I'm seeing posts about how Cousy "was overrated" and "might have been hurting the Celtics."
This is an interesting topic to me because the notion that Cousy was overrated due to his flashiness, low efficiency, high team pace, etc. doesn't properly account for why Red Auerbach, perhaps the greatest example of a true "basketball genius," consistently relied on, believed in, and
won with Cousy. Auerbach's view of Cousy being skewed because of an incorrect belief in limited data and a misunderstanding of what was really important is conflicting with... well, the results. It's hard to argue against a man that won 16 championships across four decades. He certainly knew something about how to win during his time period. In a way, to criticize the eras view on Cousy is also contesting Auerbach's own beliefs regarding what it takes to win, essentially telling Red Auerbach: "You are wrong."
I think Cousy is a vastly misunderstood player, most obviously as a result of playing 70 years ago.
For me? Forget about the time machines to evaluate players because it's a figment of the imagination. We will never know how any player from so long ago would do today. All we can do is evaluate how a player did with the cards they were dealt. How much better were they than their peers, who were also given that same hand?
Doctor MJ wrote:In the early-to-mid 50s, Cousy was the high primacy star of the best offense in basketball. He was not necessarily seen at the time as the best player on that team (Ed Macauley was a massive star)
Throughout the 50s, Cousy was not only regarded as the most important player on the Celtics, but one of the best players in the entire league. Before the official NBA MVP Award, the Sam Davis Memorial Award was the unofficial MVP award voted on by sportswriters--Cousy won this award in '53 and '55. He also finished 3rd in voting for the '56 MVP award that Pettit won, while Macauley didn't receive any votes. Macauley was a star, but Cousy was being touted as the greatest since Mikan. Players and coaches around the league had nothing but the highest praise for his play:
Paul Birch:
"Cousy is the greatest basketball ever saw--and remember... I saw Nat Holman." - 1951
Joe Lapchick:
"Greatest all-around ball player I've ever seen." - 1954
George Senesky Likens Cousy to Babe Ruth - 1956
Doctor MJ wrote:The Celtics then transition to a defense-led team, with Bill Russell as they keystone, but the immediate response is to hold Cousy in even more esteem - as if this is just the product of Cousy finally having the right supporting cast around him. This happens in part because Cousy continues to be the lead primacy guy on the offense, partly because of pure winning bias, and - subtly and importantly - the Celtics play at a really high pace.
What do I mean by that last point? I mean that it wasn't until recent times the use of ORtg & DRtg - that team points per 100 possessions and opponent points per 100 possessions - was something that existed in any public space, and it's in fact possible that the first such public accounting came from ElGee (Ben Taylor) during the Retro POY project on this site in 2010. It was after that that basketball-reference.com used his process as the starting point for going back into the deeper past.
So back then, pace was likely conflated with offensive success and defensive failure as a matter of course, and in '56-57, the Celtics were first in points scored, and gave up more points than average in the league. Given this data and Cousy's stature, it made sense for people to think it was Cousy being the best player in the world.
This led to there being some people by the end of the '50s who argued Cousy was the GOAT, and plenty more who predicted that the Celtics would fall off the map after Cousy retired...when in fact the team improved on the basis of getting even better defensively without Cousy's weakness on that front.
Hence, when I look at Cousy, I see someone for whom it's quite reasonable to conclude was overrated in his own time, not because they overrated everyone back then, but because the data diet of the time was limited in ways that really helped paint a rosy picture of Cousy.
I think suggesting that basketball minds were primarily overrating Cousy because of high pace and gaudy scoring numbers is a little too simplistic. I mean, these are players and coaches that correctly understood Russell's impact on defense, even though he wasn't putting up high scoring numbers--I'd give them a little more credit here, with extra value on Auerbach's opinion.
I would say the following contributed to the positive outlook on Cousy:
- Cousy had an enormous amount of usage during the mid 50s and was churning out top offenses, including the single greatest relative offense until 1967. In '55 the Celtics still held strong at #1 even after Macauley likely fell off after suffering a finger injury on his shooting hand in the '54 playoffs that would have him considering retirement less than a year later.
- Watching Cousy's ability to create for teammates firsthand. This is much of what is talked about in sources--he helped find open shots and create high value assists in an era where they were hard to come by. This is also why Macauley and Sharman were never praised to the level Cousy was, because a significant portion of their shots were a direct result of Cousy himself.
- Bringing up the '57 season, the team was spearheaded by Cousy/Sharman while Heinsohn helped shore up their rebounding, leading to a 15-4 full strength record pre-Russell. This Celtics team looked strong on both sides of the ball and were blowing the lid off every team in the league before Russell and Ramsey had arrived, leading to complaints from various teams regarding the Celtics and their plethora of talent on standby. Could Cousy have led this team to a championship without Russell? We'll never know. But what we do know is that Celtics team was already looking like a clear favorite without the addition of two future Hall of Famers.
- For as much people want to harp on Cousy for his efficiency, the Celtics won again and again with him playing heavy minutes in the playoffs past his prime. His genius coach/GM in Red Auerbach saw the value in him, as did his teammates, and I believe the consistency of their winning shows that there is underlying impact that stats cannot truly show.
So, from their point of view, prime Cousy could not only score above league average efficiency on high volume, but he also made his teammates better. His heavy offensive workload meant less energy on defense, yet he was likely among the league leaders in steals, if not outright leading, on a regular basis. His defensive ability, while inconsistent at times, was actually quite good, as Auerbach finally began to admit in the mid 50s after lambasting him during his rookie year. With the Celtics off to a record start before Russell joined, I can definitely see why Cousy was immediately getting the lions share of the credit. The praise only continued after the Celtics won year after year. And while Russell was the clear key to their success, Cousy was still a significant part of their overall strategy on offense and defense. His aggressive playmaking combined with starting fastbreaks through stealing and allowing teammates to save energy on defense is largely underlooked today.
Doctor MJ wrote:And to emphasize again: I wouldn't be talking like this if:
1. Cousy's efficiency was solid relative to his contemporaries.
2. Cousy's efficiency arc was admirable as his career progress.
Fair enough. Although I'd argue:
Cousy's efficiency was negatively impacted by Russell, but his shot creation and passing ability was still necessary for the Celtics' style of play. Not only was Cousy better with the ball in his hands than guys like Heinsohn, Sharman, and Russell--but Cousy having the ball and taking shots in place of other players allowed less energy to be expended for better defense, especially from Russell, who could pass up the court and save energy while Cousy created. Auerbach understood how important this was to the team, and that's part of the reason why Cousy is either leading or second on the team in playoff minutes until his last couple years.
And for what it's worth, Ben Taylor's Historical data is far more optimistic on the Celtics' Cousy-Russell era offense:
The offense obviously takes a hit when Russell joins. Cousy, past his prime and oft-injured, is helping to keep the offense afloat until retirement.
I'd like to bring up the negative impact Russell had on the Celtics offense, particularly on shot creators, as a trade off for his defense. Cousy went from a career high free throw rate to the lowest seasons of his career (excluding rookie) with Russell, which also hampered his efficiency:
Looking deeper into Cousy's splits for the 1957 season, the addition of Russell and how it impacted Cousy becomes more clear:
Something similar can be seen in John Havlicek, who was also the main offensive option for the Celtics before Russell's departure:
Havlicek has a substantial increase in FG%, rising to nearly 5-6% for the rest of his career following Russell. One thing to note is Havlicek’s increase in FT% is in part due to the ball change during the 1970 season that caused an increase in league wide FT%, although no other player had the increase in FG% that Havlicek did. While one could argue this increase in efficiency is due to Havlicek growing as a player, I do think his jump coinciding with Russell leaving is notable and is an interesting comparison to Cousy’s situation.
With the lack of spacing and Auerbach's shoot-at-will strategy, Cousy's efficiency was negatively impacted. The Celtics as a whole had few players that could actually create their own shot like Cousy, and in an effort for Russell to feel more involved, Auerbach made it a point to get him touches. It's clear why the offense gets worse with Russell when watching Celtics film: Russell hand-off into a contested jumper, Russell screen into a contested jumper, or a clogged lane into a contested jumper. The Celtics wanted to be in transition as much as possible because of this--their offense was most successful with the ball in Cousy's hands and the team running with him.
The Celtics won mostly on defense and winning the possession battle with Russell, but it seems like efficiency was going to take a hit as a cost. In this regard, I wouldn't be as harsh on Cousy's low efficiency, mainly because he was making up for it with the high value playmaking he made throughout the game. This playmaking was able to keep their offense afloat and also led to 6 titles, so I would like to think there is some impact in his passing and shot generation that numbers aren't really showing.
Doctor MJ wrote:To give a balancing exemplar, I'd consider someone like John Stockton to be the antithesis of Cousy, and as a result Stockton had among the best old-man-careers in the history of the game. As Stockton's physical capacity diminished, he gradually played less minutes, and gradually called his own number less when he was out there on the court, and prevented his team from being in a situation where their primacy orientation became badly out of tune with what the needs of the current team were.
Cousy won 6 championships in 7 years and finished top two among his team in minutes for 5 of those playoff runs--hard to end a career much better than that. I'd say that the roles Stockton and Cousy had were quite different. Keep in mind that Cousy's coach and teammates were fine with the way he played and felt it was beneficial to the team because they continued to win. Cousy's team needed an aggressive playmaker that could run the break and get easy shots. Stockton in that kind of role would be passing so much that the defense would play off him and would ultimately lead to harder shots for the rest of the team. This is something Cousy has mentioned in various interviews throughout the years--that passivity in a player ultimately makes it more difficult to create good looks. Sometimes a player must take a hit efficiency-wise for the good of the team, and again, the results really do speak for themselves here.
Dr Positivity wrote:52: Bobby Wanzer
53: Bobby Wanzer, George King, Slater Martin, Bob Davies. Andy Phillip tie, Ernie Vandeweghe is only behind due to GP
54: Bill Sharman, Paul Seymour, Bobby Wanzer, Carl Braun
55: nobody - Bill Sharman would be ahead if not for slight GP deficit
56: Bill Sharman. Tom Gola would be slightly ahead if not for slight GP deficit
57: Bill Sharman, Jack Twyman
58: Frank Ramsey, Larry Costello, Bill Sharman, Carl Braun, Tom Gola
59: nobody
60: Tom Gola, Gene Shue, Larry Costello, Bill Sharman
Overall not bad, 55 and 59 seasons look good. You can also widdle this down to PGs instead of SGs eliminating players like Wanzer, Gola, Sharman, Ramsey, Braun, Twyman, etc. Still, most of these players get discounted by the fact that it was a weaker, white league while Cousy is given legend status. Sharman seems to be the less famous Celtic, even though he was arguably better. Sharman didn't make the last RealGM top 100, while Cousy was ranked 63rd, which in itself is still much lower than most media members would.
If you asked Stephen A who is better between Cousy and Larry Costello he would laugh at you, but it's closer than it looks. Costello was a solid 15, 5 and 4 type player, but more efficient than Cousy. For example in 1960 Costello puts up a 14.0 pts, 6.3 ast, 5.5 reb on .523 TS%. Cousy puts up a 19.4 pts, 9.5 ast (career high), 4.7 reb on .439 TS%. As a result Costello has higher WS for the same reasons 2021 Conley has better advanced stats than Wizards Westbrook, and that's without turnovers where I have to assume Cousy had more. Earlier in his career Cousy would have some competition for best PG in Davies, and even for players I think he's better than such as ones like Slater Martin or Andy Phillip, I don't know if he's really miles ahead. Unlike George Mikan, Cousy does not crush the league statistically, or lap the field compared to other guards who had statistical disadvantage compared to bigs. He's maybe as good for his era as Westbrook or something and while when taking into account longevity he's obviously the PG of the 50s, the 50s are by far and away a worse era for talent than anything after it, so he has to be downgraded quite a bit below that for the same reason Sharman didn't make that top 100 among other great stats players we've traditionally been pretty harsh on like Johnston. Personally I would rank him even below great 90s or 2000 PGs careers like KJ or Billups who might have been slightly worse for their era but against much better competition.
Win Shares doesn't really give the best representation of a player like Cousy. WS/48 undersells the value of playmaking and can't really quantify how much pressure is being put on the defense in order to create shots. Similar to guys like Doncic and Morant, Cousy will take a heavy offensive load for his teammates and this gets teammates open. This is why Doncic is 29th in WS/48 this season--and that's with his advantage in rebounding, which WS/48 always loves, and the Mavericks' strong defense to boost him. Doncic is actually 47th(!) in OWS this season because he is penalized for the lower efficiency but not given enough credit for generating pressure and open shots. I'm pretty confident a stat like EPM would be more positive on Cousy, if it had existed back then.
Most of those guards are way higher in WS/48 because they are efficient due to taking around 10 or so shots a game, with the exception of Sharman. Those players don't have the offensive responsibility that Cousy has. They might have higher efficiency but they aren't creating pressure anywhere near the level Cousy was which is invaluable. Cousy was actually pretty efficient until Russell joined and the offense lacked spacing and options. This trade off hurt Cousy but was a massive boost in defense to win the possession game.
In regards to the comparison you made, besides the fact that Costello is in the middle of his prime and Cousy is at the tail end of his career, Costello is just in a different role. Costello doesn't have the same kind of offensive load Cousy has, nor is he playmaking on the level Cousy is either. Costello is also on a more talented offensive team with more weapons than the Russell Celtics. When Cousy actually had offensive weapons and space, he was solid efficiently and the team excelled. Regardless, the team rORTGs by Ben Taylor's metrics are actually solid, ranking from 2nd to 5th most seasons. Perhaps that is a good example of how the offense was still working because of the transition game that Cousy was controlling and gives us an idea regarding his playmaking impact.
