RealGM 2017 Top 100 List: #44 (Dwight Howard)

[Winsome Gerbil]

There are quite a few guys I could have been persuaded to choose over Dwight, but Cousy is not one of them. I am really not sold on him, at all really. I feel he gets an unwarranted buff to his resume by virtue of being a pioneer.

I think being a pioneer is a great buff to a resume. Just a few picks ago it was being used to help justify Miller. At some level "greatrness" connote more than just "best".

Miller and Cousy are two different sorts of pioneers. Cousy existed in a league where at the start, players were SIGNIFICANTLY worse than they would become (doc has talked about the growth curve of the league matching this - I'll have to try to find the post). Reggie existed in an already established, high skill league, and managed to use a skill set that was more impactful and valuable than the majority of skill sets that existed in the 90's. It's apples to oranges.


Sent from my iPhone using RealGM mobile app

Reggie just took advantage of a rule change. If anything Cousy's achievement is more remarkable precisely because he was helping invent the game, doing things with the ball nobody had seen done before. That everybody immitated him and eventually surpassed him is the sincerest form of flattery. And like Cousy, Reggie's "pioneering" will rapidly be swamped by history itself. In 20 years time he won't even be Top 10 in threes anymore and some snot-nosed future brat will be on Realgm 6.0 arguing about how Reggie gets an unwarranted buff when Curry and Klay were doing it so much more prolifically within 10 years of his retirement.

[THKNKG]

I think being a pioneer is a great buff to a resume. Just a few picks ago it was being used to help justify Miller. At some level "greatrness" connote more than just "best".

Miller and Cousy are two different sorts of pioneers. Cousy existed in a league where at the start, players were SIGNIFICANTLY worse than they would become (doc has talked about the growth curve of the league matching this - I'll have to try to find the post). Reggie existed in an already established, high skill league, and managed to use a skill set that was more impactful and valuable than the majority of skill sets that existed in the 90's. It's apples to oranges.


Sent from my iPhone using RealGM mobile app

Reggie just took advantage of a rule change. If anything Cousy's achievement is more remarkable precisely because he was helping invent the game, doing things with the ball nobody had seen done before. That everybody immitated him and eventually surpassed him is the sincerest form of flattery. And like Cousy, Reggie's "pioneering" will rapidly be swamped by history itself. In 20 years time he won't even be Top 10 in threes anymore and some snot-nosed future brat will be on Realgm 6.0 arguing about how Reggie gets an unwarranted buff when Curry and Klay were doing it so much more prolifically within 10 years of his retirement.

Cousy didn't evolve with the league. It rapidly shifted and he couldn't keep up, because he played the same game he always did. That's my problem - the league evolved so much as to make him virtually irrelevant midcareer. That's a problem for a pioneer.

It's like the kid who plays Super Smash Bros. with his friends, and kicks butt because he spams projectiles and smash attacks. Eventually, his friends moved past him, and realized there were better ways - yet he didn't.

[Winsome Gerbil]

Miller and Cousy are two different sorts of pioneers. Cousy existed in a league where at the start, players were SIGNIFICANTLY worse than they would become (doc has talked about the growth curve of the league matching this - I'll have to try to find the post). Reggie existed in an already established, high skill league, and managed to use a skill set that was more impactful and valuable than the majority of skill sets that existed in the 90's. It's apples to oranges.


Sent from my iPhone using RealGM mobile app

Reggie just took advantage of a rule change. If anything Cousy's achievement is more remarkable precisely because he was helping invent the game, doing things with the ball nobody had seen done before. That everybody immitated him and eventually surpassed him is the sincerest form of flattery. And like Cousy, Reggie's "pioneering" will rapidly be swamped by history itself. In 20 years time he won't even be Top 10 in threes anymore and some snot-nosed future brat will be on Realgm 6.0 arguing about how Reggie gets an unwarranted buff when Curry and Klay were doing it so much more prolifically within 10 years of his retirement.

Cousy didn't evolve with the league. It rapidly shifted and he couldn't keep up, because he played the same game he always did. That's my problem - the league evolved so much as to make him virtually irrelevant midcareer. That's a problem for a pioneer.

It's like the kid who plays Super Smash Bros. with his friends, and kicks butt because he spams projectiles and smash attacks. Eventually, his friends moved past him, and realized there were better ways - yet he didn't.

I'm not really sure where that idea comes from?

He led the league in assists as late as 1960, at age 31. Played three more years of slow decline, but never got decrepit in any way that wouldn't be explained just by a PG pushing 35. He was 1st team All League at 31 and 32, and 2nd team All League in his last 2 years. An All Star each year. And a champion each year. His career:

50-51 Age: 22 15.6pts 4.9ast + All Star
51-52 Age: 23 21.7pts 6.7ast + All Star + 1st Team All NBA
52-53 Age: 24 19.8pts 7.7ast + All Star + 1st Team All NBA
53-54 Age: 25 19.2pts 7.2ast + All Star + 1st Team All NBA
54-55 Age: 26 21.2pts 7.8ast + All Star + 1st Team All NBA
55-56 Age: 27 18.8pts 8.9ast + All Star + 1st Team All NBA
56-57 Age: 28 20.6pts 7.5ast + All Star + 1st Team All NBA + NBA Champion +MVP
57-58 Age: 29 18.0pts 7.1ast + All Star + 1st Team All NBA
58-59 Age: 30 20.0pts 8.6ast + All Star + 1st Team All NBA + NBA Champion
59-60 Age: 31 19.4pts 9.5ast + All Star + 1st Team All NBA + NBA Champion
60-61 Age: 32 18.1pts 7.7ast + All Star + 1st Team All NBA + NBA Champion
61-62 Age: 33 15.7pts 7.8ast + All Star + 2nd Team All NBA + NBA Champion
62-63 Age: 34 13.2pts 6.8ast + All Star + 2nd Team All NBA + NBA Champion

That actually appears to be rather laudable longevity for a guard of that age and kind of the picture of hos to age out gracefully.

[Doctor MJ]

Runoff Vote: Dwight Howard

I've got a deep ambivalence here. I really don't think either player should be anywhere near this high. The issue with Cousy though is more problematic. I just don't see Cousy as a guy who'd be a star in today's game and he showed resistance toward taking on gracefully decreasing primacy. I really don't know if I'd have a use for him on a contending team.

I don't feel comfortable building a franchise around Howard either, but there's no doubting Howard's world-class capabilities. That's still worth a lot.

[Winsome Gerbil]

Runoff Vote: Dwight Howard

I've got a deep ambivalence here. I really don't think either player should be anywhere near this high. The issue with Cousy though is more problematic. I just don't see Cousy as a guy who'd be a star in today's game and he showed resistance toward taking on gracefully decreasing primacy. I really don't know if I'd have a use for him on a contending team.

I don't feel comfortable building a franchise around Howard either, but there's no doubting Howard's world-class capabilities. That's still worth a lot.

I would think there was a lot of "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" going on as the Celts ran off their 5th straight title, and 6th in 7 years, with Cousy as their lead guard.

As far as the other...I would have to go back and see all your votes, but you couldn't possibly have been voting all along for guys based on their abilities relative to TODAY'S game could you? Perhaps that explains what I thought was an odd taste for (relatively speaking) 90s mediocrities? The further back you go, the less guarantee that things will translate forward, and very few old school players would be stars today. They have to significantly be assessed against their own era or just wiped from the map and forgotten completely.

[penbeast0]

I'm not really sure where that idea comes from?....

Yes, you are.

Look at his shooting efficiency relative to the league . . . then look at his shooting efficiency relative to the league in the postseason. What you will see is a legit superstar of the 50s becoming inefficient as the decade comes to the end and some massive postseason embarassments. Cousy's playmaking continued to be productive to the end of his career and he continued to get minutes and shots, the league just changed and his scoring game adapted badly.

Cousy will get into the top 100, and should, based on his accomplishments in the 50s. But, like Dwight Howard, his prime accomplishments are a bit tainted by what followed after.

[pandrade83]

Reggie just took advantage of a rule change. If anything Cousy's achievement is more remarkable precisely because he was helping invent the game, doing things with the ball nobody had seen done before. That everybody immitated him and eventually surpassed him is the sincerest form of flattery. And like Cousy, Reggie's "pioneering" will rapidly be swamped by history itself. In 20 years time he won't even be Top 10 in threes anymore and some snot-nosed future brat will be on Realgm 6.0 arguing about how Reggie gets an unwarranted buff when Curry and Klay were doing it so much more prolifically within 10 years of his retirement.

Cousy didn't evolve with the league. It rapidly shifted and he couldn't keep up, because he played the same game he always did. That's my problem - the league evolved so much as to make him virtually irrelevant midcareer. That's a problem for a pioneer.

It's like the kid who plays Super Smash Bros. with his friends, and kicks butt because he spams projectiles and smash attacks. Eventually, his friends moved past him, and realized there were better ways - yet he didn't.

I'm not really sure where that idea comes from?

He led the league in assists as late as 1960, at age 31. Played three more years of slow decline, but never got decrepit in any way that wouldn't be explained just by a PG pushing 35. He was 1st team All League at 31 and 32, and 2nd team All League in his last 2 years. An All Star each year. And a champion each year. His career:

50-51 Age: 22 15.6pts 4.9ast + All Star
51-52 Age: 23 21.7pts 6.7ast + All Star + 1st Team All NBA
52-53 Age: 24 19.8pts 7.7ast + All Star + 1st Team All NBA
53-54 Age: 25 19.2pts 7.2ast + All Star + 1st Team All NBA
54-55 Age: 26 21.2pts 7.8ast + All Star + 1st Team All NBA
55-56 Age: 27 18.8pts 8.9ast + All Star + 1st Team All NBA
56-57 Age: 28 20.6pts 7.5ast + All Star + 1st Team All NBA + NBA Champion +MVP
57-58 Age: 29 18.0pts 7.1ast + All Star + 1st Team All NBA
58-59 Age: 30 20.0pts 8.6ast + All Star + 1st Team All NBA + NBA Champion
59-60 Age: 31 19.4pts 9.5ast + All Star + 1st Team All NBA + NBA Champion
60-61 Age: 32 18.1pts 7.7ast + All Star + 1st Team All NBA + NBA Champion
61-62 Age: 33 15.7pts 7.8ast + All Star + 2nd Team All NBA + NBA Champion
62-63 Age: 34 13.2pts 6.8ast + All Star + 2nd Team All NBA + NBA Champion

That actually appears to be rather laudable longevity for a guard of that age and kind of the picture of hos to age out gracefully.

It's been documented I'm not a Cousy guy. He isn't someone who will get in with my support for a long time - but it's not his longevity that's an issue for me. When Robertson & West enter the league and are a LOT better than Cousy, it just shows me that it's possible for a guard to have a huge impact in that era.

In terms of his longevity - the only real knock on him - his TS% relative to league average falls off really quickly and he continues to shoot a lot.

TS% Relative to league average:

'51: -1.3
'52: +0.7
'53: +0.1
'54: +2.0 (Boston's peak offense relative to league average)
'55: +2.5
'56: +0.3
'57: +0.3 (Arrival of Russell, Boston falls below league average offensively; never gets above average for rest of Cousy's tenure)
'58: -3.4
'59: -0.3
'60: -2.4
'61: -3.3 (Boston finishes last in offense)
'62: -3.4
'63: -4.5

When Boston's offense slips below league average with the Macauley for Russell swap - it just illustrates to me the impact that Ed Macauley had on those Celtics' teams offense. Bill Russell is obviously >>>>>>>>> Ed M overall - no dispute.

But, from a strictly offensive standpoint, you're going from:
18 PPG on 51% TS and 3 assists to 15 ppg on 45% TS and 1.8 assists

It's not a surprise that the team drops from +1.9 to -0.4 offensively. And in general on Cousy vs. Macauley, in a segregated weak league, I'm not even sure Cousy was even better than Macauley during all years.

One of the arguments thrown out for Cousy is that the team improves by 20 wins upon his arrival. They do - but they also acquire Macauley - who generates 12! more WS than Cousy that year, Auerbach becomes the coach and they swap out 4 of 5 starters.

Anyway - I'm going to stop because I need to get ready for real life & I didn't intend for this to turn into a Cousy bashing session.

[Winsome Gerbil]

I'm not really sure where that idea comes from?....

Yes, you are.

Look at his shooting efficiency relative to the league . . . then look at his shooting efficiency relative to the league in the postseason. What you will see is a legit superstar of the 50s becoming inefficient as the decade comes to the end and some massive postseason embarassments. Cousy's playmaking continued to be productive to the end of his career and he continued to get minutes and shots, the league just changed and his scoring game adapted badly.

Cousy will get into the top 100, and should, based on his accomplishments in the 50s. But, like Dwight Howard, his prime accomplishments are a bit tainted by what followed after.

Oh sure, that unending string of championships and ALL NBA awards (rep based or not) sure was a humiliating way to go out.

Or did I magically teleport into a different board where "he won all the time" isn't a near trump card?

His shooting efficiency didn't go anywhere -- after a brief spike in his youth, it remained in the same range his whole career. His last two years (ignoring the 7 game joke at age 40) in the league at ages 33 and 34 his TS% was .443 and .448, compared to .446 for his career. The league changed, he didn't.

And so again, where does that leave a rational analysis? That all 50s players are out? Or...that if Cousy had retired in 1959, he'd actually be ranked BETTER, despite winning titles each of his last 4 years while maintaining the same efficiency as he aged out? He stayed the same player, just a guy getting old.

And BTW, since when are we judging passing points/playmakers on their scoring abilities? If so, how on Earth was JKidd picked 10 picks ago? How was Isiah Thomas picked 5 picks ago? Here we have a dominant MVP level 6x champion PG of the original Celtics dynasty who committed the unspeakable sin of...lingering on and winning titles every year as he declined? On this board I have a hard time even conceiving of how that is remotely consistent with how we treat every other lingering old man racking up stats.

I've seen some touches on Dolph Schayes popping up. Dolph had a career TS% of .488, and in his 4 declining years in the 1960s he was at .482, .461, .471, and .399. So how exactly is that different? Other than being worse of course? Cousy was one of the great founders of the league as we know it in the 1950s. What exactly is this nonsense where we are going to chide him for being a 1950s player? While all he was doing with his extra declining time was winning everything every single year as a floor general, not a scorer? He led the playoffs in assist percentage every year of his late career -- isn't that the more important marker for an old school, THE old school PG than how well he shot?

[Doctor MJ]

Runoff Vote: Dwight Howard

I've got a deep ambivalence here. I really don't think either player should be anywhere near this high. The issue with Cousy though is more problematic. I just don't see Cousy as a guy who'd be a star in today's game and he showed resistance toward taking on gracefully decreasing primacy. I really don't know if I'd have a use for him on a contending team.

I don't feel comfortable building a franchise around Howard either, but there's no doubting Howard's world-class capabilities. That's still worth a lot.

I would think there was a lot of "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" going on as the Celts ran off their 5th straight title, and 6th in 7 years, with Cousy as their lead guard.

As far as the other...I would have to go back and see all your votes, but you couldn't possibly have been voting all along for guys based on their abilities relative to TODAY'S game could you? Perhaps that explains what I thought was an odd taste for (relatively speaking) 90s mediocrities? The further back you go, the less guarantee that things will translate forward, and very few old school players would be stars today. They have to significantly be assessed against their own era or just wiped from the map and forgotten completely.

It makes little sense to argue a man is a top 50 player simply because he got to play on Bill Russell's team...which is why most of the guys on that team haven't been brought up.

You see Cousy in a different category from the rest, which is why you make this argument, but on what basis is he different?

A ball dominant point guard who volume shoots inefficiently on a team winning by defense should make you think they could do it without him, even if we didn't already know that the team got better when they got rid of him.

Re: today's game. Cousy is the first guy people have talked about who I don't even know if he could make the league today. He's in a different category from everyone else, which is why I bring it up.

But the thing is also: We're not talking about a guy struggling today because the game change in style. Its just that it takes a lot to be the lead playmaker on a team. Only 30 guys out of billions of people are good enough to do it. I don't think Cousy would be one of those 30, and I don't know what the hell you do with him if he can't play that role.


Sent from my iPhone using RealGM mobile app

[LA Bird]

His shooting efficiency didn't go anywhere -- after a brief spike in his youth, it remained in the same range his whole career. His last two years (ignoring the 7 game joke at age 40) in the league at ages 33 and 34 his TS% was .443 and .448, compared to .446 for his career. The league changed, he didn't.

That's the problem. The rest of the league improved while he stayed at the same level.

And so again, where does that leave a rational analysis? That all 50s players are out?

Considering Mikan and Pettit have both been voted in a long time ago, the issue is not 50s players in general but rather that Cousy was not dominant enough to compensate for the weaker era strength.

And BTW, since when are we judging passing points/playmakers on their scoring abilities? If so, how on Earth was JKidd picked 10 picks ago? How was Isiah Thomas picked 5 picks ago?

Kidd - defense and longevity. Isiah shouldn't have been picked that early.

I've seen some touches on Dolph Schayes popping up. Dolph had a career TS% of .488, and in his 4 declining years in the 1960s he was at .482, .461, .471, and .399. So how exactly is that different? Other than being worse of course?

RS: Schayes 48.8% TS, Cousy 44.6% TS
PO: Schayes 50.3% TS, Cousy 42.6% TS
... there is quite a large difference between Schayes and Cousy.

There is practically no excuse for Cousy shooting a combined -6% TS relative to league average in the playoffs during the 6 title runs. Add in the fact that Boston were consistently a below average offensive team post 1957 and I am not seeing Cousy as some "dominant" PG who led the Celtics dynasty. He was the floor general for a team which won their games overwhelmingly with Bill Russell's defense.

[trex_8063]

.....the league just changed and his scoring game adapted badly.

His last two years (ignoring the 7 game joke at age 40) in the league at ages 33 and 34 his TS% was .443 and .448, compared to .446 for his career. The league changed, he didn't.

This sort of paraphrased exactly what penbeast0 said, no?

[trex_8063]

Thru post #71:

Howard - 8 (SactoKingsFan, trex_8063, LABird, micahclay, pandrade83, dhsilv2, penbeast0, Doctor MJ)
Cousy - 5 (euroleague, Pablo Novi, janmagn, Outside, Winsome Gerbil)


Calling this one for Howard. Will have the next thread up in a moment.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

[Winsome Gerbil]

.....the league just changed and his scoring game adapted badly.

His last two years (ignoring the 7 game joke at age 40) in the league at ages 33 and 34 his TS% was .443 and .448, compared to .446 for his career. The league changed, he didn't.

This sort of paraphrased exactly what penbeast0 said, no?

How about this: it's an unreasonable expectation.

Again, you have to wipe earlier eras entirely out if you are going to engage in that type of approach.

You know another early figure who never improved his TS% over 1950s norms? One William Felton Russell. The bleeping scrub had a .471 career TS%, and his career ran all the way until 1969. In his last couple of seasons he was at .461 and .467. And that loser was voted Top 5.

Now WHY was he voted Top 5? Well, aside form our pappies and grandpappies telling us he was great, it was because A) he won a bleeping ton; and 2) BECAUSE SHOOTING WAS NOT THE POINT OF HIS GAME. He never "adapted to the new era". He sucked as a shooter right to the end, just as Cousy did, just as Schayes did. Why? Because that is who they were. You don't magically get to shed your skin and become a new player at 30 just because the kids are getting all newfangled. But these inefficient losers, these pathetic scrubs who wouldn't even be allowed on a modern NBA court with their high school level shooting skills, nonetheless went on to win title after title year after year beating the tar out of the more efficient "new wave" stars of the 1960s.

And the reason you put the special ones is is because they accomplished special things relative to their era. Russell isn't in there, in the Top 5 so less, as a shooter, he's in there as an all time defender and winner.

Cousy shouldn't be in there, all the way out at #44 even, as a shooter either. His calling cards were as the first great passer and an all time winner.

[penbeast0]

...

You know another early figure who never improved his TS% over 1950s norms? One William Felton Russell. The bleeping scrub had a .471 career TS%, and his career ran all the way until 1969. In his last couple of seasons he was at .461 and .467. And that loser was voted Top 5.

Now WHY was he voted Top 5? Well, aside form our pappies and grandpappies telling us he was great, it was because A) he won a bleeping ton; and 2) BECAUSE SHOOTING WAS NOT THE POINT OF HIS GAME. He never "adapted to the new era". He sucked as a shooter right to the end, just as Cousy did, just as Schayes did. Why? Because that is who they were. You don't magically get to shed your skin and become a new player at 30 just because the kids are getting all newfangled. But these inefficient losers, these pathetic scrubs who wouldn't even be allowed on a modern NBA court with their high school level shooting skills, nonetheless went on to win title after title year after year beating the tar out of the more efficient "new wave" stars of the 1960s.

And the reason you put the special ones is is because they accomplished special things relative to their era. Russell isn't in there, in the Top 5 so less, as a shooter, he's in there as an all time defender and winner.

Cousy shouldn't be in there, all the way out at #44 even, as a shooter either. His calling cards were as the first great passer and an all time winner.

The big knock on Russell was exactly that, he was an inefficient scorer (despite his being in the top 5 in the league in fg% through the early third of his career). However, his game adapted. Despite the massive change from the 50 to the 60s, the Celtics defenses stayed dominant, consistently ranking not just #1 in the league but #1 by big margins. Meanwhile, the Celtics offenses, which had been good during the pre-Russell era, sucked despite Cousy. Part of that may have been Russell . . . in his early career, he was not a great passer and relied on his athleticism and a mediocre hook shot. Late career, he adapted, moving to the high post, remaking himself as a playmaker (to allow the Celtics to use the offensively challenged KC Jones at point), but staying a poor scorer. Cousy didn't adapt. He didn't lower his shooting volume appreciably (like later career Jason Kidd), he didn't add new shots or focus more on defense, he just kept doing what he had always done, even when it quit working as well. And, Russell is in because the Celtics defense was the greatest ever by a large margin and that's primarily attributed to him.

Like other great distributing PGs (Nash, Stockton, etc.) Cousy is at least partially judged on how efficient the offense he ran was. I didn't vote for Kidd and wouldn't be considering him even now because his playmaking create efficient offense over his career; Cousy's did . . . in the 50-56 era, but after that, his style didn't work for the team. Nash, Oscar, Magic, Stockton, those great distributors consistently created offenses that work well. Nor was Cousy an all-time great winner before Russell. His teams were consistent also rans with no titles or even finals appearances until 1957. I have Cousy in (the lower end) of my top 100 for his 50-56 era spectacular play. I don't have him in my top 50 because the 2nd half of his career (57-63) doesn't impress me that much even with an MVP in 1957.

[Doctor MJ]

.....the league just changed and his scoring game adapted badly.

His last two years (ignoring the 7 game joke at age 40) in the league at ages 33 and 34 his TS% was .443 and .448, compared to .446 for his career. The league changed, he didn't.

This sort of paraphrased exactly what penbeast0 said, no?

Yup, it's just the implication seems to be that players shouldn't be judged for letting the league pass them by. I strongly disagree with that in general, but Cousy's era is particularly important on that front.

If you believe, as I do, that the quality of play was rapidly increasing as this happened, then the inability to compete with better competition is damning.

[Doctor MJ]

.....the league just changed and his scoring game adapted badly.

His last two years (ignoring the 7 game joke at age 40) in the league at ages 33 and 34 his TS% was .443 and .448, compared to .446 for his career. The league changed, he didn't.

This sort of paraphrased exactly what penbeast0 said, no?

How about this: it's an unreasonable expectation.

Again, you have to wipe earlier eras entirely out if you are going to engage in that type of approach.

You know another early figure who never improved his TS% over 1950s norms? One William Felton Russell. The bleeping scrub had a .471 career TS%, and his career ran all the way until 1969. In his last couple of seasons he was at .461 and .467. And that loser was voted Top 5.

Now WHY was he voted Top 5? Well, aside form our pappies and grandpappies telling us he was great, it was because A) he won a bleeping ton; and 2) BECAUSE SHOOTING WAS NOT THE POINT OF HIS GAME. He never "adapted to the new era". He sucked as a shooter right to the end, just as Cousy did, just as Schayes did. Why? Because that is who they were. You don't magically get to shed your skin and become a new player at 30 just because the kids are getting all newfangled. But these inefficient losers, these pathetic scrubs who wouldn't even be allowed on a modern NBA court with their high school level shooting skills, nonetheless went on to win title after title year after year beating the tar out of the more efficient "new wave" stars of the 1960s.

And the reason you put the special ones is is because they accomplished special things relative to their era. Russell isn't in there, in the Top 5 so less, as a shooter, he's in there as an all time defender and winner.

Cousy shouldn't be in there, all the way out at #44 even, as a shooter either. His calling cards were as the first great passer and an all time winner.

It's one thing to not judge a player for not doing something that future players did, but it's quite another to just let slide his problematic tendencies when there were contemporaries without the issue.

I think it's important to understand that when we say Cousy was the first to play point guard like he did, it's not that he brought passing to a game without it. The game has ALWAYS had great passing. Originally there was no dribbling and even after it was allowed, until you got enough money and technology in the game dribbling was impossible to do well.

So what Cousy brought to the game was not a new level of passing, but of ball dominance. And what did he do with this? Jacked shots that by 1960 were just incompetent.

People think Cousy's like a precursor to the Stockton's and Nash's of the world, but really it's more like Westbrook without any of the ultra-twitch athleticism.

[trex_8063]

.....the league just changed and his scoring game adapted badly.

His last two years (ignoring the 7 game joke at age 40) in the league at ages 33 and 34 his TS% was .443 and .448, compared to .446 for his career. The league changed, he didn't.

This sort of paraphrased exactly what penbeast0 said, no?

Yup, it's just the implication seems to be that players shouldn't be judged for letting the league pass them by. I strongly disagree with that in general, but Cousy's era is particularly important on that front.

If you believe, as I do, that the quality of play was rapidly increasing as this happened, then the inability to compete with better competition is damning.

I actually don't find it overly damning, though.

For one, the results seen after a few years exposure to some newly pioneered skills cannot [for most individuals] be equated to the results seen after a lifetime indoctrination/immersion in those [refined] skills.

Secondly, I don't believe we can definitively conclude that because Cousy "wouldn't" or "didn't" change, that he "couldn't" change. Could have just been some stubborn unwillingness to roll with the new-school way of doing things (maybe on some level he saw it as a corruption of the game he loves--->I've actually read a Cousy quote that may have implied a bit of a "things were better in my day" manner of thinking, though I don't have it handy). Or maybe he simply didn't see overt need to do so, as he still managed to do pretty well without a great deal of adaptation (and by that point he likely knew that his career was winding toward conclusion anyway).

So tbh, I simply don't find this as reason enough to assume he couldn't play (and play very well) in a modern context.

[Doctor MJ]

This sort of paraphrased exactly what penbeast0 said, no?

Yup, it's just the implication seems to be that players shouldn't be judged for letting the league pass them by. I strongly disagree with that in general, but Cousy's era is particularly important on that front.

If you believe, as I do, that the quality of play was rapidly increasing as this happened, then the inability to compete with better competition is damning.

I actually don't find it overly damning, though.

For one, the results seen after a few years exposure to some newly pioneered skills cannot [for most individuals] be equated to the results seen after a lifetime indoctrination/immersion in those [refined] skills.

Secondly, I don't believe we can definitively conclude that because Cousy "wouldn't" or "didn't" change, that he "couldn't" change. Could have just been some stubborn unwillingness to roll with the new-school way of doing things (maybe on some level he saw it as a corruption of the game he loves--->I've actually read a Cousy quote that may have implied a bit of a "things were better in my day" manner of thinking, though I don't have it handy). Or maybe he simply didn't see overt need to do so, as he still managed to do pretty well without a great deal of adaptation.

So tbh, I simply don't find this as reason enough to assume he couldn't play (and play very well) in a modern context.

I understand this point generally but we're talking about someone here who is only relevant for his thought to be genius playmaking, and guys like that always understand when it does and does not make sense for them to shoot the ball themslves instead of passing. Cousy quite clearly was not someone who had a sense of that so he wasn't one of those guys.

I'm critical of a guy like Baylor, but the reality is that no one considers him a genius BBIQ guy. It makes sense to say that his issues from the '60s could be considerably improved because there's been decades of work figuring out how to best use talents such as Baylor.

Cousy though, I mean, I don't know who you can actually say he's like. He's small. He's not ultra quick. He's not a great shooter. He has no built-in sense of what a good shot is. What modern all-star matches that description?

[euroleague]

I understand this point generally but we're talking about someone here who is only relevant for his thought to be genius playmaking, and guys like that always understand when it does and does not make sense for them to shoot the ball themslves instead of passing. Cousy quite clearly was not someone who had a sense of that so he wasn't one of those guys.

I'm critical of a guy like Baylor, but the reality is that no one considers him a genius BBIQ guy. It makes sense to say that his issues from the '60s could be considerably improved because there's been decades of work figuring out how to best use talents such as Baylor.

Cousy though, I mean, I don't know who you can actually say he's like. He's small. He's not ultra quick. He's not a great shooter. He has no built-in sense of what a good shot is. What modern all-star matches that description?

He didn't get famous for his shooting. Cousy got famous for his genius playmaking - not necessarily for passing up shots. The point was how he play-made, and the bringing in of flair to the game as an effective tool. Hardaway invented the crossover, and became a legend. AI was a little guy baller who couldn't shoot who became huge. But comparing them to Cousy is a joke.

Cousy made basketball a mind game, instead of just a physical one. He used mental acuity to enhance the effectiveness of himself and others. Before him, it was mostly big men trying to pack the paint and shoot close to the basket in transition offense - and maybe shooting if you are open. There wasn't this type of "fade left, go right to create space for yourself" mindset that we have now, before Cousy.

[Doctor MJ]

I understand this point generally but we're talking about someone here who is only relevant for his thought to be genius playmaking, and guys like that always understand when it does and does not make sense for them to shoot the ball themslves instead of passing. Cousy quite clearly was not someone who had a sense of that so he wasn't one of those guys.

I'm critical of a guy like Baylor, but the reality is that no one considers him a genius BBIQ guy. It makes sense to say that his issues from the '60s could be considerably improved because there's been decades of work figuring out how to best use talents such as Baylor.

Cousy though, I mean, I don't know who you can actually say he's like. He's small. He's not ultra quick. He's not a great shooter. He has no built-in sense of what a good shot is. What modern all-star matches that description?

He didn't get famous for his shooting. Cousy got famous for his genius playmaking - not necessarily for passing up shots. The point was how he play-made, and the bringing in of flair to the game as an effective tool. Hardaway invented the crossover, and became a legend. AI was a little guy baller who couldn't shoot who became huge. But comparing them to Cousy is a joke.

Cousy made basketball a mind game, instead of just a physical one. He used mental acuity to enhance the effectiveness of himself and others. Before him, it was mostly big men trying to pack the paint and shoot close to the basket in transition offense - and maybe shooting if you are open. There wasn't this type of "fade left, go right to create space for yourself" mindset that we have now, before Cousy.

This is where I remind people that when Cousy was up against his toughest completion he was leading an ineffective offense, shooting a pathetic efficiency, and then retiring and watching the team immediately improve with his absence.

Pete Maravich might be the most stylish player in NBA history - at least in a debate with Magic - but unlike Magic, he didn't have a compass in his head leading him to make the smart play each time. So Magic was voted in long ago, and Maravich really doesn't belong on this list unless your criteria doesn't care about actually be good at winning basketball games.

Cousy is in better shape than that because he can at least claim early success, but his problems as the '60s arrived were very real.


Sent from my iPhone using RealGM mobile app