Why is Bob Cousy so underrated all the time in ATG PG rankings?

[Doctor MJ]

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

Spoiler:

Joe Lapchick: "Greatest all-around ball player I've ever seen." - 1954

Spoiler:

George Senesky Likens Cousy to Babe Ruth - 1956

Spoiler:

In '50-51, Cousy & Macauley were both on the Celtics, but Macauley was 1st Team All-NBA and Cousy didn't make 2nd. This would change the next year with Cousy & Macauley both making 1st Team for several years, but I think it's critical for people to understand that Macauley was not perceived as just another side kick. Macauley was an established star for the Celtics before Cousy was.

There's no doubt that Cousy would over time become the clear cut face of the Celtics, but it was not this way from day one, and while I don't mean to use that as an argument "so Cousy wasn't that good", I do think it's worth being aware of.

Let me just say before I move on that I appreciate the quotes and other details you included in your post.

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.

Okay so when you start by saying, "I think suggesting that basketball minds were primarily overrating Cousy because of high pace and gaudy scoring numbers is a little too simplistic", this would seem to imply you're going to give other reasons for them to overrate Cousy, which I don't think is what you were looking to do here. Rather, you're looking to say that Cousy was not overrated at all, no?

Re: harping on efficiency, but won again and again, and "genius" saw value! Let's be clear here:

Cousy was efficient until he wasn't, and the Celtic offense was effective until it wasn't.

I don't think there's any doubt that the early success had everything to do with why the reputation continued after it ceased to be an accurate assessment of what's going on, but if you'd like to suggest another explanation - which I don't think you have here - go for it.

Incidentally, I feel pretty similarly about Joe Fulks and Elgin Baylor. There's a continuing trend of some starts in the early decades seeing their relative efficiency fall off a cliff before their volume adjusted, and I just think that's a natural thing that happens when those doing the evaluating don't really have access to the statistical analysis that we do today.

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:

Spoiler:

1957 Celtics rORTG: +2.2 - 2nd of 8
1958 Celtics rORTG: +1.4 - 3rd of 8
1959 Celtics rORTG: +1.7 - 4th of 8
1960 Celtics rORTG: +2.5 - 2nd of 8
1961 Celtics rORTG: -1.4 - 7th of 8
1962 Celtics rORTG: +0.9 - 5th of 9
1963 Celtics rORTG: -0.6 - 5th of 9
1964 Celtics rORTG: -2.4 - 8th of 9 (No Cousy)

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:

Spoiler:

‘54 TS+ (Pre-Russell): 105
'55 TS+ (Pre-Russell): 105
'56 TS+ (Pre-Russell): 101
'57 TS+ (Half-Russell): 101
'58 TS+ (With Russell): 92

‘54 FTr (Pre-Russell): .414
'55 FTr (Pre-Russell): .433
'56 FTr (Pre-Russell): .461
'57 FTr (Half-Russell): .350
'58 FTr (With Russell): .258

Looking deeper into Cousy's splits for the 1957 season, the addition of Russell and how it impacted Cousy becomes more clear:

Spoiler:

First 24 Games Played (Pre-Russell): 23.2 PPG/8.7 FTA (Career highs)
Next 24 Games Played (With Russell): 20.4 PPG/5.8 FTA
Total in 40 Games Played (With Russell): 19.1 PPG/5.8 FTA (Lowest since rookie season)

14 Games of Full Box Score Data (Pre-Russell): 48.69 TS% (Career high)
28 Games of Full Box Score Data (With Russell): 44.32 TS% (Lowest since rookie season)

Something similar can be seen in John Havlicek, who was also the main offensive option for the Celtics before Russell's departure:

Spoiler:

'68 TS+ (With Russell): 98
'69 TS+ (With Russell): 94
'70 TS+ (Post-Russell): 104
'71 TS+ (Post-Russell): 103
'72 TS+ (Post-Russell): 102

'68 FG+ (With Russell): 96
'69 FG+ (With Russell): 92
'70 FG+ (Post-Russell): 101
'71 FG+ (Post-Russell): 100
'72 FG+ (Post-Russell: 101

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.

I think you share a lot of great information here, but when you say "Auerbach's shoot-at-will strategy, Cousy's efficiency was negatively impacted", this is another way of saying Cousy had the greenlight to use his own judgment on which shots to take, and he chose to take inefficient shots. Maybe Auerbach encouraged him to do this, but whether he did or not, that doesn't change the fact that Cousy was taking inefficient shots and that these shots affected his effectvieness.

You can of course argue that that's what Cousy simply had to do because of the Russell-context, but the Celtics played at the fastest pace in the league, so it's hard to imagine this being a situation where again and again the Celtic offense bogged down and Cousy was forced to take shots at the end of the 24 second clock.

Cousy was always a guy who called his own number a lot, so to me the simple answer sure seems to be that he kept those habits after they stopped being optimal for him, and were this not the case, then I'd expect the predictions that the dynasty would end after Cousy's retirement would have come true.

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.

I could use the same type of argument for KC Jones. We're not going to get anywhere meaningful in our analysis if we insist that players on winning teams couldn't possibly be doing anything sub-optimal.

Re: Cousy's team needed an aggressive playmaker...Cousy's team got better when he retired, so no, they didn't actually need him to be playing the role he did in order to win and to the extent they thought they did, they were just plain wrong.

To be fair: I'm not saying the team's offense got better after Cousy retired, only that they proved that they could have been sucking even harder on offense than the worst-in-league they were already at and still winning titles so long as the defensive supporting cast was solid.

One more thing:

A massive part of what we're talking about with Cousy's efficiency decline is that the league got better. Early in Cousy's career he could put up that 44% TS and still be above average relative to the league, but later on this stopped being the case.

This goes part and parcel with the Fulks/Baylor examples, where you have players continuing to jack up the same shots as the quality of the shotmakers around them goes up, and when such a player doesn't adjust their approach, to me this clearly implies a certain blindness to efficiency.

Wherever I see this, I take note of it and I am critical of the player, though how much I'm critical of it depends on the extent of it and what the player is known for. When classical volume scorers have this issue, well, that to me is what you expect. Players get put in that role because they excel at doing their individual thing so there's no particular reason to expect that they'll also have the meta-awareness to gracefully shift when the proper basketball play changes from a shot to a pass based on their lessening capacity relative to other players.

It hits a bit harder though with Cousy because he is supposed to be the archetypical playmaker for his teammates, and we would have hoped that he'd be able to keep up with the times better the way many other all-time point guards successfully did.

[70sFan]

...

I don't think you can do the same with Baylor though, for a few reasons:

1. Baylor's decline was caused by injuries, not him becoming obsolete.

2. Baylor averaged 50 TS% during his first 4 seasons (before injury problems started). He didn't reach that mark until 1968 when he took considerably less shots and didn't have the same role anymore. So it's not the case of league becoming better than Baylor, but Elgin actually becoming worse.

3. Baylor wasn't highly ranked at his peak because of his RS efficiency, but his resiliency in postseason. In 1960-63, he averaged staggering 36 ppg on 52 TS%, which was really good for that time (and would be good even for the late 1960s). During 1964-70 period, his averaged dropped to 22 ppg on 48 TS%. So again - it wasn't the case of his effciency staying on the same level, but him getting worse due to injuries.

[Doctor MJ]

...

I don't think you can do the same with Baylor though, for a few reasons:

1. Baylor's decline was caused by injuries, not him becoming obsolete.

2. Baylor averaged 50 TS% during his first 4 seasons (before injury problems started). He didn't reach that mark until 1968 when he took considerably less shots and didn't have the same role anymore. So it's not the case of league becoming better than Baylor, but Elgin actually becoming worse.

3. Baylor wasn't highly ranked at his peak because of his RS efficiency, but his resiliency in postseason. In 1960-63, he averaged staggering 36 ppg on 52 TS%, which was really good for that time (and would be good even for the late 1960s). During 1964-70 period, his averaged dropped to 22 ppg on 48 TS%. So again - it wasn't the case of his effciency staying on the same level, but him getting worse due to injuries.

As soon as West was there, Baylor was crap efficiency compared to their other option, yet he did not adapt. Whether this was due to injury or not, it shows a similar lack of awareness.

[70sFan]

...

I don't think you can do the same with Baylor though, for a few reasons:

1. Baylor's decline was caused by injuries, not him becoming obsolete.

2. Baylor averaged 50 TS% during his first 4 seasons (before injury problems started). He didn't reach that mark until 1968 when he took considerably less shots and didn't have the same role anymore. So it's not the case of league becoming better than Baylor, but Elgin actually becoming worse.

3. Baylor wasn't highly ranked at his peak because of his RS efficiency, but his resiliency in postseason. In 1960-63, he averaged staggering 36 ppg on 52 TS%, which was really good for that time (and would be good even for the late 1960s). During 1964-70 period, his averaged dropped to 22 ppg on 48 TS%. So again - it wasn't the case of his effciency staying on the same level, but him getting worse due to injuries.

As soon as West was there, Baylor was crap efficiency compared to their other option, yet he did not adapt. Whether this was due to injury or not, it shows a similar lack of awareness.

West and Baylor posted identical efficiency numbers during West first 3 seasons. After that he should have adjust and he didn't, but it shouldn't make us question his peak level. It's also in part the matter of Lakers coaches who didn't lower Elgin's role.

[tsherkin]

West and Baylor posted identical efficiency numbers during West first 3 seasons. After that he should have adjust and he didn't, but it shouldn't make us question his peak level. It's also in part the matter of Lakers coaches who didn't lower Elgin's role.

Hmm.

1961: Baylor 49.8%, West 46.8%
1962: Baylor 48.1%, West 52.4%
1963: Baylor 51.9%, West 52.3% (57 GP)

West was a lot better than him in that second season, and then yeah, Baylor had a good year when West was injured.

1964: Baylor 48.7%, West 56.2%
1965: Baylor 46.3%, West 57.2%

3rd year is an interesting cut-off, though. Pretty much from year 2 forward, West had him. That draw rate really made a difference, and very quickly.

[70sFan]

West and Baylor posted identical efficiency numbers during West first 3 seasons. After that he should have adjust and he didn't, but it shouldn't make us question his peak level. It's also in part the matter of Lakers coaches who didn't lower Elgin's role.

Hmm.

1961: Baylor 49.8%, West 46.8%
1962: Baylor 48.1%, West 52.4%
1963: Baylor 51.9%, West 52.3% (57 GP)

West was a lot better than him in that second season, and then yeah, Baylor had a good year when West was injured.

1964: Baylor 48.7%, West 56.2%
1965: Baylor 46.3%, West 57.2%

3rd year is an interesting cut-off, though. Pretty much from year 2 forward, West had him. That draw rate really made a difference, and very quickly.

Baylor had down year in terms of efficiency in 1962 because he couldn't train full-time. Other than that, Baylor looks comparable to West, with higher volume.

No disagreement with post 1964.

[Doctor MJ]

I don't think you can do the same with Baylor though, for a few reasons:

1. Baylor's decline was caused by injuries, not him becoming obsolete.

2. Baylor averaged 50 TS% during his first 4 seasons (before injury problems started). He didn't reach that mark until 1968 when he took considerably less shots and didn't have the same role anymore. So it's not the case of league becoming better than Baylor, but Elgin actually becoming worse.

3. Baylor wasn't highly ranked at his peak because of his RS efficiency, but his resiliency in postseason. In 1960-63, he averaged staggering 36 ppg on 52 TS%, which was really good for that time (and would be good even for the late 1960s). During 1964-70 period, his averaged dropped to 22 ppg on 48 TS%. So again - it wasn't the case of his effciency staying on the same level, but him getting worse due to injuries.

As soon as West was there, Baylor was crap efficiency compared to their other option, yet he did not adapt. Whether this was due to injury or not, it shows a similar lack of awareness.

West and Baylor posted identical efficiency numbers during West first 3 seasons. After that he should have adjust and he didn't, but it shouldn't make us question his peak level. It's also in part the matter of Lakers coaches who didn't lower Elgin's role.

Fair point about it not being immediate.

Re: shouldn't make us question peak. Well, there's truth in that. I do think the lack of judgment is something that was there the whole time, but it wasn't burning the team until later.

Re: Laker coaches...certainly also deserve blame. The coaches ideally should have done something more about it, but at the roots, it's not like coaches are typically telling their older stars "I don't care if the younger guy is better than you and more likely to lead to effective possession if you pass it, you're the man, so you have to take that shot!". What's actually happening, most of the time, is that such established stars are allowed to use their own judgment even if their own judgment falls out of tune with reality.

[falcolombardi]

As soon as West was there, Baylor was crap efficiency compared to their other option, yet he did not adapt. Whether this was due to injury or not, it shows a similar lack of awareness.

West and Baylor posted identical efficiency numbers during West first 3 seasons. After that he should have adjust and he didn't, but it shouldn't make us question his peak level. It's also in part the matter of Lakers coaches who didn't lower Elgin's role.

Fair point about it not being immediate.

Re: shouldn't make us question peak. Well, there's truth in that. I do think the lack of judgment is something that was there the whole time, but it wasn't burning the team until later.

Re: Laker coaches...certainly also deserve blame. The coaches ideally should have done something more about it, but at the roots, it's not like coaches are typically telling their older stars "I don't care if the younger guy is better than you and more likely to lead to effective possession if you pass it, you're the man, so you have to take that shot!". What's actually happening, most of the time, is that such established stars are allowed to use their own judgment even if their own judgment falls out of tune with reality.

ehh that seems like a lot of guessing what baylor or lakers coaches were or not thinking and assumptions of it

we dont actually know (unless they tslked about it somewhere) why baylor was shooting so much

and if we are gonna guess and speculate on it then maybe the coaches tought it was for the better for all we know too. and are we not high on players following their coach vision and buying in on what he tells them to do?

after all players that disagree with their coach vision and demand/do somethingh else instead are often criticized here are not they?

it could be that they knew west was more effective but wanted both to shot a ton regardless, remember that jerry west in the mid 60's was not exactly a low usage guy

would reducing baylor load and giving west a monster load to carry even conpared to his already big one (talking about usage going into the 40's for example)really make lakers and west better?

was making west gun for wilt 50 points record gonna make lakers better? were there role players who could take a bigger role withoyt baylor in the way?

[Doctor MJ]

West and Baylor posted identical efficiency numbers during West first 3 seasons. After that he should have adjust and he didn't, but it shouldn't make us question his peak level. It's also in part the matter of Lakers coaches who didn't lower Elgin's role.

Fair point about it not being immediate.

Re: shouldn't make us question peak. Well, there's truth in that. I do think the lack of judgment is something that was there the whole time, but it wasn't burning the team until later.

Re: Laker coaches...certainly also deserve blame. The coaches ideally should have done something more about it, but at the roots, it's not like coaches are typically telling their older stars "I don't care if the younger guy is better than you and more likely to lead to effective possession if you pass it, you're the man, so you have to take that shot!". What's actually happening, most of the time, is that such established stars are allowed to use their own judgment even if their own judgment falls out of tune with reality.

ehh that seems like a lot of guessing what baylor or lakers coaches were or not thinking and assumptions of it

we dont actually know (unless they tslked about it somewhere) why baylor was shooting so much

and if we are gonna guess and speculate on it then maybe the coaches tought it was for the better for all we know too. and are we not high on players following their coach vision and buying in on what he tells them to do?

after all players that disagree with their coach vision and demand/do somethingh else instead are often criticized here are not they?

it could be that they knew west was more effective but wanted both to shot a ton regardless, remember that jerry west in the mid 60's was not exactly a low usage guy

would reducing baylor load and giving west a monster load to carry even conpared to his already big one (talking about usage going into the 40's for example)really make lakers and west better?

was making west gun for wilt 50 points record gonna make lakers better? were there role players who could take a bigger role withoyt baylor in the way?

Part of what I'm trying to communicate (in this and the other thread going on) is that there's nothing helpful about refusing to speculate. It might feel morally righteous, but if me going by my hunch brings me closer to reality than someone else refusing to use speculative methods, then they are trapping themselves in a less effective approach.

When using these hunches it's important to know that you are making assumptions, and to not treat those assumptions as sacrosanct, but I find that these hunches not only tend to work better than trying to make no assumption at all, but also allow you to start asking questions that sometimes help you understand things better.

[tsherkin]

West and Baylor posted identical efficiency numbers during West first 3 seasons. After that he should have adjust and he didn't, but it shouldn't make us question his peak level. It's also in part the matter of Lakers coaches who didn't lower Elgin's role.

Hmm.

1961: Baylor 49.8%, West 46.8%
1962: Baylor 48.1%, West 52.4%
1963: Baylor 51.9%, West 52.3% (57 GP)

West was a lot better than him in that second season, and then yeah, Baylor had a good year when West was injured.

1964: Baylor 48.7%, West 56.2%
1965: Baylor 46.3%, West 57.2%

3rd year is an interesting cut-off, though. Pretty much from year 2 forward, West had him. That draw rate really made a difference, and very quickly.

Baylor had down year in terms of efficiency in 1962 because he couldn't train full-time. Other than that, Baylor looks comparable to West, with higher volume.

"Baylor had an up year in 63" is probably how I'd personally characterize that one. He was sub-50% in all those other seasons and West was consistently at or better than 52% after his rookie year

[falcolombardi]

Fair point about it not being immediate.

Re: shouldn't make us question peak. Well, there's truth in that. I do think the lack of judgment is something that was there the whole time, but it wasn't burning the team until later.

Re: Laker coaches...certainly also deserve blame. The coaches ideally should have done something more about it, but at the roots, it's not like coaches are typically telling their older stars "I don't care if the younger guy is better than you and more likely to lead to effective possession if you pass it, you're the man, so you have to take that shot!". What's actually happening, most of the time, is that such established stars are allowed to use their own judgment even if their own judgment falls out of tune with reality.

ehh that seems like a lot of guessing what baylor or lakers coaches were or not thinking and assumptions of it

we dont actually know (unless they tslked about it somewhere) why baylor was shooting so much

and if we are gonna guess and speculate on it then maybe the coaches tought it was for the better for all we know too. and are we not high on players following their coach vision and buying in on what he tells them to do?

after all players that disagree with their coach vision and demand/do somethingh else instead are often criticized here are not they?

it could be that they knew west was more effective but wanted both to shot a ton regardless, remember that jerry west in the mid 60's was not exactly a low usage guy

would reducing baylor load and giving west a monster load to carry even conpared to his already big one (talking about usage going into the 40's for example)really make lakers and west better?

was making west gun for wilt 50 points record gonna make lakers better? were there role players who could take a bigger role withoyt baylor in the way?

Part of what I'm trying to communicate (in this and the other thread going on) is that there's nothing helpful about refusing to speculate. It might feel morally righteous, but if me going by my hunch brings me closer to reality than someone else refusing to use speculative methods, then they are trapping themselves in a less effective approach.

When using these hunches it's important to know that you are making assumptions, and to not treat those assumptions as sacrosanct, but I find that these hunches not only tend to work better than trying to make no assumption at all, but also allow you to start asking questions that sometimes help you understand things better.

fair enough

but dont you think that my own speculation that lakers coaches tought west AND baylor both taking a big role in the lakers was better thsn only west doing it (even if he was better at it) makes sense too as a hunch?

as i mention in my comment, this was not a cynthia cooper situation where the better player was being asked to play a small role behind worse players

it was more of a "cynthia cooper is asked to be part of a duo alongside a lesser but still impactful player" it was cooper AND miller more than cooper as miller backup if that makes sense

the idea that lakers needed to reduce baylor role and have jerry west increase his already big load by taking more and more (and more) possesions is questionable imo

how much more than he was already doing could you ask jerry west to do before there were diminishing returns at the style of wilt 50 points season or jordan 40% usage years?

[Owly]

Hmm.

1961: Baylor 49.8%, West 46.8%
1962: Baylor 48.1%, West 52.4%
1963: Baylor 51.9%, West 52.3% (57 GP)

West was a lot better than him in that second season, and then yeah, Baylor had a good year when West was injured.

1964: Baylor 48.7%, West 56.2%
1965: Baylor 46.3%, West 57.2%

3rd year is an interesting cut-off, though. Pretty much from year 2 forward, West had him. That draw rate really made a difference, and very quickly.

Baylor had down year in terms of efficiency in 1962 because he couldn't train full-time. Other than that, Baylor looks comparable to West, with higher volume.

"Baylor had an up year in 63" is probably how I'd personally characterize that one. He was sub-50% in all those other seasons and West was consistently at or better than 52% after his rookie year

I don't particularly have a dog in this but that's only one framing ...

He had been at TS plus of
107
106
106
62: 103
then back to
105

Now the league's developing so perhaps one could argue he's left behind at lower percentages. Perhaps more persuasively the "how changes". In '63 a previously exceptional FTr+ plummets, whereas his FT+ (115) or FT% (.837, more than 5 percentage points better than his final career average, a slightly larger gap on Baylor's career prior to that point [.762]). That said his FG+ and FG add go back to previous levels I would say (could be luck if he's getting to the line less and shot type has changed).

[tsherkin]

I don't particularly have a dog in this but that's only one framing ...

I was speaking specifically in the context of Baylor v West and their efficiencies. He only hit 50%+ TS once prior to 68, so it seemed appropriate to look at that as more of an outlier than anything else. Meantime, his FTr dropped every year after his rookie year until 66, so we can kind of see why one part of why that FTr+ was tailing off.

63 was also a notable outlier in his FG% and FT%, which you discussed some.

Baylor's career is more nuanced than just discussion of his scoring efficiency, of course, but that's all I was discussing in that post because it was a specific response to one of 70sFan's posts. Which itself is still only treating a very narrow aspect of both West and Baylor, by design. As you say, the volume was different and we know that extreme volume has an effect on efficiency, for sure. I'm inclined to say he was shooting too much to begin with, which would make sense given prevailing thoughts in-era, but again, it goes beyond all that.

[Doctor MJ]

ehh that seems like a lot of guessing what baylor or lakers coaches were or not thinking and assumptions of it

we dont actually know (unless they tslked about it somewhere) why baylor was shooting so much

and if we are gonna guess and speculate on it then maybe the coaches tought it was for the better for all we know too. and are we not high on players following their coach vision and buying in on what he tells them to do?

after all players that disagree with their coach vision and demand/do somethingh else instead are often criticized here are not they?

it could be that they knew west was more effective but wanted both to shot a ton regardless, remember that jerry west in the mid 60's was not exactly a low usage guy

would reducing baylor load and giving west a monster load to carry even conpared to his already big one (talking about usage going into the 40's for example)really make lakers and west better?

was making west gun for wilt 50 points record gonna make lakers better? were there role players who could take a bigger role withoyt baylor in the way?

Part of what I'm trying to communicate (in this and the other thread going on) is that there's nothing helpful about refusing to speculate. It might feel morally righteous, but if me going by my hunch brings me closer to reality than someone else refusing to use speculative methods, then they are trapping themselves in a less effective approach.

When using these hunches it's important to know that you are making assumptions, and to not treat those assumptions as sacrosanct, but I find that these hunches not only tend to work better than trying to make no assumption at all, but also allow you to start asking questions that sometimes help you understand things better.

fair enough

but dont you think that my own speculation that lakers coaches tought west AND baylor both taking a big role in the lakers was better thsn only west doing it (even if he was better at it) makes sense too as a hunch?

as i mention in my comment, this was not a cynthia cooper situation where the better player was being asked to play a small role behind worse players

it was more of a "cynthia cooper is asked to be part of a duo alongside a lesser but still impactful player" it was cooper AND miller more than cooper as miller backup if that makes sense

the idea that lakers needed to reduce baylor role and have jerry west increase his already big load by taking more and more (and more) possesions is questionable imo

how much more than he was already doing could you ask jerry west to do before there were diminishing returns at the style of wilt 50 points season or jordan 40% usage years?

Hmm.

So first let me say: You're certainly entitled to your own speculation. You can also disagree with my speculation, and I can disagree with yours. The point I'm trying to make is unrelated to the correctness of any particular speculation.

Re: Maybe Lakers wanted West & Baylor to both take on a big role. Okay, I'm not entirely sure what I said that you're arguing against. If you want to argue that it made sense for Baylor to jack up inefficient shots, you can do that.

Re: Not a Cynthia Cooper situation. There are a lot of differences between the situations so it's hard for me to find the parallel. I think staggering Cooper & Miller's minutes actually made a lot of sense at the time, and frankly, staggering West & Baylor makes a lot of sense too.

Re: Should West have scored 50 PPG? Let's not take things to extremes here. Saying it was probably pretty dumb to let Baylor be your main shooter when West was the drastically more effective scorer and all around player is not the same thing as saying that only West should be allowed to shoot the ball.

More than anything else I think the '60s Lakers were held back by the idea that they had 2 great talents and everyone else was nothing. Go look at any given Laker year and you're going to find non-West Lakers who were shooting with more efficiency than Baylor. I would suggest that when that's the case, you should consider distributing more shots to those other guys. Such would be the case even if this were a West-less team, but in such cases you can argue that the volume star serves as a "loss leader" whose gravity lets the other guys be more efficient. In a case where you have a player who is both the best scorer and drastically more efficient than anyone else on the team, the idea that your #2 should act as a loss leader is something that basically no one would ever come up with.

Baylor almost certainly doesn't play that lead shooting primacy role in those years if he weren't the established star.

[falcolombardi]

Part of what I'm trying to communicate (in this and the other thread going on) is that there's nothing helpful about refusing to speculate. It might feel morally righteous, but if me going by my hunch brings me closer to reality than someone else refusing to use speculative methods, then they are trapping themselves in a less effective approach.

When using these hunches it's important to know that you are making assumptions, and to not treat those assumptions as sacrosanct, but I find that these hunches not only tend to work better than trying to make no assumption at all, but also allow you to start asking questions that sometimes help you understand things better.

fair enough

but dont you think that my own speculation that lakers coaches tought west AND baylor both taking a big role in the lakers was better thsn only west doing it (even if he was better at it) makes sense too as a hunch?

as i mention in my comment, this was not a cynthia cooper situation where the better player was being asked to play a small role behind worse players

it was more of a "cynthia cooper is asked to be part of a duo alongside a lesser but still impactful player" it was cooper AND miller more than cooper as miller backup if that makes sense

the idea that lakers needed to reduce baylor role and have jerry west increase his already big load by taking more and more (and more) possesions is questionable imo

how much more than he was already doing could you ask jerry west to do before there were diminishing returns at the style of wilt 50 points season or jordan 40% usage years?

Hmm.

So first let me say: You're certainly entitled to your own speculation. You can also disagree with my speculation, and I can disagree with yours. The point I'm trying to make is unrelated to the correctness of any particular speculation.

Re: Maybe Lakers wanted West & Baylor to both take on a big role. Okay, I'm not entirely sure what I said that you're arguing against. If you want to argue that it made sense for Baylor to jack up inefficient shots, you can do that.

Re: Not a Cynthia Cooper situation. There are a lot of differences between the situations so it's hard for me to find the parallel. I think staggering Cooper & Miller's minutes actually made a lot of sense at the time, and frankly, staggering West & Baylor makes a lot of sense too.

Re: Should West have scored 50 PPG? Let's not take things to extremes here. Saying it was probably pretty dumb to let Baylor be your main shooter when West was the drastically more effective scorer and all around player is not the same thing as saying that only West should be allowed to shoot the ball.

More than anything else I think the '60s Lakers were held back by the idea that they had 2 great talents and everyone else was nothing. Go look at any given Laker year and you're going to find non-West Lakers who were shooting with more efficiency than Baylor. I would suggest that when that's the case, you should consider distributing more shots to those other guys. Such would be the case even if this were a West-less team, but in such cases you can argue that the volume star serves as a "loss leader" whose gravity lets the other guys be more efficient. In a case where you have a player who is both the best scorer and drastically more efficient than anyone else on the team, the idea that your #2 should act as a loss leader is something that basically no one would ever come up with.

Baylor almost certainly doesn't play that lead shooting primacy role in those years if he weren't the established star.

i didnt say in my comment that west should be going for 50 i think you misread me there, but made a comparision with wilt about how the season where he was doing the most was not necesarrily the best situation for him winninh wise

similar to that, west increasing his role a lot more wouldnt necesarrily be ideal for him regardless of baylor or not

let me give you a comparision with a player i know you are not huge on but who was the co-star of a nearly all time level offense: ....russel westbrook

westbrook took more shots and possesions than durant but i dont think durant was taking less or more possesions that it was ideal for him, if anythingh when he went to warriors he slightly reduced his offensive load further suggesting than the problem was far from being that westbrook limited his amount of possesions from whay wouls have been ideal

westbrook (or baylor) taking too many shots doesnt necesarrily mean durant (or west) were taking too few

based ln your comment i think your issue is more than you dont think baylor should have been taking so many possesions which is fair but i would insist is a completely different debate than if west was taking too few

now, just because some od the role players in lakers had better efficiency than baylor it doesnt necesarrily tells us they could have sustained much bigger roles, some players can be efficient finishing of others creation but that symbiosis is lost if you make the finisher self create more and the creator take less possesions

westbrook was less efficient that many of his teammates in 2016 but he was the main reason for them scoring efficiently and i know you dont love westbrook but i dont think we can deny the results (+8 offense when healthy in 2016 for example)

if i have westbrook scoring less efficiently than adams but adams is efficient cayse he scores of westbrook crestion my conclusion wont be to run more offense through adams and less through wesr if that makes sense

westbrook and baylor would have been even better if they could have been more efficient thenselves but them being imperfect was different than them not being impactful, a mediocre efficiency player can still add value in other ways some of which (creation) kinda need him to continue scoring (as long as he is not too inefficient doing it that it offsets the value of the shot creation)

[Doctor MJ]

fair enough

but dont you think that my own speculation that lakers coaches tought west AND baylor both taking a big role in the lakers was better thsn only west doing it (even if he was better at it) makes sense too as a hunch?

as i mention in my comment, this was not a cynthia cooper situation where the better player was being asked to play a small role behind worse players

it was more of a "cynthia cooper is asked to be part of a duo alongside a lesser but still impactful player" it was cooper AND miller more than cooper as miller backup if that makes sense

the idea that lakers needed to reduce baylor role and have jerry west increase his already big load by taking more and more (and more) possesions is questionable imo

how much more than he was already doing could you ask jerry west to do before there were diminishing returns at the style of wilt 50 points season or jordan 40% usage years?

Hmm.

So first let me say: You're certainly entitled to your own speculation. You can also disagree with my speculation, and I can disagree with yours. The point I'm trying to make is unrelated to the correctness of any particular speculation.

Re: Maybe Lakers wanted West & Baylor to both take on a big role. Okay, I'm not entirely sure what I said that you're arguing against. If you want to argue that it made sense for Baylor to jack up inefficient shots, you can do that.

Re: Not a Cynthia Cooper situation. There are a lot of differences between the situations so it's hard for me to find the parallel. I think staggering Cooper & Miller's minutes actually made a lot of sense at the time, and frankly, staggering West & Baylor makes a lot of sense too.

Re: Should West have scored 50 PPG? Let's not take things to extremes here. Saying it was probably pretty dumb to let Baylor be your main shooter when West was the drastically more effective scorer and all around player is not the same thing as saying that only West should be allowed to shoot the ball.

More than anything else I think the '60s Lakers were held back by the idea that they had 2 great talents and everyone else was nothing. Go look at any given Laker year and you're going to find non-West Lakers who were shooting with more efficiency than Baylor. I would suggest that when that's the case, you should consider distributing more shots to those other guys. Such would be the case even if this were a West-less team, but in such cases you can argue that the volume star serves as a "loss leader" whose gravity lets the other guys be more efficient. In a case where you have a player who is both the best scorer and drastically more efficient than anyone else on the team, the idea that your #2 should act as a loss leader is something that basically no one would ever come up with.

Baylor almost certainly doesn't play that lead shooting primacy role in those years if he weren't the established star.

i didnt say in my comment that west should be going for 50 i think you misread me there, but made a comparision with wilt about how the season where he was doing the most was not necesarrily the best situation for him winninh wise

similar to that, west increasing his role a lot more wouldnt necesarrily be ideal for him regardless of baylor or not

let me give you a comparision with a player i know you are not huge on but who was the co-star of a nearly all time level offense: ....russel westbrook

westbrook took more shots and possesions than durant but i dont think durant was taking less or more possesions that it was ideal for him, if anythingh when he went to warriors he slightly reduced his offensive load further suggesting than the problem was far from being that westbrook limited his amount of possesions from whay wouls have been ideal

westbrook (or baylor) taking too many shots doesnt necesarrily mean durant (or west) were taking too few

based ln your comment i think your issue is more than you dont think baylor should have been taking so many possesions which is fair but i would insist is a completely different debate than if west was taking too few

now, just because some od the role players in lakers had better efficiency than baylor it doesnt necesarrily tells us they could have sustained much bigger roles, some players can be efficient finishing of others creation but that symbiosis is lost if you make the finisher self create more and the creator take less possesions

westbrook was less efficient that many of his teammates in 2016 but he was the main reason for them scoring efficiently and i know you dont love westbrook but i dont think we can deny the results (+8 offense when healthy in 2016 for example)

if i have westbrook scoring less efficiently than adams but adams is efficient cayse he scores of westbrook crestion my conclusion wont be to run more offense through adams and less through wesr if that makes sense

westbrook and baylor would have been even better if they could have been more efficient thenselves but them being imperfect was different than them not being impactful, a mediocre efficiency player can still add value in other ways some of which (creation) kinda need him to continue scoring (as long as he is not too inefficient doing it that it offsets the value of the shot creation)

Thank you for clarifying.

I'll put it like this:

I think it made sense for Westbrook to act as that sort of creator when there wasn't a superior creator next to him, and I think the same thing holds true with Baylor.

Westbrook shouldn't be in that position with LeBron...and Baylor shouldn't with West.

If fairness to Baylor, it's more debatable that whether Baylor was worthy of being given that creating primacy next to West - particularly young West.

[falcolombardi]

Hmm.

So first let me say: You're certainly entitled to your own speculation. You can also disagree with my speculation, and I can disagree with yours. The point I'm trying to make is unrelated to the correctness of any particular speculation.

Re: Maybe Lakers wanted West & Baylor to both take on a big role. Okay, I'm not entirely sure what I said that you're arguing against. If you want to argue that it made sense for Baylor to jack up inefficient shots, you can do that.

Re: Not a Cynthia Cooper situation. There are a lot of differences between the situations so it's hard for me to find the parallel. I think staggering Cooper & Miller's minutes actually made a lot of sense at the time, and frankly, staggering West & Baylor makes a lot of sense too.

Re: Should West have scored 50 PPG? Let's not take things to extremes here. Saying it was probably pretty dumb to let Baylor be your main shooter when West was the drastically more effective scorer and all around player is not the same thing as saying that only West should be allowed to shoot the ball.

More than anything else I think the '60s Lakers were held back by the idea that they had 2 great talents and everyone else was nothing. Go look at any given Laker year and you're going to find non-West Lakers who were shooting with more efficiency than Baylor. I would suggest that when that's the case, you should consider distributing more shots to those other guys. Such would be the case even if this were a West-less team, but in such cases you can argue that the volume star serves as a "loss leader" whose gravity lets the other guys be more efficient. In a case where you have a player who is both the best scorer and drastically more efficient than anyone else on the team, the idea that your #2 should act as a loss leader is something that basically no one would ever come up with.

Baylor almost certainly doesn't play that lead shooting primacy role in those years if he weren't the established star.

i didnt say in my comment that west should be going for 50 i think you misread me there, but made a comparision with wilt about how the season where he was doing the most was not necesarrily the best situation for him winninh wise

similar to that, west increasing his role a lot more wouldnt necesarrily be ideal for him regardless of baylor or not

let me give you a comparision with a player i know you are not huge on but who was the co-star of a nearly all time level offense: ....russel westbrook

westbrook took more shots and possesions than durant but i dont think durant was taking less or more possesions that it was ideal for him, if anythingh when he went to warriors he slightly reduced his offensive load further suggesting than the problem was far from being that westbrook limited his amount of possesions from whay wouls have been ideal

westbrook (or baylor) taking too many shots doesnt necesarrily mean durant (or west) were taking too few

based ln your comment i think your issue is more than you dont think baylor should have been taking so many possesions which is fair but i would insist is a completely different debate than if west was taking too few

now, just because some od the role players in lakers had better efficiency than baylor it doesnt necesarrily tells us they could have sustained much bigger roles, some players can be efficient finishing of others creation but that symbiosis is lost if you make the finisher self create more and the creator take less possesions

westbrook was less efficient that many of his teammates in 2016 but he was the main reason for them scoring efficiently and i know you dont love westbrook but i dont think we can deny the results (+8 offense when healthy in 2016 for example)

if i have westbrook scoring less efficiently than adams but adams is efficient cayse he scores of westbrook crestion my conclusion wont be to run more offense through adams and less through wesr if that makes sense

westbrook and baylor would have been even better if they could have been more efficient thenselves but them being imperfect was different than them not being impactful, a mediocre efficiency player can still add value in other ways some of which (creation) kinda need him to continue scoring (as long as he is not too inefficient doing it that it offsets the value of the shot creation)

Thank you for clarifying.

I'll put it like this:

I think it made sense for Westbrook to act as that sort of creator when there wasn't a superior creator next to him, and I think the same thing holds true with Baylor.

Westbrook shouldn't be in that position with LeBron...and Baylor shouldn't with West.

If fairness to Baylor, it's more debatable that whether Baylor was worthy of being given that creating primacy next to West - particularly young West.

having two creators is not a bad thingh per se, stagerring your playmakers so one is always on the court is a thingh and even when both share the court is fine to not have one of them run all possesions as it wouls become too taxing

in this case the bigger issue, as it was for wade and lebron was not so much to have too many ball handlers as than one of the two ballhandlers was not too useful without the ball (wade and baylor) but the other one was too good to not use as the main decision maker (west snd bron)

in baylor case however i feel his historically good rebounding in a era as the 60's may have been really useful even in offense so i dont know if he was "useless" off-ball

[Doctor MJ]

i didnt say in my comment that west should be going for 50 i think you misread me there, but made a comparision with wilt about how the season where he was doing the most was not necesarrily the best situation for him winninh wise

similar to that, west increasing his role a lot more wouldnt necesarrily be ideal for him regardless of baylor or not

let me give you a comparision with a player i know you are not huge on but who was the co-star of a nearly all time level offense: ....russel westbrook

westbrook took more shots and possesions than durant but i dont think durant was taking less or more possesions that it was ideal for him, if anythingh when he went to warriors he slightly reduced his offensive load further suggesting than the problem was far from being that westbrook limited his amount of possesions from whay wouls have been ideal

westbrook (or baylor) taking too many shots doesnt necesarrily mean durant (or west) were taking too few

based ln your comment i think your issue is more than you dont think baylor should have been taking so many possesions which is fair but i would insist is a completely different debate than if west was taking too few

now, just because some od the role players in lakers had better efficiency than baylor it doesnt necesarrily tells us they could have sustained much bigger roles, some players can be efficient finishing of others creation but that symbiosis is lost if you make the finisher self create more and the creator take less possesions

westbrook was less efficient that many of his teammates in 2016 but he was the main reason for them scoring efficiently and i know you dont love westbrook but i dont think we can deny the results (+8 offense when healthy in 2016 for example)

if i have westbrook scoring less efficiently than adams but adams is efficient cayse he scores of westbrook crestion my conclusion wont be to run more offense through adams and less through wesr if that makes sense

westbrook and baylor would have been even better if they could have been more efficient thenselves but them being imperfect was different than them not being impactful, a mediocre efficiency player can still add value in other ways some of which (creation) kinda need him to continue scoring (as long as he is not too inefficient doing it that it offsets the value of the shot creation)

Thank you for clarifying.

I'll put it like this:

I think it made sense for Westbrook to act as that sort of creator when there wasn't a superior creator next to him, and I think the same thing holds true with Baylor.

Westbrook shouldn't be in that position with LeBron...and Baylor shouldn't with West.

If fairness to Baylor, it's more debatable that whether Baylor was worthy of being given that creating primacy next to West - particularly young West.

having two creators is not a bad thingh per se, stagerring your playmakers so one is always on the court is a thingh and even when both share the court is fine to not have one of them run all possesions as it wouls become too taxing

in this case the bigger issue, as it was for wade and lebron was not so much to have too many ball handlers as than one of the two ballhandlers was not too useful without the ball (wade and baylor) but the other one was too good to not use as the main decision maker (west snd bron)

in baylor case however i feel his historically good rebounding in a era as the 60's may have been really useful even in offense so i dont know if he was "useless" off-ball

Oh I think Baylor clearly should have been playing off-ball, and the only question is why he wasn't.

[falcolombardi]

Thank you for clarifying.

I'll put it like this:

I think it made sense for Westbrook to act as that sort of creator when there wasn't a superior creator next to him, and I think the same thing holds true with Baylor.

Westbrook shouldn't be in that position with LeBron...and Baylor shouldn't with West.

If fairness to Baylor, it's more debatable that whether Baylor was worthy of being given that creating primacy next to West - particularly young West.

having two creators is not a bad thingh per se, stagerring your playmakers so one is always on the court is a thingh and even when both share the court is fine to not have one of them run all possesions as it wouls become too taxing

in this case the bigger issue, as it was for wade and lebron was not so much to have too many ball handlers as than one of the two ballhandlers was not too useful without the ball (wade and baylor) but the other one was too good to not use as the main decision maker (west snd bron)

in baylor case however i feel his historically good rebounding in a era as the 60's may have been really useful even in offense so i dont know if he was "useless" off-ball

Oh I think Baylor clearly should have been playing off-ball, and the only question is why he wasn't.

baylor rebounding is just so absurd that i sont know if i would say he didnt play off-ball when he was mot the ballhandler

you dont get GOAT level rebounding numbers for your position without some fair amount of offensive rebounding thrown in

and you dont grab lots of offensive boards withoht busting your ass off ball in a ton of possesions to gain position, specially in that era

[Curmudgeon]

Mikan, Cousy, Pettit and Schayes were the face of the league until Russell and Chamberlain arrived. You could take every NBA player before 1956-57 and they look mediocre using modern statistical methods-- PER and all of that. It was a different game.