RealGM

Most rankings have Magic/Curry/Oscar/West/IT/John Stockton/CP3/Nash/Kidd... but where do people put Bob Cousy? He is not a SG and his personal/team accolades and longevity are too great to be not in top 5.

Is he discredited because of the Celtics super team or people think Bill Russell should take all the credit?

Bob Cousy: 6x Championships, 1x MVP, 13x all star, 10x 1st team all-nba, 2x 2nd team all-nba, 8x Assist champion...

dygaction wrote:Most rankings have Magic/Curry/Oscar/West/IT/John Stockton/CP3/Nash/Kidd... but where do people put Bob Cousy? He is not a SG and his personal/team accolades and longevity are too great to be not in top 5.

Is he discredited because of the Celtics super team or people think Bill Russell should take all the credit?

Bob Cousy: 6x Championships, 1x MVP, 13x all star, 10x 1st team all-nba, 2x 2nd team all-nba, 8x Assist champion...

There's some era contention in there. There's also probably some look at the fact that the title Celtics weren't actually all that good on offense. In their first title, they were an 88.5 ORTG offense, 5th of 8, -0.4 relative to league average. They would remain a below-average offense (as in, negative relative to league average) through that entire dynasty (dead last several times), which was largely won on defense. He was also a below-average scorer in terms of TS+. His best season during the dynasty was a 101 TS+ performance, and he was a 93.7 TS+ guy from 58-63, which is really unimpressive. They ran super fast, they dominated the boards, they were an incredible defense... so there is some discussion centering around how effective he actually was in the role he filled. We don't have turnover data, and obviously the league environment was very different than even a decade later, let alone the further you move away from that time. A career that far back is hard to evaluate; it's clear that offense wasn't really what drove the Celtics, but he certainly handled in transition and passed a lot. Lacking turnover data or any kind of serious metrics for evaluating his passing, we're left to wonder how much he was driving the engine, and how much that matters, given their abysmal offensive results (even relative to their own league, I mean).

It's hard to compare Cousy to anyone in the 3pt era, so I will avoid discussing any of those guys, but Oscar and West played in the same league as Cousy for a few years and were noticeably and dramatically superior at basically everything he did. Cousy was older then, but the results weren't a lot different compared to his younger years. He wasn't an efficient scorer; they were outlier-level efficient scorers, and didn't sacrifice anything in terms of playmaking relative to Cousy. Hard to really look at him in the same light as those guys. And again, the 3pt Era guys, well, it's hard to say. MAgic didn't leverage a 3 very much until later in his career, but dude was more than half a foot taller than Cousy and had more athletic tools to work with, plus he was a vastly superior scorer, and a better rebounder. It's really hard to envision a pro-Cousy argument against someone like that.

He comes from a different time, and there's something to be said for him acting as a precursor upon which others built, you know? It's just so challenging to look at him compared to even guys who overlapped with him and see the value that being objective is just very difficult.

If anything his rings overrate him. He just doesn’t look all that impressive on tape. Good player for his time, but doesn’t stand out as a transcendent talent or anything.

I'm somewhere in the middle. Calling him a significant positive factor in any title run is questionable, his playoff shooting was abysmal, he shot way too much for his efficiency even in the regular season, and given his rep and the comments of his peers, he wasn't much of a defender.

He was the major assist generator of his generation. He was in the Oscar, Magic, Stockton, Nash group of greatest even in that particular talent. It's not fair to say Jerry West was in Cousy's league at that particular skill.

He was also a major 1950s offensive star pre-Russell, arguably a transcendent one in the early 50s. His 50s performances make him a legit Hall of Famer; his Russell years performances put him closer to the likes of Guy Rodgers than to the likes of Oscar. Basically the league changed drastically in a very short time and his scoring game became outmoded. Only Pettit really stands out as continuing as a major force into the mid 60s of the stars from before Bill Russell came into the league.

I think you can make a legit case against him v. bottom of top 10 ATG PGs based on his dominance of the 50s. But that's against people like Jason Kidd, Kevin Johnson, and Chauncy Billups rather than against the likes of Magic, Oscar, West, Stockton, Curry, etc. I don't see him as close to top 5, less of a case for it than Mikan has for top 5 center.

tsherkin wrote:

dygaction wrote:Most rankings have Magic/Curry/Oscar/West/IT/John Stockton/CP3/Nash/Kidd... but where do people put Bob Cousy? He is not a SG and his personal/team accolades and longevity are too great to be not in top 5.

Is he discredited because of the Celtics super team or people think Bill Russell should take all the credit?

Bob Cousy: 6x Championships, 1x MVP, 13x all star, 10x 1st team all-nba, 2x 2nd team all-nba, 8x Assist champion...

There's some era contention in there. There's also probably some look at the fact that the title Celtics weren't actually all that good on offense. In their first title, they were an 88.5 ORTG offense, 5th of 8, -0.4 relative to league average. They would remain a below-average offense (as in, negative relative to league average) through that entire dynasty (dead last several times), which was largely won on defense. He was also a below-average scorer in terms of TS+. His best season during the dynasty was a 101 TS+ performance, and he was a 93.7 TS+ guy from 58-63, which is really unimpressive. They ran super fast, they dominated the boards, they were an incredible defense... so there is some discussion centering around how effective he actually was in the role he filled. We don't have turnover data, and obviously the league environment was very different than even a decade later, let alone the further you move away from that time. A career that far back is hard to evaluate; it's clear that offense wasn't really what drove the Celtics, but he certainly handled in transition and passed a lot. Lacking turnover data or any kind of serious metrics for evaluating his passing, we're left to wonder how much he was driving the engine, and how much that matters, given their abysmal offensive results (even relative to their own league, I mean).

It's hard to compare Cousy to anyone in the 3pt era, so I will avoid discussing any of those guys, but Oscar and West played in the same league as Cousy for a few years and were noticeably and dramatically superior at basically everything he did. Cousy was older then, but the results weren't a lot different compared to his younger years. He wasn't an efficient scorer; they were outlier-level efficient scorers, and didn't sacrifice anything in terms of playmaking relative to Cousy. Hard to really look at him in the same light as those guys. And again, the 3pt Era guys, well, it's hard to say. MAgic didn't leverage a 3 very much until later in his career, but dude was more than half a foot taller than Cousy and had more athletic tools to work with, plus he was a vastly superior scorer, and a better rebounder. It's really hard to envision a pro-Cousy argument against someone like that.

He comes from a different time, and there's something to be said for him acting as a precursor upon which others built, you know? It's just so challenging to look at him compared to even guys who overlapped with him and see the value that being objective is just very difficult.

Of course the 50/60s players are going to be looked as rudimentary skill wise as the games involves, but the best way to evaluate a player should always be how dominate the player with respect to the era, otherwise my high school physics teacher knows more about quantum mechanics than Isaac Newton. His 10x 1st team and 8x assist champions should tell that he was the best PG in that 10 years. They never were top offensive team but they were always great defensively, maybe that's the sacrifice/benefit of having Bill Russell at C. Minnesota TWolves were never a good defensive team as they had to put on offensive only players to get enough offense, but his defensive value was always recognized.

I agree it is difficult to value him objectively, but should he (or 1950s players) be left outside of ranking in the future?

I think he used to be overrated in mainstream because of high number of rings and very flashy style, but right now he gets underrated if anything. I think he has a case for being at the end of top 10, around the same position where Isiah Thomas is.

Cousy is often viewed as someone who isn't skilled or athletic and played against horrible competition, but I don't agree with that. He was extremely skilled player and his athleticism is underrated by younger generations.

penbeast0 wrote:He was also a major 1950s offensive star pre-Russell, arguably a transcendent one in the early 50s. His 50s performances make him a legit Hall of Famer; his Russell years performances put him closer to the likes of Guy Rodgers than to the likes of Oscar. Basically the league changed drastically in a very short time and his scoring game became outmoded. Only Pettit really stands out as continuing as a major force into the mid 60s of the stars from before Bill Russell came into the league.

This is a fair look. For the sake of conversation, my counter is "at what point does what he did then get passed over by more contemporary players with similar achievements," you know what I mean? 75 years hence, what do we hang onto? There are guys with more MVPs with different reputations and more diverse games, so at what point does novelty get overwritten? Serious question, though, not meant to sass Cooz, because I don't have an answer right now.

dygaction wrote:
Of course the 50/60s players are going to be looked as rudimentary skill wise as the games involves, but the best way to evaluate a player should always be how dominate the player with respect to the era,

That's kind of my point, though. He looked poor relative to his own era as a scorer. The team was bad offensively relatively to its own era. They won with rebounding and defense, not with good (or even average) offense. So while he generated a lot of assists, it didn't seem to matter too much. They ran like the wind, cleaned up all of their many, many misses on the boards and that's how they did business. I feel like he was more relevant earlier in his career before the league started to evolve, much as pen was discussing.

They never were top offensive team but they were always great defensively, maybe that's the sacrifice/benefit of having Bill Russell at C.

Mmm, but... Russell was actually MORE efficient relative to the league than was Cousy while they were playing. For the bulk of the time their careers overlapped, Russell was actually above league average in scoring efficiency, 1961 aside. So it wasn't so much a concession to having Russell. That would be more the case now, with his weak FG% and FT%, but Bill's scoring efficiency in the late 50s and early 60s was actually at 103 TS+ over his first half-dozen seasons, and he was quite good at drawing fouls.

That's the thing. I try very hard to look at someone like Cousy only relative to his contemporaries, and with the rules and style of the game in his time in mind, rather than looking ahead to later periods. It isn't really fair in any way to look too far ahead. That said, he actually doesn't look great next to his peers or the league of his own time, apart from generating a lot of assists on bad offensive teams while still shooting enough to be an inefficient 20 ppg scorer. And then like I said, he looks like dog crap next to West and Oscar, for several years before he retired. That builds the tone, you know what I mean?

Maybe there's something missing. This is why I was looking at stuff like starting the break and whatever like that, but starting a fast break isn't hard when you get every defensive rebound and your C is a good outlet passer. And then they just... stank on offense, so those assists don't feel meaningful (and of course raw APG mean only so much anyway). It's just really hard to look at Cousy in the 60s and be excited, even relative to his own peers. So we circle back to what pen was discussing and try to see, maybe there's value for him in the 50s as far as innovating and developing the game then? And then we have to decide what that's worth. I'm not high on Cousy, obviously. Like, if you're into RANGZ, then he rates highly because not only did he win a bunch of rings, he also featured in a prominent role. And if you value some of the more subjective stuff about place in history and all that, maybe he looks a little better. For me, though, he feels more like a KC Jones than a Larry Bird, if you follow.

70sFan wrote:I think he used to be overrated in mainstream because of high number of rings and very flashy style, but right now he gets underrated if anything. I think he has a case for being at the end of top 10, around the same position where Isiah Thomas is.

Cousy is often viewed as someone who isn't skilled or athletic and played against horrible competition, but I don't agree with that. He was extremely skilled player and his athleticism is underrated by younger generations.

Isiah Thomas is highly (over)rated by most media, usually in the top 5 range... I think it is more likely due to his foe with Jordan and being in media himself, but he is usually used as a top 5 bar for CP3 not ranking ahead without a championship

dygaction wrote:Most rankings have Magic/Curry/Oscar/West/IT/John Stockton/CP3/Nash/Kidd... but where do people put Bob Cousy? He is not a SG and his personal/team accolades and longevity are too great to be not in top 5.

Is he discredited because of the Celtics super team or people think Bill Russell should take all the credit?

Bob Cousy: 6x Championships, 1x MVP, 13x all star, 10x 1st team all-nba, 2x 2nd team all-nba, 8x Assist champion...

First off there's a larger window of uncertainty with older players. Less footage, far less complete games, less data. People will also interpret era strength differently. And my very strong suspicion is whether he's 10 all time or 100 or wherever he's a fair distance ahead of the next primarily 50s pg (e.g. Dick McGuire, Slater Martin, Andy Phillip, Ralph Beard, Paul Seymour, George King, Jack George - I have Davies primarily 40s). So his positional in era ranking isn't really disputed.

People will differ too in criteria and perhaps in the degree to which they consider Cousy an innovator (I don't rank players on this but am personally inclined to guess Cousy may get too much credit here, Haynes and Davies too little - your mileage may vary).

You've talked about the Celtics then led with 6 championships. I'm a lower end playoff weighter but it seems the titles are important to you ... how many titles do you think Boston win with a league average starter (offense and defense) playing at that level in the playoffs in Cousy's place over his career?

As others have noted he's already not efficient versus league norms in the Russell/titles era (-342.4 career TS add, worse in just the Russell years) and he's worse in the playoffs (-0.8 OWS total from '57-'63 [and -1.3 OWS total in the title years] a playoff average player at 0.050 OWS/48 would have accumulated 3.155208333 OWS during those playoff minutes). And whilst he's still passing, those titles are unquestionably won with D

So there's a big range depending on where you guess his D is, adjusting for era, how important you think assists are in general and in this instance (and scorekeeper accuracy, how much you think he may have turned it over etc). But whilst accolades plus titles might tend to be a somewhat passable proxy (if we didn't have much better tools) for equity in causing actual titles ... Cousy ... with all the relevant caveats ... the harm of his shooting gives reason for significant doubt as to whether (leaving star power aside) he was helpful beyond perhaps average starter level [or perhaps even a lower baseline ... certainly that shooting indicates so] in the title runs.

In summary: lots of uncertainty so large feasible range. Reasons to doubt ring contribution.

dygaction wrote:

70sFan wrote:I think he used to be overrated in mainstream because of high number of rings and very flashy style, but right now he gets underrated if anything. I think he has a case for being at the end of top 10, around the same position where Isiah Thomas is.

Cousy is often viewed as someone who isn't skilled or athletic and played against horrible competition, but I don't agree with that. He was extremely skilled player and his athleticism is underrated by younger generations.

Isiah Thomas is highly (over)rated by most media, usually in the top 5 range... I think it is more likely due to his foe with Jordan and being in media himself, but he is usually used as a top 5 bar for CP3 not ranking ahead without a championship

Yeah, I know that but I don't think he has a strong case for top 5 when we look at that objectively.

I would agree he was getting some pretty blatant disrespect during the last top 100 project. Back in the 80's/90's I think it was pretty clearly Magic/Oscar/Cousy and then West if you counted him as a pg on tier 1(which you could probably argue Walt as well but Cousy was really seen as a guy who changed how the game was played). The problem with Cousy is partly I think that he doesn't have size and isn't thought of as a great athlete or even ball handler by today's standards while we can look at Oscar and West and think 'boy those guys are big strong guards who can move and really shoot' along with pass and defend. Cousy is one of those guys that people see and wonder if he could even be in the league today and it hurts his perception a lot imo.

Owly wrote:

dygaction wrote:Most rankings have Magic/Curry/Oscar/West/IT/John Stockton/CP3/Nash/Kidd... but where do people put Bob Cousy? He is not a SG and his personal/team accolades and longevity are too great to be not in top 5.

Is he discredited because of the Celtics super team or people think Bill Russell should take all the credit?

Bob Cousy: 6x Championships, 1x MVP, 13x all star, 10x 1st team all-nba, 2x 2nd team all-nba, 8x Assist champion...

First off there's a larger window of uncertainty with older players. Less footage, far less complete games, less data. People will also interpret era strength differently. And my very strong suspicion is whether he's 10 all time or 100 or wherever he's a fair distance ahead of the next primarily 50s pg (e.g. Dick McGuire, Slater Martin, Andy Phillip, Ralph Beard, Paul Seymour, George King, Jack George - I have Davies primarily 40s). So his positional in era ranking isn't really disputed.

People will differ too in criteria and perhaps in the degree to which they consider Cousy an innovator (I don't rank players on this but am personally inclined to guess Cousy may get too much credit here, Haynes and Davies too little - your mileage may vary).

You've talked about the Celtics then led with 6 championships. I'm a lower end playoff weighter but it seems the titles are important to you ... how many titles do you think Boston win with a league average starter (offense and defense) playing at that level in the playoffs in Cousy's place over his career?

As others have noted he's already not efficient versus league norms in the Russell/titles era (-342.4 career TS add, worse in just the Russell years) and he's worse in the playoffs (-0.8 OWS total from '57-'63 [and -1.3 OWS total in the title years] a playoff average player at 0.050 OWS/48 would have accumulated 3.155208333 OWS during those playoff minutes). And whilst he's still passing, those titles are unquestionably won with D

So there's a big range depending on where you guess his D is, adjusting for era, how important you think assists are in general and in this instance (and scorekeeper accuracy, how much you think he may have turned it over etc). But whilst accolades plus titles might tend to be a somewhat passable proxy (if we didn't have much better tools) for equity in causing actual titles ... Cousy ... with all the relevant caveats ... the harm of his shooting gives reason for significant doubt as to whether (leaving star power aside) he was helpful beyond perhaps average starter level [or perhaps even a lower baseline ... certainly that shooting indicates so] in the title runs.

In summary: lots of uncertainty so large feasible range. Reasons to doubt ring contribution.

For Cousy, title weight is on his side but is not the deciding factor. How can one have 10x 1st team all-nba and 2x 2nd team and 8x assist champions if he was not the vast superior player in that decade?

Cavsfansince84 wrote:I would agree he was getting some pretty blatant disrespect during the last top 100 project.

I'm inclined to disagree on a couple of levels.

I don't think people thinking other players were better is disrespectful, even if one disagrees. I think ranking across eras is tough. So (and looking at definitions and synonyms) I don't expect that there was "blatant disrespect" and would argue there would be an onus to show something other than the ranking to justify that.

I haven't haven't really been an active voter in the last couple of projects iirc. Personally, I would tend to argue pro Sharman (or Ramsey) and thus anti-Cousy in terms of credit for titles among the early dynasty era Boston backcourt.

It is true, I think, that he was once regarded on the elite tier. I would argue that whilst some will dock him for time travel concerns, and more so for era concerns (more legitimate to me to say smaller talent pool etc than time travel a guy to play with different rules) I think a closer look has also revealed legitimate concerns.

Owly wrote:

Cavsfansince84 wrote:I would agree he was getting some pretty blatant disrespect during the last top 100 project.

I'm inclined to disagree on a couple of levels.

I don't think people thinking other players were better is disrespectful, even if one disagrees. I think ranking across eras is tough. So (and looking at definitions and synonyms) I don't expect that there was "blatant disrespect" and would argue there would be an onus to show something other than the ranking to justify that.

I haven't haven't really been an active voter in the last couple of projects iirc. Personally, I would tend to argue pro Sharman (or Ramsey) and thus anti-Cousy in terms of credit for titles among the early dynasty era Boston backcourt.

It is true, I think, that he was once regarded on the elite tier. I would argue that whilst some will dock him for time travel concerns, and more so for era concerns (more legitimate to me to say smaller talent pool etc than time travel a guy to play with different rules) I think a closer look has also revealed legitimate concerns.

Its disrespect in the sense of not giving him credit for what he could do and his overall legacy as a player imo which doesn't even really get that much into what was being said about him. Granted people can vote however they like but I think his accomplishments within his era should almost stand by themselves. I mean mvp, 10x 1st team, something like 6 or 7x champ. That's pretty rarified stuff. As I said above, I think perception of him is what some people simply can't get past. Not really looking to rehash every argumen relating to that though since we already did it.

dygaction wrote:

Owly wrote:

dygaction wrote:Most rankings have Magic/Curry/Oscar/West/IT/John Stockton/CP3/Nash/Kidd... but where do people put Bob Cousy? He is not a SG and his personal/team accolades and longevity are too great to be not in top 5.

Is he discredited because of the Celtics super team or people think Bill Russell should take all the credit?

Bob Cousy: 6x Championships, 1x MVP, 13x all star, 10x 1st team all-nba, 2x 2nd team all-nba, 8x Assist champion...

First off there's a larger window of uncertainty with older players. Less footage, far less complete games, less data. People will also interpret era strength differently. And my very strong suspicion is whether he's 10 all time or 100 or wherever he's a fair distance ahead of the next primarily 50s pg (e.g. Dick McGuire, Slater Martin, Andy Phillip, Ralph Beard, Paul Seymour, George King, Jack George - I have Davies primarily 40s). So his positional in era ranking isn't really disputed.

People will differ too in criteria and perhaps in the degree to which they consider Cousy an innovator (I don't rank players on this but am personally inclined to guess Cousy may get too much credit here, Haynes and Davies too little - your mileage may vary).

You've talked about the Celtics then led with 6 championships. I'm a lower end playoff weighter but it seems the titles are important to you ... how many titles do you think Boston win with a league average starter (offense and defense) playing at that level in the playoffs in Cousy's place over his career?

As others have noted he's already not efficient versus league norms in the Russell/titles era (-342.4 career TS add, worse in just the Russell years) and he's worse in the playoffs (-0.8 OWS total from '57-'63 [and -1.3 OWS total in the title years] a playoff average player at 0.050 OWS/48 would have accumulated 3.155208333 OWS during those playoff minutes). And whilst he's still passing, those titles are unquestionably won with D

So there's a big range depending on where you guess his D is, adjusting for era, how important you think assists are in general and in this instance (and scorekeeper accuracy, how much you think he may have turned it over etc). But whilst accolades plus titles might tend to be a somewhat passable proxy (if we didn't have much better tools) for equity in causing actual titles ... Cousy ... with all the relevant caveats ... the harm of his shooting gives reason for significant doubt as to whether (leaving star power aside) he was helpful beyond perhaps average starter level [or perhaps even a lower baseline ... certainly that shooting indicates so] in the title runs.

In summary: lots of uncertainty so large feasible range. Reasons to doubt ring contribution.

For Cousy, title weight is on his side but is not the deciding factor. How can one have 10x 1st team all-nba and 2x 2nd team and 8x assist champions if he was not the vast superior player in that decade?

Unsure precisely what the latter means.

But as cited above I don't think his place as the top 50s pg is in doubt. Measuring the degree of dominance in a given year and value of such across different size, different era leagues is tricky. As some have argued above the apparent loss of offensive value as he gets older (and as some see the league evolves) may compound an era penalty.

Mileage on the intrinsic value of accolades will vary (fwiw, I have been pushed more cynical on this in general, though in older eras it may have more of a case as a least worst tool).

Fwiw, as I noted, I would argue weighting contribution to titles or general playoff weighting might be less than favorable to Cousy - I would submit that only a raw ring count gives a positive gloss.

Cavsfansince84 wrote:

Owly wrote:

Cavsfansince84 wrote:I would agree he was getting some pretty blatant disrespect during the last top 100 project.

I'm inclined to disagree on a couple of levels.

I don't think people thinking other players were better is disrespectful, even if one disagrees. I think ranking across eras is tough. So (and looking at definitions and synonyms) I don't expect that there was "blatant disrespect" and would argue there would be an onus to show something other than the ranking to justify that.

I haven't haven't really been an active voter in the last couple of projects iirc. Personally, I would tend to argue pro Sharman (or Ramsey) and thus anti-Cousy in terms of credit for titles among the early dynasty era Boston backcourt.

It is true, I think, that he was once regarded on the elite tier. I would argue that whilst some will dock him for time travel concerns, and more so for era concerns (more legitimate to me to say smaller talent pool etc than time travel a guy to play with different rules) I think a closer look has also revealed legitimate concerns.

Its disrespect in the sense of not giving him credit for what he could do and his overall legacy as a player imo which doesn't even really get that much into what was being said about him. Granted people can vote however they like but I think his accomplishments within his era should almost stand by themselves. I mean mvp, 10x 1st team, something like 6 or 7x champ. That's pretty rarified stuff. As I said above, I think perception of him is what some people simply can't get past. Not really looking to rehash every argumen relating to that though since we already did it.

I see qhat you're saying but it's also been decades since je retired. Common thoughts about the game have been overturned in that time frame just as much as other things have changed. It jsnt surprising that evaluation of some players will alter over time as we learn more and have more data to analyze (statistical, video, whatever).

We STILL contend with volume scoring bias, and in his day, there was no question that pure volume was good enough, you know? I dont think it is disrespectful to Cousy when opinions change, that is just the nature lf research and time. Disrespect is more failing to give due to what he accomplished and to disregard him vy not even having the discussion,.IMHO.

tsherkin wrote:I see qhat you're saying but it's also been decades since je retired. Common thoughts about the game have been overturned in that time frame just as much as other things have changed. It jsnt surprising that evaluation of some players will alter over time as we learn more and have more data to analyze (statistical, video, whatever).

We STILL contend with volume scoring bias, and in his day, there was no question that pure volume was good enough, you know? I dont think it is disrespectful to Cousy when opinions change, that is just the nature lf research and time. Disrespect is more failing to give due to what he accomplished and to disregard him vy not even having the discussion,.IMHO.

I get all that and know its part of how evaluations are done. Has it evolved to the point thought that we can throw out all his 1st team nods as voters simply being that far out of touch in terms of how they voted year after year? Because there's many angles that we can try evaluate players on. Imo guys from the 50's and earlier deserve some benefit of doubt when all the accolades and whatnot support them being dominant players from their era. Which for me goes for Mikan, Cousy, Schayes, Arizin and Johnston(obviously maybe others as well). Not mentioning Pettit simply because I think he tends to get a fair measure of respect even now and dominated into the 60's.

dygaction wrote:Most rankings have Magic/Curry/Oscar/West/IT/John Stockton/CP3/Nash/Kidd... but where do people put Bob Cousy? He is not a SG and his personal/team accolades and longevity are too great to be not in top 5.

Is he discredited because of the Celtics super team or people think Bill Russell should take all the credit?

Bob Cousy: 6x Championships, 1x MVP, 13x all star, 10x 1st team all-nba, 2x 2nd team all-nba, 8x Assist champion...

Biggest thing to understand is that Cousy's career breaks into 2 sub-careers, where the former heavily influenced perception of the latter.

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) and the offense thrived as it did because the team had two extremely efficient scorers (Macauley & Bill Sharman), but Cousy in this time period I think was ranked both highly and pretty reasonably.

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.

How I see Cousy general is as someone who was exceptionally skilled in some motor areas - ballhandling and passing being the two biggies - but who wasn't the type of facilitator who had a strong grasp of efficiency in his decision making the way I think the very best floor generals have.

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.

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.

None of this is meant to invalidate Cousy's Hall of Fame career or insist he deserves to be ranked no better than X in a given point guard rankings, but there's a definite answer to why when you come in here you believe we are "underrating" Cousy.

Cavsfansince84 wrote:

tsherkin wrote:I see qhat you're saying but it's also been decades since je retired. Common thoughts about the game have been overturned in that time frame just as much as other things have changed. It jsnt surprising that evaluation of some players will alter over time as we learn more and have more data to analyze (statistical, video, whatever).

We STILL contend with volume scoring bias, and in his day, there was no question that pure volume was good enough, you know? I dont think it is disrespectful to Cousy when opinions change, that is just the nature lf research and time. Disrespect is more failing to give due to what he accomplished and to disregard him vy not even having the discussion,.IMHO.

I get all that and know its part of how evaluations are done. Has it evolved to the point thought that we can throw out all his 1st team nods as voters simply being that far out of touch in terms of how voted year after year? Because there's many angles that we can try evaluate players on. Imo guys from the 50's and earlier deserve some benefit of doubt when all the accolades and whatnot support them being dominant players from their era. Which for me goes for Mikan, Cousy, Schayes, Arizin and Johnston. Not mentioning Pettit simply because I think he tends to get a fair measure of respect even now.

I dont think you can throw out everything. I think you have to specifically look at what he was doing and try to get an idea of what his impact was like on basically an annual basis because of how the league was changing. Emotional perception has momentum, right? 60 years plus of thinking Cousy was amazing cuz rings and PPGz isnt gonna go away cuz some shmuck on the internet notes he wasnt nearly as good a scorer as ia remembered and his teams werent good on offense relative to his own league, right?

So we look at where the league was and whi his peers were. We acknowledge what he did well and the environment in which he did it, strategies of the time, etc. We look at how his teams won. And we look at the trends across his career, etc. We look for all the stuff, though: good stuff too, not just the bad. What if he was reasonably good relative to his peers in the mid 50s and rhe game got away from him as it evolved? Unlikely but possible. What if, as I alluded to earlier, his open court speed had specific utility to the team, even jf it doesnt show in team offensive efficacy?

Another pro-Cousy thought is that stat tracking completeness and thoroughness was not super amazing, so there is some doubt to be cast on some of the particulars, especially anything possession-oriented.

Doctor MJ wrote:

dygaction wrote:Most rankings have Magic/Curry/Oscar/West/IT/John Stockton/CP3/Nash/Kidd... but where do people put Bob Cousy? He is not a SG and his personal/team accolades and longevity are too great to be not in top 5.

Is he discredited because of the Celtics super team or people think Bill Russell should take all the credit?

Bob Cousy: 6x Championships, 1x MVP, 13x all star, 10x 1st team all-nba, 2x 2nd team all-nba, 8x Assist champion...

Biggest thing to understand is that Cousy's career breaks into 2 sub-careers, where the former heavily influenced perception of the latter.

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) and the offense thrived as it did because the team had two extremely efficient scorers (Macauley & Bill Sharman), but Cousy in this time period I think was ranked both highly and pretty reasonably.

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.

How I see Cousy general is as someone who was exceptionally skilled in some motor areas - ballhandling and passing being the two biggies - but who wasn't the type of facilitator who had a strong grasp of efficiency in his decision making the way I think the very best floor generals have.

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.

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.

None of this is meant to invalidate Cousy's Hall of Fame career or insist he deserves to be ranked no better than X in a given point guard rankings, but there's a definite answer to why when you come in here you believe we are "underrating" Cousy.

Way to take what I wanted to say and do it better, Doc!

xD