made the relevant arguments in previous posts, would you like me to paste them here?

Then stop being ignorant of the history of basketball. There's no excuse for it.

^And again.

You can't in one breath claim allowances should be made and then in the other, discount all allowances.

I'm the one giving you lists of players, percentages, etc. Much better than the, "You're ignorant!" babble you're tossing out there.

I told you he was top 30 in FG% one year. Kobe, as an MVP guard, was past 150. That's all you really need to know.

This is pathetic, you aren't listening at all.

Dude, how am I not listening?

Because I carefully laid out my points as to why his FG% was not an accurate reflection of his shooting ability, and all you can say is "Stop making excuses."

You said Cousy was a bad shooter due to all of those outside influences. And that's all well and good if EVERY other player had the same bad percentages.

Which I showed you verily that they did. In the season I mentioned the BEST FG% was terrible, and he was well within the range of decent shooters as a top 30 guy.

I just named, what, 15 players who played during the same time as Cooz, yet shot much better. What are YOU not getting?

And Kendrick Perkins shot over 60% one year. Mark Price is a worse shooter than Kendrick Perkins.

Risk? The only "risk" is that ignorant people won't understand, not that he was a bad player.

Is ignorant your new word to try and hurt my feelings? Reading comprehension isn't your strong suit.

You're ignorant. It's not an insult, just a descriptor.

So you're willing to admit the **** balls, floors, rims, and wildly variating temperatures due to literally playing on ice rinks might affect how often the shots go in for players other than Cousy, but when dealing with Cousy we have to ignore that. Got it.

Yep. Just Cousy. Not Oscar, West, Jones, Greer, etc. etc.

I showed you very specifically why this line of reasoning is flawed. You aren't making any point with this. Also, Cousy quit in 63 and came back 7 YEARS later and played a few games. You are clearly ignorant of the history of basketball. You're trying to compare a 41 year old Cousy to a 31 year old Jerry West. Christ on a bike this is getting old.

Sag off Cousy and force him to score the ball. Boom, he's toast. Sounds a lot like the current Celtics PG.

Except Cousy can actually score quite a lot of points, and often did, and was a sound shooter unlike Rondo. This just shows mow massively misinformed you are on the subject.

[SWedd523]

A paltry 16 free throws, and had several seasons where he was quite close to the mark. I'm saying that 50/40/90 is something that Jose Calderon is capable of, yet he isn't a very good basketball player. That's all I'm saying. Plus there is no official 50/40/90 club, many people consider him "in" it.

Then I guess Babe Ruth, Barry Bonds and Rogers Hornsby are in the 3,000 hit club? Close enough right?

I've already made the relevant arguments in previous posts, would you like me to paste them here?

"You're ignorant of basketball history" is hardly relevant. I picked Bob Pettit for God's sake. He's ancient.

You can't in one breath claim allowances should be made and then in the other, discount all allowances.

Are you really comparing a recorded stat to an unrecorded one? Nobody knows what kind of blocks numbers those guys would've had. We know exactly what shooting numbers Cousy put up.

I told you he was top 30 in FG% one year. Kobe, as an MVP guard, was past 150. That's all you really need to know.

And you call me ignorant. He was 39th that year. The leader that year (Bobby Wanzer) shot a respectable by today's standards 46.9%

Because I carefully laid out my points as to why his FG% was not an accurate reflection of his shooting ability

Okay so what does 37.5% translate to in today's terms? If we do that, he's still behind over 70 other players from his time.

Which I showed you verily that they did. In the season I mentioned the BEST FG% was terrible, and he was well within the range of decent shooters as a top 30 guy.

Read above.

And Kendrick Perkins shot over 60% one year. Mark Price is a worse shooter than Kendrick Perkins.

Big men are always much more efficient than guards. Apples to oranges.

You're ignorant. It's not an insult, just a descriptor.

You sound like one of those religious zealots.

I showed you very specifically why this line of reasoning is flawed. You aren't making any point with this.

The point is clear. When compared to every other player who faced the exact same issues as him, he's STILL below average.

Also, Cousy quit in 63 and came back 7 YEARS later and played a few games. You are clearly ignorant of the history of basketball. You're trying to compare a 41 year old Cousy to a 31 year old Jerry West. Christ on a bike this is getting old.

Okay let's do 50-51 to 62-63, shall we? Looking at all players from that time, he comes in at a much more respectable 49th among guards.

His best single season (54-55 and 62-63 tied) are 63rd/64th during the time from 50-51 through 62-63. Bob Donham shot better in 51-52 than Cousy ever did his entire career. If a no name like Donham could shoot 48.7% in 1951, why couldn't Cousy ever match it?

He couldn't because he wasn't a good shooter.

Except Cousy can actually score quite a lot of points, and often did, and was a sound shooter unlike Rondo. This just shows mow massively misinformed you are on the subject.

Cousy is to sound shooter as Shaq is to sound free throw shooter.

[captaincrunk]

A paltry 16 free throws, and had several seasons where he was quite close to the mark. I'm saying that 50/40/90 is something that Jose Calderon is capable of, yet he isn't a very good basketball player. That's all I'm saying. Plus there is no official 50/40/90 club, many people consider him "in" it.

Then I guess Babe Ruth, Barry Bonds and Rogers Hornsby are in the 3,000 hit club? Close enough right?

I don't follow and I don't care. Jose Calderon had a season where he had 50/40/90, end of story.

I've already made the relevant arguments in previous posts, would you like me to paste them here?

"You're ignorant of basketball history" is hardly relevant. I picked Bob Pettit for God's sake. He's ancient.

You're still ignorant, as has been made evident by your posts. You're ignoring the arguments made earlier, which was my point before and now.

You can't in one breath claim allowances should be made and then in the other, discount all allowances.

Are you really comparing a recorded stat to an unrecorded one? Nobody knows what kind of blocks numbers those guys would've had. We know exactly what shooting numbers Cousy put up.

Christ... You're being very, very thick.

I told you he was top 30 in FG% one year. Kobe, as an MVP guard, was past 150. That's all you really need to know.

And you call me ignorant. He was 39th that year. The leader that year (Bobby Wanzer) shot a respectable by today's standards 46.9%

That includes dudes who didn't get off enough shots to really count though. Or is Jose Calderon a 50/40/90 player?

Because I carefully laid out my points as to why his FG% was not an accurate reflection of his shooting ability

Okay so what does 37.5% translate to in today's terms? If we do that, he's still behind over 70 other players from his time.

No he isn't, you're ignorance is still showing.

Which I showed you verily that they did. In the season I mentioned the BEST FG% was terrible, and he was well within the range of decent shooters as a top 30 guy.

Read above.

And Kendrick Perkins shot over 60% one year. Mark Price is a worse shooter than Kendrick Perkins.

Big men are always much more efficient than guards. Apples to oranges.

Stop making excuses.

You're ignorant. It's not an insult, just a descriptor.

You sound like one of those religious zealots.

Too bad I'm a rabid baby eating atheist then.

I showed you very specifically why this line of reasoning is flawed. You aren't making any point with this.

The point is clear. When compared to every other player who faced the exact same issues as him, he's STILL below average.

No he isn't! I showed you quite clearly that he was not!

Also, Cousy quit in 63 and came back 7 YEARS later and played a few games. You are clearly ignorant of the history of basketball. You're trying to compare a 41 year old Cousy to a 31 year old Jerry West. Christ on a bike this is getting old.

Okay let's do 50-51 to 62-63, shall we? Looking at all players from that time, he comes in at a much more respectable 49th among guards.

What happened to in their primes? I chose an MVP season. You chose a season in which he was over 30 years old and on the decline. Should we use MJ's Wizard's days as a comparison to Kobe?

His best single season (54-55 and 62-63 tied) are 63rd/64th during the time from 50-51 through 62-63. Bob Donham shot better in 51-52 than Cousy ever did his entire career. If a no name like Donham could shoot 48.7% in 1951, why couldn't Cousy ever match it?

If a no name like Kendrick Perkins can shoot 60%, then how come Price never got there?

He couldn't because he wasn't a good shooter.

You're screaming ignorance here again.

Except Cousy can actually score quite a lot of points, and often did, and was a sound shooter unlike Rondo. This just shows mow massively misinformed you are on the subject.

Cousy is to sound shooter as Shaq is to sound free throw shooter.

Cousy could shoot 85% from the line. He shot the ball fine. You're just comparing an 41 year old Cousy to guys who were much younger. Hell, Frazier never even played before Cousy retired the first time. You're embarassing yourself if you really thought Cousy was playing in the mid sixties.

EDIT: And Wanzer, in the year that I posted, made less than 25 shots. The REAL FG% leader that year had 44%, which is pretty weak by todays standards. Compared that to 60+% on modern equipment and you're adding nearly 20% to get there.

[captaincrunk]

I guess Dwight Howard's 63% shooting last year makes him loads better than Bill Russel with his 44% career shooting. And Kendrick Perkins was so much better than him too! And Andrew Bynum!

EDIT And in the year I selected, Bob Petit shot 41%

[Diop]

FWIW, Mark Price used to be one of my favourite players, loved how we would finish a fast break by pulling up for a 3, or when the team needed a definite 2 points he would drive in and play human pinball with his body until he drew a foul. He was deadly when the team was in the bonus as free throws were an automatic 2 points.

Anyhow to keep the arguing going, this person is someone whose greatness people will never be able to agree on due to how late he came into the NBA.

Bill Walton called him a 7'3 Larry Bird, Dino Radja said that in his prime this player was better than David Robinson, while ESPN's David Thorpe said he would have been a top 4 centre if he played his whole career in the NBA. He could shoot the 3, he was an excellent passer, he was a smart physical player.

For the Olympian category, he's not My vydas he's not your Vydas, he's Arvydas Sabonis!

[SWedd523]

I don't follow and I don't care. Jose Calderon had a season where he had 50/40/90, end of story.

That seems to be a common thing for you. "close enough" doesn't count. Point Blank. Those limits exist for a reason. He didn't meet the qualifications, nobody's fault but his own. There's a reason only 5 players have done it. You don't add close enough just because.

You're still ignorant, as has been made evident by your posts. You're ignoring the arguments made earlier, which was my point before and now.

Of course, because ignorant means disagreeing with you. Got it.

Christ... You're being very, very thick.

I'm guessing thick and ignorant are synonyms for you?

Accounting for blocks = 100% guesswork
Accounting for FG% = 100% factual, tangible information

That includes dudes who didn't get off enough shots to really count though. Or is Jose Calderon a 50/40/90 player?
So wait. I can't use those players because they "didn't get off enough shots", but Calderon is in the 50/40/90 club despite........ "not getting off enough shots"?

Glad we're clear.

No he isn't, you're ignorance is still showing.

http://tinyurl.com/3qc49ps
Numbers don't lie.

Stop making excuses.

LOL. Big men are always tops when it comes to FG%. Any simpleton knows a layup or dunk is more efficient than a jump shot.

No he isn't! I showed you quite clearly that he was not!

Again, numbers don't lie.

http://tinyurl.com/3synsrt (different link from above)

What happened to in their primes? I chose an MVP season. You chose a season in which he was over 30 years old and on the decline. Should we use MJ's Wizard's days as a comparison to Kobe?

What are you even talking about? Bob Cousy's PRIME was 20/9 on those percentages I laid out before. Prices PRIME was 20/9 on those percentages I laid out earlier.

Cousy could shoot 85% from the line.

Price is the All-Time leader in FT%

You're just comparing an 41 year old Cousy to guys who were much younger. Hell, Frazier never even played before Cousy retired the first time. You're embarassing yourself if you really thought Cousy was playing in the mid sixties.

No, the numbers were using his entire career. Not only his final one. You really seem to be lagging behind. Besides, why are you still talking about that? I've long since limited the range to 62-63, when I clearly stated he's still behind 48 other guards.

EDIT: And Wanzer, in the year that I posted, made less than 25 shots. The REAL FG% leader that year had 44%, which is pretty weak by todays standards. Compared that to 60+% on modern equipment and you're adding nearly 20% to get there.

I used Donham as my single season example.

He shot better in 51-52 than Cousy ever did in a single season.


Even if you limit it to at least 350 FGs made, his single season best is still no better than 50th best during his career. As evidenced by http://tinyurl.com/3gf9d9a



That's it. I've given you multiple links, compiled stats, and unbiased, factual evidence. All you've given is, "nuh uh nobody was a good shooter". I don't think you warrant any further response. Come stronger next time.

[SWedd523]

FWIW, Mark Price used to be one of my favourite players, loved how we would finish a fast break by pulling up for a 3, or when the team needed a definite 2 points he would drive in and play human pinball with his body until he drew a foul. He was deadly when the team was in the bonus as free throws were an automatic 2 points.

Anyhow to keep the arguing going, this person is someone whose greatness people will never be able to agree on due to how late he came into the NBA.

Bill Walton called him a 7'3 Larry Bird, Dino Radja said that in his prime this player was better than David Robinson, while ESPN's David Thorpe said he would have been a top 4 centre if he played his whole career in the NBA. He could shoot the 3, he was an excellent passer, he was a smart physical player.

For the Olympian category, he's not My vydas he's not your Vydas, he's Arvydas Sabonis!

I would've liked to have seen him play his entire career in the NBA. He'd be much higher on the All-Time lists for sure.

I remember watching his games back in the day thinking, "there's no way this guy is good", only to see him dominate the game.

[SWedd523]

I guess Dwight Howard's 63% shooting last year makes him loads better than Bill Russel with his 44% career shooting. And Kendrick Perkins was so much better than him too! And Andrew Bynum!

EDIT And in the year I selected, Bob Petit shot 41%

Dude. You aren't helping your cause. Dwight has never shot 63% He shot 59.3% last year.



Here's the top 5 FG% for a single season:

Wilt--72.7 (72-73)
Wilt--68.3 (66-67)
Gilmore--67 (80-81)
Gilmore--65.2 (81-82)
Wilt--64.9 (71-72)

Pretty old right?

[captaincrunk]

I don't follow and I don't care. Jose Calderon had a season where he had 50/40/90, end of story.

That seems to be a common thing for you. "close enough" doesn't count. Point Blank. Those limits exist for a reason. He didn't meet the qualifications, nobody's fault but his own. There's a reason only 5 players have done it. You don't add close enough just because.

What did he average in FG%? What did he average in 3pt%? What did he average in FT%?

You're still ignorant, as has been made evident by your posts. You're ignoring the arguments made earlier, which was my point before and now.

Of course, because ignorant means disagreeing with you. Got it.

ffs...

Christ... You're being very, very thick.

I'm guessing thick and ignorant are synonyms for you?

No, I'm saying you're being thick. Slow witted. Not getting it. Etc.

Accounting for blocks = 100% guesswork
Accounting for FG% = 100% factual, tangible information

In that case, Bob Petit was a terrible forward, so was everyone then.

That includes dudes who didn't get off enough shots to really count though. Or is Jose Calderon a 50/40/90 player?

So wait. I can't use those players because they "didn't get off enough shots", but Calderon is in the 50/40/90 club despite........ "not getting off enough shots"?

My point is you can't have it both ways.

No he isn't, you're ignorance is still showing.

http://tinyurl.com/3qc49ps
Numbers don't lie.

But they can mislead, like they are in this case. Very strongly so, in fact.

Stop making excuses.

LOL. Big men are always tops when it comes to FG%. Any simpleton knows a layup or dunk is more efficient than a jump shot.

Any simpleton knows that you can't compare FG% between eras either.

No he isn't! I showed you quite clearly that he was not!

Again, numbers don't lie.

http://tinyurl.com/3synsrt (different link from above)

I already responded to this in great detail. You're comparing an old ass Cousy to a prime Robertson. Hardly fair.

What happened to in their primes? I chose an MVP season. You chose a season in which he was over 30 years old and on the decline. Should we use MJ's Wizard's days as a comparison to Kobe?

What are you even talking about? Bob Cousy's PRIME was 20/9 on those percentages I laid out before. Prices PRIME was 20/9 on those percentages I laid out earlier.

You're comparing Cousy's old ass man days to the Big O at 24. Those guys are from a later era.

Cousy could shoot 85% from the line.

Price is the All-Time leader in FT%

That's nice.

You're just comparing an 41 year old Cousy to guys who were much younger. Hell, Frazier never even played before Cousy retired the first time. You're embarassing yourself if you really thought Cousy was playing in the mid sixties.

No, the numbers were using his entire career. Not only his final one. You really seem to be lagging behind. Besides, why are you still talking about that? I've long since limited the range to 62-63, when I clearly stated he's still behind 48 other guards.[/quote]

How about you limit it to his prime, eh? I chose an MVP Season that shows he was more than an adequate shooter.

posting.php?mode=quote&f=53&p=28846830

If you take out the people who didn't shoot enough to qualify he'll probably be top 30.

EDIT: And Wanzer, in the year that I posted, made less than 25 shots. The REAL FG% leader that year had 44%, which is pretty weak by todays standards. Compared that to 60+% on modern equipment and you're adding nearly 20% to get there.

I used Donham as my single season example.[/quote]
You used Wanzer in response to my example though, if I remember right.

He shot better in 51-52 than Cousy ever did in a single season.

And Dwight just went for 63%. Petit? More than 20% worse. Did you miss breakfast or something?

Even if you limit it to at least 350 FGs made, his single season best is still no better than 50th best during his career. As evidenced by http://tinyurl.com/3gf9d9a

This is pathetic. You don't get it at all.

That's it. I've given you multiple links, compiled stats, and unbiased, factual evidence. All you've given is, "nuh uh nobody was a good shooter". I don't think you warrant any further response. Come stronger next time.

The stats you are using are terribly misleading and unapplicable. I showed you straight out that he was top 30 in his MVP season. A season in which the best shooter was 44%. All you've done is compared him to Jerry West and Oscar Robertson, who aren't in the same era as a prime Cousy.

[fatlever]

holy smokes, crunk and swedd, give it a rest already that was exhausting to read. and no need to be calling each other ignorant. obviously both of you are extremely educated bball fans who just have a difference of opinion in regards to comparing eras. to be honest its damn near impossible to compare players from vastly different eras.

here's my two cents on your argument...

from what i've read, the late 50s and early 60s was a time when teams raced up and down the floor jacking up shots and a crazy rate. nobody shot good percentages back then. thats one of the reasons all those bigs back then averaged crazy rebounding numbers. tons of shots going up and at a very low percentage. guards back then didnt have as much incentive to work on their jumpers since their was no 3pt line.

is price a better shooter than cousy? yeah, most likely. price was a better shooter than 99% of the players who have ever set foot on an NBA floor. there's no shame in being worse than price at shooting. however, i would think that cousy was a better ball handler and a better passer.

put cousy in the league today and yeah, he might struggle, at least until he adapted his game. conversely if you put westbrook in the league in the 50s he would probably get moved to small forward and he would get called for 15 palming violations per game.

anyway, i love the passion for which you guys are defending your arguments, just make sure it doesnt cross the line. like crunk said, we are a close knit group here on this board and at the end of the day we are like family. hug it out and move on to the next fight.