could Bob Cousy make the NBA team today ?

[penbeast0]

Yes, I do believe entrepreneurs who started a company and succeeded in the 1950s would do as well today (as would the corporation types who work their way up the ranks but they are different skill sets).

The tools for success are the same. (1) Hard Work, (2) Clear focus on what it takes to succeed, (3) Natural talent (either intelligence or salesmanship), (4) Some good breaks.

If you have those tools, you can succeed in any true capitalist era in any market. And, in the USA, you certainly don't need to speak Chinese.

What you are saying is that American Businessmen aren't the equal of Chinese businessmen because if you dropped them into China fully grown and knowing American laws and customs while having white skin, occidental eyes, and no ability to speak Chinese, they probably wouldn't be a success. If that's your point though, it's a pretty stupid one.

[Ortho Stice]

Yes, I do believe entrepreneurs who started a company and succeeded in the 1950s would do as well today (as would the corporation types who work their way up the ranks but they are different skill sets).

The tools for success are the same. (1) Hard Work, (2) Clear focus on what it takes to succeed, (3) Natural talent (either intelligence or salesmanship), (4) Some good breaks.

If you have those tools, you can succeed in any true capitalist era in any market. And, in the USA, you certainly don't need to speak Chinese.

What you are saying is that American Businessmen aren't the equal of Chinese businessmen because if you dropped them into China fully grown and knowing American laws and customs while having white skin, occidental eyes, and no ability to speak Chinese, they probably wouldn't be a success. If that's your point though, it's a pretty stupid one.

ugh whatever. im just saying that if cousy was born 25 years ago he'd have to work much harder than he did earlier to have similar success in the nba. the nba was incredibly small back then and cousy didn't even seriously think about playing in it (and didnt even really know what it was) until after college and wanted to lace up his sneakers again. now basketball is huge in multiple countries. millions more people playing the game + the nba being wildy popular and kids idolizing nba players from when they're small children = it's a lot tougher to succeed in it than when it was in its infancy and when the sport was radically less popular, due to way more people competing to enter the league. it's simple logic really

[TheSheriff]

Guy: With all the great players playing ball right now, how well do you think you would do against today's pitchers?
Ty Cobb: Well, I figure against today's pitchers I'd only probably hit about .290
Guy: .290? Well that's amazing, because you batted over .400 a... a whole bunch of times. Now tell us all, we'd all like to know, why do you think you'd only hit .290?
Ty Cobb: Well, I'm 72 **** years old you ignorant ****.

[pancakes3]

but would he be able to play?

[Minge]

Comment removed.

[NYK 455]

If you took players from the 50s/60s and gave the modern day training, nutrition, and gave them many years to adjust and prepare for the league today, then perhaps some of them would have made it. But it they went toe to toe with NBA teams today with their athleticism and abilities as they were, they would get slaughtered.

[Volcano]

Kapono's 10 times more unathletic than Cousy was and the only thing he can do is shoot wide open shots (and not even well anymore) and he's sitting on a ~$6 mill/year contract.

[writerman]

Bastillon, Kooldude, Ponder--they don't make logical points--they make assertions that fit their prejudices, and generally contribute little or nothing of value to the discussion. NYK is much better, but he bases his arguments on watching old clips--I've watched them too, and I can tell you there's a magnitude of difference between the old clips and seeing these guys play live. And he also seriously underrates the impact of players in the 60's having to observe the rules regarding steps and palming had on ballhandling. Under those same rules today, you wouldn't see many guys going to the opposite hand or dribbling using both hands, just as in the old clips. Something he also doesn't address is something that is rampant and (to me) nauseating about the game today--guys CLEARLY taking five or more steps without dribbling when driving to the basket. Enforce the rules on travelling and there are a ton of guys in the league today, including many or even most of the elite wings and slashing guards, who lose the mainstay of their game--Dwayne Wade in particular, but even guys like LeBron.

One thing I've noticed in particular--clips don't show player's moves very well, other than at the most obvious level. The subtle ones don't show up well. The older films also make players look slower than they actually were. This may well be true of today's clips as well, though it's not as obvious.

I just dismiss guys like Bastillon, Kooldude, and Ponder because they really don't know a hell of a lot about what they are arguing--the comment about foul-shooting percentage back then in particular made it crystal clear that Bastillon in particular was clueless, and laughably so because the data was there for easy pickings to avoid looking like a know-nothing.

NYK, I'd like you to list the bigs in the game today that you think would be better than a 7'2" 290 pound Wilt Chamberlain who you dismiss as just a routine all-star in today's NBA, but who even in the estimate of his detractors was as phenomenal an all-around athlete as has been seen in modern times. Yao Ming? Wilt was quicker, stronger, and I would say more skilled. Dwight Howard? Even if you think he was as strong as Wilt--and I and many other who are knowledgeable about the game would disagree--his offensive game is much more limited, and Wilt was just as quick or quicker. No disrespect to Howard, whose game I've come to appreciate, but Wilt was flat out better and more versatile. Kevin Garnett? Not nearly strong enough to deal with prime Wilt, and even giving him a huge benefit of the doubt he's no better than Wilt was in any facet of the game save foul shooting. Tim Duncan? I love Duncan's game--especially his fundamantals (he's a throwback in that regard) but he's not as big as Wilt was and not as athletic. A prime Shaq might have made Wilt work, but again his game is more limited than Wilt's was, and while he was a good athlete in his prime, he wasn't at Wilt's level as an athlete.

I think your list of better bigs is likely to be a very short one (I'd say non-existent.) Hell, I'd even venture to say your list of better players of any position would be very short. I'd only list one at Wilt's level as an athlete, and that's Lebron, six inches shorter and forty pounds lighter. Look up what Jerry West has to say about Wilt--and you can't dismiss him as some out-of-touch old timer. He's actively involved in the game today.

[Dr Positivity]

If you took players from the 50s/60s and gave the modern day training, nutrition, and gave them many years to adjust and prepare for the league today, then perhaps some of them would have made it. But it they went toe to toe with NBA teams today with their athleticism and abilities as they were, they would get slaughtered.

Well of course. To steal point forward's quote, if you sent Alexander the Great's army with spears against US tanks and guns they'd all die too

I don't see why we shouldn't give olden day players the benefit of time and learning of today's game though. The game is so different and developed that they need some time to adjust. For example Cousy not having a jumpshot... ok he couldn't make it in today's league without it... but if he played today I'd bet anything the guy could shoot. That shouldn't take away from his overall skillset. For a PG in today's league, especially one like Cousy relying on skills and fundamentals over athleticism, shooting is a given.

[JustOneFix]

Just to chip in, I'm not going to pretend that i know the players from the 50's or 60's that much besides the few clips, but for people who think that defense and physical game is basically the same now as then, I just want to ask how come it's been possible for single guy (no matter how good he was) to drop 100 pts in a single game?

With today's defense, i absolutely see no one, no matter how good or powerfull he may be to repeat this achievement. Jordan droped like what, 63, 65 once or twice - that's still 35 pts less. David Robinson was playing one of the lesser teams in the league, they were feeding him almost every posession and yet was 30 pts short. Shaq's carrer high was like what, 55? 60? Kobe was closest, and yet 19 pts shy - against probably at that time softest team in the league.

Wilt was obvious a monster and a absolute anomaly of his generation, but there's no way he drops 100 against any opponent today IMO.

[NYK 455]

Bastillon, Kooldude, Ponder--they don't make logical points--they make assertions that fit their prejudices, and generally contribute little or nothing of value to the discussion. NYK is much better, but he bases his arguments on watching old clips--I've watched them too, and I can tell you there's a magnitude of difference between the old clips and seeing these guys play live. And he also seriously underrates the impact of players in the 60's having to observe the rules regarding steps and palming had on ballhandling. Under those same rules today, you wouldn't see many guys going to the opposite hand or dribbling using both hands, just as in the old clips. Something he also doesn't address is something that is rampant and (to me) nauseating about the game today--guys CLEARLY taking five or more steps without dribbling when driving to the basket. Enforce the rules on travelling and there are a ton of guys in the league today, including many or even most of the elite wings and slashing guards, who lose the mainstay of their game--Dwayne Wade in particular, but even guys like LeBron.

One thing I've noticed in particular--clips don't show player's moves very well, other than at the most obvious level. The subtle ones don't show up well. The older films also make players look slower than they actually were. This may well be true of today's clips as well, though it's not as obvious.

I just dismiss guys like Bastillon, Kooldude, and Ponder because they really don't know a hell of a lot about what they are arguing--the comment about foul-shooting percentage back then in particular made it crystal clear that Bastillon in particular was clueless, and laughably so because the data was there for easy pickings to avoid looking like a know-nothing.

NYK, I'd like you to list the bigs in the game today that you think would be better than a 7'2" 290 pound Wilt Chamberlain who you dismiss as just a routine all-star in today's NBA, but who even in the estimate of his detractors was as phenomenal an all-around athlete as has been seen in modern times. Yao Ming? Wilt was quicker, stronger, and I would say more skilled. Dwight Howard? Even if you think he was as strong as Wilt--and I and many other who are knowledgeable about the game would disagree--his offensive game is much more limited, and Wilt was just as quick or quicker. No disrespect to Howard, whose game I've come to appreciate, but Wilt was flat out better and more versatile. Kevin Garnett? Not nearly strong enough to deal with prime Wilt, and even giving him a huge benefit of the doubt he's no better than Wilt was in any facet of the game save foul shooting. Tim Duncan? I love Duncan's game--especially his fundamantals (he's a throwback in that regard) but he's not as big as Wilt was and not as athletic. A prime Shaq might have made Wilt work, but again his game is more limited than Wilt's was, and while he was a good athlete in his prime, he wasn't at Wilt's level as an athlete.

I think your list of better bigs is likely to be a very short one (I'd say non-existent.) Hell, I'd even venture to say your list of better players of any position would be very short. I'd only list one at Wilt's level as an athlete, and that's Lebron, six inches shorter and forty pounds lighter. Look up what Jerry West has to say about Wilt--and you can't dismiss him as some out-of-touch old timer. He's actively involved in the game today.

I'm bit pressed for time right now so I'll give you a short answer now, and I'll ellaborate later tonight. Don't get me wrong, I think Wilt is one of the few would would not only be competitive in this era, but do very well. I think he'd be in the all-star game just about every year.

As far as centers go, Wilt would be either 1 or 2. I'd admit that a prime Wilt is better than broken down Shaq, KG is also past his prime and is a PF, and I'm also going to label Duncan as a PF right now. Yao is too injury prone to really be in the discussion, although I feel he is more skilled.(though not as athletic) It would pretty much come down to Dwight and Wilt. I'll elaborate later on Wilt vs Dwight and the other players of the 2000s, and Wilt vs who I feel are the best bigs of all time.

[aura]

Getting into georgraphical issues, the Earth itself was 3 times smaller weighing in at hefty 6.7 billion in 2008 compared to a frail 2.5 billion in 1950. It is simply unfair to even compare the athletes of yesterday to today.

6.7 billion... what? Metrical tons? That is hardly the mass of a comet. The mass of Earth is, and has always been, 6 x 10E24 (septillion) tons. If a human builds a skyscraper from a huge chunk of concrete and steel, the number of atoms remains the same.

Note to self: when arguing about Bob Cousy, keep the weight of our planet in mind.

My god . . . .

[cwas2882]

LOL at writerman. You bitch about players playing for themselves, palming, travling, etc. but thats how the game is played now. It's the same thing you're bitching about other posters doing. If you drop Dwayne Wade into the 50's and give the same team-oriented coaching from a young age and he learns the game the same way older players did, who's to say he still wouldn't be a great player then? It goes both ways.

I think the important thing to remember is to respect the players who paved the way for what we have now. From Jordan to Magic to West to Hondo to Cousy to Mikan. Enjoy the game and the player we have now. There were amazing basketball players then and there are amazing ones now.

[Hobo Gonzolez]

Writerman, can you show one year where the overall talent in the league decreased. Every year, it just seems to get better. I don't understand how you can think that a player in the 50's would not get overmatched when the trend is that the other players just keep getting better each year.

[Free CDR]

Those guys were all good athletes, as good as those playing today--the game was different, true, there was less dependence on muscle and hops, but much more on stamina and ability to play the running game that would have a lot of today's muscle-bound athletes stepping on their tongues by halftime.

Thats actually pretty inaccurate there were out of shape tobacco smokers running around like tommy hienson in his late years of his career. Players today as a whole are in much better shape than those who played 4/5 decades ago

[Blame Rasho]

The sad fact is that writerman long rants have not even included one defense of Bob Cousy in any of his posts. He just goes off the tangent as if on cue...

[penbeast0]

Writerman, can you show one year where the overall talent in the league decreased. Every year, it just seems to get better. I don't understand how you can think that a player in the 50's would not get overmatched when the trend is that the other players just keep getting better each year.

I would say that the average (either mean or median) talent in the league decreased fairly substantially whenever there was expansion and to a much lesser extent, as the ABA stole several stars from the NBA.

I would say the average talent increased dramatically with integration and up to 10 years after integration (that's about how long it takes to start getting the young superathletes focused on basketball skills as opposed to, say, baseball or soccer). I would say the average increased 10 years or so after the great increase in popularity in the Bird/Magic years as more of the top athletes directed their skills to basketball and again, 10 years or so after Jordan and the Dream team increased worldwide popularity, but neither of these increases in the talent pool had the effect of integration or of expansion.

The truly elite players tend to be very rare and depending on where you draw the line, you could pick most periods as either an increase or decrease. I'd say there have only been 6 truly dominant players: Mikan, Russell, Wilt, Kareem, Jordan, and turn of the millenium Shaq, so there was a decrease in top level talent in the 70s to early 80s where the best in the league were "lesser" players like Magic and Bird ... but saying that is mainly just to show that looking at this question is ridiculously subjective outside of periods like expansion where you can see real talent level dilution.

[Warspite]

Just to chip in, I'm not going to pretend that i know the players from the 50's or 60's that much besides the few clips, but for people who think that defense and physical game is basically the same now as then, I just want to ask how come it's been possible for single guy (no matter how good he was) to drop 100 pts in a single game?

With today's defense, i absolutely see no one, no matter how good or powerfull he may be to repeat this achievement. Jordan droped like what, 63, 65 once or twice - that's still 35 pts less. David Robinson was playing one of the lesser teams in the league, they were feeding him almost every posession and yet was 30 pts short. Shaq's carrer high was like what, 55? 60? Kobe was closest, and yet 19 pts shy - against probably at that time softest team in the league.

Wilt was obvious a monster and a absolute anomaly of his generation, but there's no way he drops 100 against any opponent today IMO.

I heard some guy named Kobe was pretty good and he had great night once and pace adjusted had a better night.

I realy dont see the point in your statement when the fact is that Wilt is the only guy to score 100pts and he only did it once. The odds are that not even Wilt could score 100pts in a single game. If its only happened 1 time in 60 yrs with a 80 game schedule with an avg of 600 players I would say that its impossible. Now if there were players having great games all the time in 60s and nobody could score 50pt today I could agree with you. However most high scoring games of the past can be easily be explained by higher pace of the past.

One argument I will take against Writerman and anyone is that Wilt is Wilt. He is not a valid example of 60s players or someone by a modern day fan to use to mock the 60s player. Wilt is a complete outlier in any decade in any yr in any game vs any player. Wilt can score 50pts on Howard/Shaq/KAJ/Russell/Hakeem with the game ease and can guard all of them and hold them to season lows with less effort than anyone. He is not a typical player of any decade of any generation,. hes a once in a century man that is completely out of any mold.

[bastillon]

if you'd like to have 60s basketball today, you'd have to limit black players to 1/3 or 1/4 of the league. then you make drafts regionally to 8 teams. imagine ~80 rotation players in today's league, and ~50-60 of them being white. then imagine all of them are american, because there are no international players in the NBA.

who would dominate ? Joakim Noah would be top notch center. Chris Quinn would be absolute top tier of the PGs.

today's top20 white americans in Win Shares (just to see how it looks like):

1.Brandon Roy (not sure if he's 100% white)
2.Deron (not sure either)
3.Jason Kidd (50% white)
4.Noah
5.Redick
6.Murphy
7.Andersen
8.Luke Ridnour
9.Jason Williams
10.Kevin Love
11.Nick Collison
12.Mike Bibby
13.Steve Blake
14.Brad Miller
15.Ryan Anderson
16.Matt Bonner
17.Mike Miller
18.Kirk Hinrich
19.Jon Brockman
20.Chase Budinger

so either 60s were filled with some unbelievable talent in terms of white americans or level of play was way lower than it is today. keep in mind that white players were at least 2/3 of the entire league at the time and there were no international players.

what we certainly know is that if we played by all 60s rules today, with 2/3 or 3/4 players who are white americans on 8 teams, the level of play would be lower. the gap would be massive.

I'm still hoping someone answers that post.

do you REALLY believe that 60s racist league with 2/3 or more white players who are only american (again, no international drafts) can be better than today's league ?

if so, again, answer this question: was 60s an era during which there was a dramatical increase in "white american" talent ? why would that be ?

there's absolutely NO WAY you could make a case that today's league would've been better than it is now, if we changed all the rules to 60s. Kevin Love would be TOP3 big man in the NBA and there would be absolutely no competition at guard position (position dominated by athleticism). you can talk excuses all you want, to me it's actually funny that even respected posters like TrueLA or Penbeast believe that players were faster than they look in the old vids... but then again, some of them (including TLAF) believed also there were 1 or 2 cameras which is just not true.

I guess a better OP question would be "could Bob Cousy make a WNBA team today if he was allowed to". well... I still don't think he has a shot, but that would be at least more interesting question than the obvious one.

[pancakes3]

nobody wants to address you because your post is ignorant and racist.

some background facts:
http://www.heinz.cmu.edu/research/358full.pdf page 10.

14% of the players in the 1950's were black. 45% for the 60's. 75% for the 70's. 80% for the 80's. 76% of the 90's.

the 1962 chicago packers were the first team to start 5 black men.

disparage the white man all you want, but the fact remains that there were black players in the NBA and that cousy was better than they were. Just because half the league was white doesn't mean the entire league was white. Dwight Howard, Lebron James, and Kobe would still make the league despite racism. In fact, ONLY the best players would be in the league because they were the ones simply too good to pass up despite racism. The racist policies you're touting would really only affect fringe players like daniel gibson, derek fisher, tyronne lue, and players of that caliber. They would be replaced in favor of greg paulus or Kyle McAlarney.

shrinking the league down to 8 teams also doesn't help your case much because that trims even more fat. even passably good players like Roy Hibbert, Shane Battier, and Anderson Verajao would be cut. Thus only the best 4 black guards available would be in the league. Chris Paul, Deron Williams, Derrick Rose, and Chauncy Billups. And a mythical WHITE guy topped them all. Kind of like how Steve Nash managed to outplay those guys despite the crippling physical handicaps of being white.

(and to all those who laugh and say Nash is EASILY more athletic than Cousy... how the f*ck do you know that? seriously. how bold are you that you make that claim. Cousy and Nash themselves don't know and yet you do after hopping on youtube? ridiculous)

so yes. the overall quality of the league might suffer due to the racist policies. no doubt. however Cousy dominated who he faced. You tearing him down with ridiculous, half-baked theories is insulting to both his legacy and your own intelligence. Please don't be so blindly biased again.