could Bob Cousy make the NBA team today ?

[cwas2882]

Ohhh, BURN!

[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 think Wilt would be at a Dwight Howard level if he played in the NBA today. I think Wilt would block shots and rebound at a high level, but I think his scoring would drop dramatically. Their is a lot of similarities between Wilt and Dwight. Both are strong and athletic guys that block shots and rebound very well, and score their points based on their physical advantages. I'm not saying he wasn't skilled, but he didn't have the same level of skillset of an Hakeem or a Ewing, it was his physical advantages that made him so dominant. They both run the floor very well for their size.

As far as when he'd rank today, I have Dwight around the 8-10th best player in the NBA today, so I think he'd be somewhere around there.

Although I do think he'd be either the best or second best big in the game today, I don't think he ranks that high all time. I'd have Shaq, Hakeem, Kareem, Ewing, Duncan(if you consider him a center) and Robinson ahead of him for sure. I believe they were more talented and played in a better era. I think he'd be around the same level as Dwight or Mourning. Maybe a bit better.

[bastillon]

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.

Neil Paine of the basketball-reference wrote once there were more than 2/3 white players in the NBA back then.

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

I guess my post is perfectly on topic. I'm discussing racist league with - mostly - ignorant posters.

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.

who were these black guards that Cousy dominated ?

[TheSheriff]

When Bob Cousy was second team all-NBA in 1962, Jerry West was first team all-NBA.
When Jerry West was first team all-NBA in 1972, Kareem Abdul-Jabbar was first team all-NBA.
When Kareem Abdul-Jabbar was first team all-NBA 1986, Hakeem Olajuwon was second team all-NBA.
When Hakeem Olajuwon was first team all-NBA in 1997, Shaquille O'Neal was third team all-NBA.
In 2009 Shaquille O'Neal was third team all-NBA.

Therefore Bob Cousy would be able to play in today's NBA.
















This is of course flawed logic, but it is better logic than what some posters are trying to do with grainy Youtube videos and misconceptions of rule changes.

[kooldude]

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.

Bc he grew up watching that era of basketball. Surely he would want to preserve that memory of what he view as a superior product opposed to the present NBA. He sees himself as the old era of basketball; he doesn't want to fade with time. I'm sure when we enter the twilight of our years, we would rather look back when we were in our prime, enjoying life and the memories with it rather than waiting like all things in life, fading away.

[TheSheriff]

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.

Is that necessarily true? One could argue there are more options open to kids today there were 40 years ago. More options means less kids choose to play basketball and focus instead on sports like soccer and lacrosse. Thus athletic kids who would have chosen basketball and made the NBA instead choose other sports. The trend can be observed in TV ratings. In 1970s every network got much higher ratings because there less substitutes. As the number of substitutes increased, the ratings of the original networks fell. Is it not possible the same thing is happening with the big four sports? Kids today choose to do something besides basketball, so the talent level of the league is not what it was 50 years ago.

Not saying that is true, but that theory is as plausible as saying the talent level of the league has gotten better.

[Dr Positivity]

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.

You're mixing up the 50s and 60s. In the Mikan 50s there was no black players and Kevin Love would be a top 3 big man. In the 60s all the black players from today would make it.

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.

Now that's just ridiculous

[writerman]

NYK 455 Said:
"I think Wilt would be at a Dwight Howard level if he played in the NBA today. I think Wilt would block shots and rebound at a high level, but I think his scoring would drop dramatically. Their is a lot of similarities between Wilt and Dwight. Both are strong and athletic guys that block shots and rebound very well, and score their points based on their physical advantages. I'm not saying he wasn't skilled, but he didn't have the same level of skillset of an Hakeem or a Ewing, it was his physical advantages that made him so dominant. They both run the floor very well for their size.

As far as when he'd rank today, I have Dwight around the 8-10th best player in the NBA today, so I think he'd be somewhere around there.

Although I do think he'd be either the best or second best big in the game today, I don't think he ranks that high all time. I'd have Shaq, Hakeem, Kareem, Ewing, Duncan(if you consider him a center) and Robinson ahead of him for sure. I believe they were more talented and played in a better era. I think he'd be around the same level as Dwight or Mourning. Maybe a bit better."

Well, there are a couple of things you said I disagree with, and the first has nothing to do with Wilt. You rank Howard as the 8th-10th best player in the league. If he's the best BIG, despite all the rules cobbled together in recent decades to make stars of perimeter players and to limit the impact of top bigs, if Howard is the best big in the league, he is by definition the best player. PERIOD. In the last analysis, basketball is a vertical game, a big man's game, and no "little" man, however good, can do as many critical things to help a team as an elite big can--not Michael Jordan, not Dwayne Wade, not Kobe Bryant, not even LeBron James, though he's close because he combines the attributes of both big and small better than those attributes have been combined in a long, long time--since Magic Johnson, to be precise.

And with all due respect to Dwight Howard, there's little resemblance between him and Wilt beyond them both being big strong guys who play(ed) the five, and what you said reveals just how unaware you are of what a athletically freakish outlier Wilt was. Wilt was both bigger and (most folks would agree) at least as strong as Howard, quite probably stronger. The major difference, however, comes in skill set, and it's a wide one in favor or Wilt. Probably the only aspect of Howard's game that is better than Wilt's was is free throw shooting. In any other facet of the game, Wilt was significantly better, even adjusting for pace. Howard's offensive game, in particular, is very limited in comparison to Wilt's--that even though I see Howard has developed a marginally respectable midrange game, which he seldom has to use because he's too powerful for most of the stiffs who compose the current very mediocre corps of NBA fives. I love Tim Duncan, and he's be an outstanding player in any era, but even in his prime he would have been just one among the group of quality centers in Wilt's era--Russell, Thurmond, Bellamy, Reed, Kareem, etc...

I hear a lot of love for Hakeem and David Robinson as pure athletes. Wilt prime was as good an athlete--at least!--as either of them, and much bigger and stronger than either of them. Maybe the best comparison would be a Kevin Garnett prime who was 7'2" (some say taller) and 290-300 pounds, and even stronger than just those sheer numbers would indicate.

Saying Wilt's skill set is inferior to those of Hakeem, DRob, TD, or (laughably) Patrick Ewing's is just so short of the mark as to be ludicrous.

As good as Howard is, Wilt prime would have outplayed him head to head by a significant margin, for the simple reason Wilt was just flat out the better athlete, a total freak. the only modern player who might have made Wilt sweat would have been prime Shaq, because he's a big and immensely strong guy with some legitimate skills. But even there, Wilt was clearly the better pure athlete of the two, and any difference in sheer strength would be not that great one way or another.

I'll admit the site was produced by an unabashed Wilt worshipper, but there's still good stuff to be learned there despite it's pro-Wilt chauvinism. The video gives some kind of idea of what Wilt could do, but IMO even it doesn't do him true justice. There are other sites you can research yourself. (I'm sure Bastillon, Ponder, and Kooldude will have some nitpicking things to say, but oh well--their opinions, unlike yours, amount to just prejudiced assertions--you at least try to make a logical case...)

http://wiltfan.tripod.com/

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6QmhTWmAaBc

[kooldude]

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.

Is that necessarily true? One could argue there are more options open to kids today there were 40 years ago. More options means less kids choose to play basketball and focus instead on sports like soccer and lacrosse. Thus athletic kids who would have chosen basketball and made the NBA instead choose other sports. The trend can be observed in TV ratings. In 1970s every network got much higher ratings because there less substitutes. As the number of substitutes increased, the ratings of the original networks fell. Is it not possible the same thing is happening with the big four sports? Kids today choose to do something besides basketball, so the talent level of the league is not what it was 50 years ago.

Not saying that is true, but that theory is as plausible as saying the talent level of the league has gotten better.

yea, I'm going to assume this is a joke unless otherwise stated.

[bringinhinkie]

More "We're the Greatest" generationally biased nonsense from the kiddies...this whole idea that athleticism has evolved so much in fifty years is laughable.

Besides which, you go by one guy as an example, and extrapolate from that that guys like Wilt Chamberlain, Nate Thurmond, Gus Johnson, Bob Pettit, John Havlicek, Earl Monroe, Connie Hawkins, Oscar Robertson, Jerry West, Elgin Baylor, Walt Frazier, Lenny Wilkins, Zelmo Beatty, Bill Bridges, Wes Unseld, Walt Bellamy, Hal Greer, Billy Cunningham, etc., etc., wouldn't be stars today like they were in their own era...that's so dumb it would seem it wouldn't even have to be rebutted, but I keep seeing stupid statements like those in this thread repeated by posters who weren't even out of diddies when those guys played and wouldn't know Jerry Lucas from Lady Gaga...

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. In general, fundamentals were significantly better then as well. There were few or no "projects" in the league back then--guys who were weak in skills but very athletic. Everyone came into the league relatively polished, having spent four years in a top-level college program. You knew how to play the game right, or you didn't make it in the NBA, however good a pure athlete you were. Also, the showy dunks and trash talk so prevalent today would have ended up in the trash talker or show-off dunker being mugged and getting seriouslly bloodied or even bones broken in retaliation the next time he went into the paint. Someone like Dwayne Wade would be retired and a hardly able to get out of his wheelchair if he had played like he does now back then.

Bill Russell in shoes, as measured today, would go 6'10" - 6'10.5", and was a great athlete by the measure of any generation These guys would adjust to today's game as all top athletes are able to do, just as I assume today's athletes would have eventually adjusted to the rules and faster pace and less emphasis on above the rim play and much more physical defense in the paint of the game played back then.

Keep in mind they also had to actually play back then by the RULES AS WRITTEN--NO palming, NO killa crossovas, NO six or seven steps to the basket without dribbling, NO in the lane before the shooter shoots his free throws--NONE of that trash which is ignored today.

You've watched some old clips and think you know the game back then. That's nonsense.

First of all, it is significantly more than a few, I've watched as much as I possibly could. I love this game, and believe it or not, I respect the legends of yesteryear. I believe the best of the best could compete at this level, but the majority could not. But just because I respect them doesn't mean I'm going to immortalize their abilities just out of respect. I'm going to call it the way I see it. And if anything, your bias towards the older generations is laughable. I mean, you're the same guy who said Chet Walker was better than Dwyane Wade.

It's not just the massive athletic difference, it's the difference in skill as well. I mean, the ball handling skills of these guys are laughable. Just about every player had poor ball handling skills, and no left hand. Perimeter defense was AWFUL. Absolutely pathetic. Most guards had no 3 point range, even the midrange jumpers are bad. Post play was a bit better, but not much. No real post moves, post defense was mediocre, most bigs couldn't stretch the floor at all. A guy like Bob Cousy was a NBA Champion and an MVP, he wouldn't even come close to making an NBA team. A guy like Elgin Baylor, who averaged 27 and 13 for his career, probably wouldn't make an NBA team either. Comparing him to NBA players now, he has no shot, no range, no ball handling, no post up game, average athleticism. Wilt most likely would have made it, but wouldn't have dominated anywhere near the way he did in his era.

I'm not trying to "hate" either. I'm just calling it the way I see it.

so you think if lebron james was born in 1930 and played in the 50s/60s, hed have come out the womb going threw the legs, dunking from the fouline, throwing it off the backboard windmill dunks, etc etc? the game has evolved.. if cousy was born in 1980, he wouldnt have looked like an a-hole running around dribbling with one hand, pulling up from 40 feet out, he would have been taught modern techniques/skills/everything and stil probably had a storied career.. he was better than the majority of players then (when it was same idea of a game, just not as evolved), so why wouldnt he today?

the fact that you watched the film means NOTHING.. the Napoleon comparison was also good whoever made it.. let me guess you also watched film of ww2 and you are gonna deny Germany was ever a world power because they didnt have any stealth bombers or f-16's in their arsenal

[MSGBallerz]

Past homers coming out of the woodwork as usual. Cousy might make an NBA team. He wouldn't be anything more than a back up though.

[Blame Rasho]

Like moths to the flame...

[pancakes3]

what does "past homers" even mean? i'm 23

[The Main Event]

what does "past homers" even mean? i'm 23

x2. i'm 26 and have the utmost respect for the players from cousy's era. i dont think anyone will argue that the average skill level of players has increased quite dramatically, but the superstars from the aforementioned era would transcend time and would surely be successful in today's game if able to benefit from the obvious improvements in sports medicine, rule changes, stylistic variations in the game, equipment improvements, favorable traveling conditions (i think this one is extremely underrated) and training techniques to name a few. I find it utterly disrespectful that some posters blatantly disregard the impact that the previously mentioned variables have on the way we perceive players from past era's.

I know this shtick is getting old but there's nothing like citing a TrueLAFan quote to gain some fantastic insight on such issues..

Ever been on a modern NBA court? It's not like a high school court, or even most college courts. NBA courts are made of a top later of hardwood with underlayer(s) of plywood and padding. They provide a trampoline effect. Correction--they provide a trampoline effect now. Basketball shoes do the same. Modern technology works to make players look more athletic...but are they really? It's like asking if Tiger Woods could outdrive Jack Nicklaus. Tiger hits it 30 yards longer--using graphite woods with huge heads. And hitting a ball that's harder and springier, comparatively.

In terms of the NBA, we rely today on highlight reels and tapes to judge players we haven't seen. How does that technology combine with the other types of technology discussed? Take a great and athletic modern player...Dwight Howard is a perfect example. List him at his measurement in socks--6'9", 240. Have him play on a wood court that is...wood. Just wood over concrete. No give. Put him in Chuck Taylors. Have him play in a league that frowns upon over the rim play, and retaliates violently...say Clyde Lovelette gives Dwight an elbow that takes out a few teeth after a highlight reel slam. Say Wayne Embry undercuts him when he tries another after he gets back on the court a few months later. Have this take place in a league that has few games recorded, and has only one or two cameras for the games that are taped. And have there be a tape-to-digital lag that makes everything look like it's slightly in slow motion. How athletic is Dwight Howard going to look? You look at the occasional grainy footage which looks either a little slow or a little sped up, and look at his listed 6'9" height and decide he's small and wouldn't be able to compete today.

Younger posters have not seen as much, or have seen things in truncated and horrible ways that make these things seem even farther out of time and touch. They are not. It is less forgivable when someone cavalierly says that LeBron James is “easily” better than Oscar Robertson. That is the ignorance and hubris of youth. One day, LeBron will be sixty five years old. And some younger fans at that time will look at highlights and say, “Well, yeah, but he couldn't hang with today's players.” Nothing will have changed.

But I hope some LeBron fans will be around and tell them what LeBron was like and set them straight. And maybe, just maybe, one of them will remember being young and dissing an older guy who liked to talk about dusty old farts on the court. Still, it would be even better if everyone just learned more about the past and had more respect for it.

[Blame Rasho]

Well some people are just stupid, let get that out of the way...

There are transcendent players in all sports.

You don't think that Sugar Ray Robinson could handle Floyd Mayweather?
How about Sandy Koufax? He couldn't handle pitching today?
How about Jim Brown? He couldn't be an all time great?

I mean there is some marginal difference between yesterdays players and todays but it is just marginal. Nothing more nothing less.

With that said... I don't think Bob Cousy is a transcendent player like some of his peers.

[The Main Event]

Well some people are just stupid, let get that out of the way...

There are transcendent players in all sports.

You don't think that Sugar Ray Robinson could handle Floyd Mayweather?
How about Sandy Koufax? He couldn't handle pitching today?
How about Jim Brown? He couldn't be an all time great?

I mean there is some marginal difference between yesterdays players and todays but it is just marginal. Nothing more nothing less.

With that said... I don't think Bob Cousy is a transcendent player like some of his peers.

Fair enough. I don't necessarily think that Cousy would play at an elite level today as he did in the past. Having said that, his basketball iq, court vision, playmaking ability and other intrinsic skills would still remain and the physical aspect of his game would improve by virtue of him benefiting from today's advancements in the previously mentioned variables. He'd still be a great offensive player; probably not a good defender, but a fantastic basketball player overall.

[Warspite]

Well some people are just stupid, let get that out of the way...

There are transcendent players in all sports.

You don't think that Sugar Ray Robinson could handle Floyd Mayweather?
How about Sandy Koufax? He couldn't handle pitching today?
How about Jim Brown? He couldn't be an all time great?

I mean there is some marginal difference between yesterdays players and todays but it is just marginal. Nothing more nothing less.

With that said... I don't think Bob Cousy is a transcendent player like some of his peers.

There is a case to be made that nobody today could dribble with there left hand or make a no look pass or behind the back pass or an alley opp pass with no Bob Cousy. Im not exactly a believer of this theory because I have seen through out history differant men on differant parts of the globe come up with the same idea at roughly the same time (jet engine: german, brit and Italian men all discovered jet engines within 90 days of each other and had never spoken to each other). Cousy invented the modern PG and 90% of the fundemental skills of basketball were invented by him. Hes as much a genius in basketball as Thomas Eddison is with electricity. I have no reason to believe Cousy couldnt develope into a allstar because he was a genius on the court and was a step or 2 ahead fo the game and like many of the alltime greats the game slowed down for him. He was a better athlete than most starting PGs and had better vision and court awareness than just about anyone. Put him on the Warriors and they would win 10 more games. Of course Nellie would make him play PF most likely but he still would have a good chance at 9apg.
I think Cosuy today would be a system PG and have to play for a Nelson or D Antoni. He also would laugh at how slow you play today and wont understand why todays players cant keep up with him.

[Blame Rasho]

Like I said...

Cousy was a great player relatively in his era due to the poor level of competition and skills needed to excel at his position

[Warspite]

Like I said...

Cousy was a great player relatively in his era due to the poor level of competition and skills needed to excel at his position

Well.....

Wont they be saying that about Wade in 10 yrs? Actualy I made a case that Cousy would be successful because of the poor level of compettition and poor skills of todays palyers. Couseys only adv that he has on todays players is his superior skills and the poor level of talent spread over 30 teams instead of concentrated into 8 teams. So again I dont understand how the #1 argument for him is the #1 argument against him in your mind. Your basicly saying Thomas Eddison couldnt get a job at the mall selling ATT cell phones.

[Paydro70]

WTF is with the military comparisons. If you "watched film" of World War II, you would see an army that would be demolished by modern forces. Likewise, if you watch film of basketball from the 1960s, you see teams that would be demolished by modern ones.

If you brought Alexander to a modern theater, would he be a good general? I sincerely doubt it. Perhaps even if trained from the beginning, the transformations in warfare have been so drastic that I'm not sure what of his skills for command would even translate.

The reality of modern conditioning programs and training regimens mean that the further back you go, the less likely a player would be to compete with modern players on any level, not just physically. Does that mean Bob Cousy was bad? No, of course not, he was elite for his time. But unless you do hypothetically bring him forward as a child to be taught and trained in modern fashion, he'd probably completely stink.

Would Wilt be able to compete? Probably, because he was a truly special individual on an athletic basis, and could very well have been even more incredible with modern training. But most players aren't as gifted as Wilt.