could Bob Cousy make the NBA team today ?

[Blame Rasho]

I don't think he would be anything special to tell you the truth if you were to put him with todays players. I don't think he is a transcendent player like some of his peers in Pettit, Russell,Wilt,Roberson, and Baylor to name a few. Cousy was a great player relatively in his era due to the poor level of competition and skills needed to excel at his position.

[bastillon]

Ypou also underrate fundamantals. Fundamentals in the game today are pretty putrid, with a large percentage of players in the league getting by on strength and hops. I can't remember the last time I saw a truly great outlet pass executed, or anyone box out. Too many players today have poor skills and fundamentals--things that were taken for granted in Cousy's era. You had them or you didn't play in the NBA.

I guess that's why they couldn't shoot free throws. almost nobody had fundamentals. there were exceptions - Oscar, Jerry West, but most of the time you saw players like Wilt Chamberlain shooting FTs at around 40 freakin' % or other KC Jones type of "fundamentalists".

You also fall into the trap of most young posters here in seeing athleticism as consisting of only two attributes--hops and strength. there are a lot of other factors that go into making a truly great athlete--stamina, peripheral vision, forward and lateral foot speed, eye-hand coordination, fast muscle reaction. length as opposed to mere height, timing, etc., etc.

except that length was severely limited overall, especially on the perimeter. NBA was mostly white and it's statistically proven white players have less length than black players at the same height. almost every guard in the league was white and had poor wingspan. when there was a black guy like Oscar or white guys with length like Hondo or West, they dominated. no wonder why perimeter defense was so bad. how often do you see a white guard who plays good D ? they're mostly defensive liabilities.

[pancakes3]

see, the problem with forum debates is in keeping score.

when the anti-oldies don't acknowledge that they were wrong about Baylor, and the ballhandling. that automatically becomes +1 for the pro-oldies.

then in presenting rebuttals of length = defense rather than the original supposition that length is just one facet of athleticism makes another +1 for the pro-oldies.

Faulty logic (length = defense -> white people are less likely to be lengthy -> bob cousy was white -> he couldn't have been good at defense -> he is a terrible basketball player) is another easily refutable argument there as well - another +1 for the oldies.

Another weak point is that FT% = fundamentals. it is a component, but to say that old guys aren't fundamentally sound because Wilt was a poor FT shooter is a rather large supposition. It is interesting that the league FT% was at a historically high rate last season - league average of .771 (skewed by the raptors .824 and the mavs .819). Bosh, Bargs, and Dirk singlehandedly raising the league FT shooting???

[kooldude]

I don't think he would be anything special to tell you the truth if you were to put him with todays players. I don't think he is a transcendent player like some of his peers in Pettit, Russell,Wilt,Roberson, and Baylor to name a few. Cousy was a great player relatively in his era due to the poor level of competition and skills needed to excel at his position.

HEY! a rational person in this thread!! get out before they come after you!!!

[writerman]

Bastillon said: I guess that's why they couldn't shoot free throws. almost nobody had fundamentals. there were exceptions - Oscar, Jerry West, but most of the time you saw players like Wilt Chamberlain shooting FTs at around 40 freakin' % or other KC Jones type of "fundamentalists".

The free throw comment is ridiculous...I just checked the league FT% for 1962-63. there were two teams just a smidgen under 70%, with Chicago Packers a league worst 68%. The best were (if I remember correctly) the Syracuse Nationals at about 78% and all the others teams averaged over 70%

I think that's pretty comparable to what you see in the league today--

So...your point is nonsense and totally wrong, as is usually the case with you, Bastillon...and all it took was five minutes of research that would have kept you from looking totally ignorant...

[Blame Rasho]

Bastillon said: I guess that's why they couldn't shoot free throws. almost nobody had fundamentals. there were exceptions - Oscar, Jerry West, but most of the time you saw players like Wilt Chamberlain shooting FTs at around 40 freakin' % or other KC Jones type of "fundamentalists".

The free throw comment is ridiculous...I just checked the league FT% for 1962-63. there were two teams just a smidgen under 70%, with Chicago Packers a league worst 68%. The best were (if I remember correctly) the Syracuse Nationals at about 78% and all the others teams averaged over 70%

I think that's pretty comparable to what you see in the league today--

So...your point is nonsense and totally wrong, as is usually the case with you, Bastillon...and all it took was five minutes of research that would have kept you from looking totally ignorant...

I don't know where both of you are taking this conversation but ok.. here are the stats

http://www.basketball-reference.com/lea ... _1963.html

http://www.basketball-reference.com/lea ... _2009.html

The NBA avg last year was 77%.. in 62/63 it was .727.

I consider the difference somewhat big and not really comparable.

The last time a team was below % 70 was the championship level Spurs 5 years ago. Where they fundamentally flawed because of free throw shooting?

So what points are both of you trying to make?

[Dr Positivity]

I would presume FT% was lower for the same reason as FG%... they were worse at shooting. That doesn't mean their overall fundamental skillset was lower or higher though.

Also I bet Wilt single handidly knocked that number down a bit in an 8 team league. Russell was also top 10 in FTA and shot even worse than Wilt

[JustOneFix]

Saying that the game of basketball was the same in terms of explosivnes, strenght or just pure power, is just as same as saying 1950 Mustang is the same as Mustang from the 2000's. Sure the basis is similiar but there's no denying that Mustang from the 2000's is just bigger, faster and more powerfull.

Everything evolves. 30 years from now, guys like Shaq or Howard might look like kiddies in the eyes of a future fans.

[NYK 455]

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.

You "see", just not sure you understand what was going on then.

(1) Ball handling then was very different because they strictly inforced the rules against "carrying" or "palming" . . . if you touch the side or lower part of the ball or maintained contact/control of it, that lost you the ball. 90% of the ballhandling that is done today would have been an automatic foul call back then. That's pretty significant and is both a signicant reason why the ballhandling was different than and a significant factor in the great increase in slashing and one-on-one play today . . . it works much better with modern ballhandling officiating.

(2) Perimeter defense was much looser and players had no 3 point shot because . . . there WAS no 3 point shot. Even today, the lowest percentage shot in the game is the 20 foot 2-point shot. They wanted people to take that one, not drive or toss it into the post where percentages were much higher . . . so they played the post passing lane. That was good defense.

(3) Same reason that stretch the floor bigs weren't that common. It was a lower percentage shot. They existed, don't kid yourself. Clyde Lovellette, Zelmo Beaty, Jerry Lucas . . . they were all stretch the floor bigs that were all stars. Just was less common; everyone wanted the next Wilt.

(4) For similar reasons, the lane was much more clogged. So, there were more people slapping at you every time you got the ball down low. Good hands and hand strength were evern more important then. I will say that weight work (everyone does it today, back then Wilt was considered strange for his training regimen; people thought he would get "muscle bound") and steriod use has made a serious improvement in bulk and muscle definition. (my guess is somewhere around 80% of the league uses them, a higher percentage than that among bigs)

(5) Baylor, much more than Cousy played a modern game. He was a strong physical guy who could jump out of the building with great quicks and athleticism . . .the LeBron of his day. And, he apparently had so many twitches and fakes that opposing players wondered if he had Tourette's. His game was made for the more open lane and looser ballhandling rules. He'd be better today (adjusted for pace that is), not worse.

First of all, I want to thank you for giving an intelligent and respectful response. You don't see that much around here.

I do agree to a certain extent on ball handling. It's true, carrying is called much differently now, and if the game were called now the way it was back then, carries would be called frequently. That being said, ballhandling was still very poor back then, and most players, even the point guards, had no left hand whatsoever. Modern players would have to adjust their handling, but once they did that, they'd be ok. Taking everything into consideration, modern players have much better and effective ballhandling skills.

I can understand why players sagged off their man on the perimeter, but even then, you constantly see guys get beat off the dribble despite the fact that they've sagged off their man, and despite the fact that most perimeter players had poor handles. So I have to disagree with you there. For the most part, perimeter defense was poor. If they played defense against modern players the same way they played against their peers, they would get slaughtered.

The fact that guards had no range is another reason why they couldn't make it in todays NBA. I realize that they didn't develop range because their was no three point line, but regardless, if you took their skills as they were, they wouldn't be able to hang in todays game. And even so, most players close and mid-range jumpers were inferior to modern day players.

As far as the stretch the floor bigs like Jerry Lucas go, I will say this. Almost every NBA caliber player in today's NBA, even non jump shooting 4s and 5s, has the ability to hit a mid range jumper, even a three, when left completely unguarded. When Kelvin Cato was a Knick, I watched him hit 12 three pointers in a row during the pre-game warm-ups. This is a guy who made one three in his entire career. Obviously shootaround is different than a game, but he had the ability to make shoots as far out as 24 ft or so. I'm not saying Kelvin Cato is a better shooter than Jerry Lucas, but if you leave a NBA modern player completely unguarded, even a big, their is a good chance he'll hit the shot. I'm not saying guys left Jerry Lucas completely unguarded on the perimeter, but he didn't see the level of defense a modern day jump shooting big, like Dirk Nowitzki saw. If you put a defender on him in his face at all times, he'd most likely struggle. I could see him in the NBA as a jump shooting role player, like a Michael Doleac, but not a all-star or superstar like a Dirk Nowitzki.

Perhaps I was a bit wrong about Baylor. When I was commenting on him, I was primarily talking about his skillset in an half court offense. I wasn't impressed with his offensive game whatsoever. But I will try to pay more attention to how he plays in the open floor next time I sit down and watch some older Laker games.

Now don't get me wrong, I do think some of them could have made the transition. Wilt was strong and a great athlete. I believe he'd make the transition, I think he would have been an all star. I do not think he would be considered the GOAT, or even a candidate. I don't think he'd be considered the most dominant ever if he were to play in a modern era, I believe he'd be outclassed by Shaq, Hakeem, Ewing, and a few others. He'd rebound and block shots well, but I don't think he'd score as well as he did in his era. I think he'd be comparable to Dwight Howard. I think Russell would have made the transition, but not as a GOAT candidate, but as a rebounding/shotblocking role player, perhaps making an all-star game here and there.

Now could these guys have competed if they were born in an modern era with modern training, growing up practicing their ball handling and their perimeter shooting? Perhaps. But most of them as is wouldn't be able to compete in the modern eras of the NBA in my opinion.

[pancakes3]

Saying that the game of basketball was the same in terms of explosivnes, strenght or just pure power, is just as same as saying 1950 Mustang is the same as Mustang from the 2000's. Sure the basis is similiar but there's no denying that Mustang from the 2000's is just bigger, faster and more powerfull.

Everything evolves. 30 years from now, guys like Shaq or Howard might look like kiddies in the eyes of a future fans.

hah. yeah sure. athletes evolve the same as cars do. that makes total sense.

[lorak]

I don't know where both of you are taking this conversation but ok.. here are the stats

http://www.basketball-reference.com/lea ... _1963.html

http://www.basketball-reference.com/lea ... _2009.html

The NBA avg last year was 77%.. in 62/63 it was .727.

I consider the difference somewhat big and not really comparable.

We have to look at big picture

Code: Select all

Season   FT%
1946-47   .641
1947-48   .675
1948-49   .703
1949-50   .714
1950-51   .732
1951-52   .735
1952-53   .716
1953-54   .709
1954-55   .738
1955-56   .745
1956-57   .751
1957-58   .746
1958-59   .756
1959-60   .735
1960-61   .733
1961-62   .727
1962-63   .727
1963-64   .722
1964-65   .721
1965-66   .727
1966-67   .732
1967-68   .720
1968-69   .714
1969-70   .751
1970-71   .745
1971-72   .748
1972-73   .758
1973-74   .771
1974-75   .765
1975-76   .751
1976-77   .751
1977-78   .752
1978-79   .752
1979-80   .764
1980-81   .751
1981-82   .746
1982-83   .740
1983-84   .760
1984-85   .764
1985-86   .756
1986-87   .763
1987-88   .766
1988-89   .768
1989-90   .764
1990-91   .765
1991-92   .759
1992-93   .755
1993-94   .734
1994-95   .736
1995-96   .740
1996-97   .738
1997-98   .737
1998-99   .728
1999-00   .750
2000-01   .748
2001-02   .752
2002-03   .758
2003-04   .752
2004-05   .756
2005-06   .745
2006-07   .752
2007-08   .755
2008-09   .771
2009-10   .759


So last season was exception, similar as for example 1973-74 (not so long ago after 60s). Overall difference between 60s and 00s is small, especially when we look at how big was Chamberlain’s (high volume and one of the worst FT shooter of all time) influence on league wide FT%. We could see it even when we look at difference between Wilt’s first season and the year before: 1958-59 .756 (just like 00s), Chamberlain came to the NBA and FT% drop off to .735 in 1959-60.

[The Main Event]

i know that these 2 pics have been posted in a similar comparison thread in the past; however, i think it's worth posting them again.





with modern training, i don't see why he wouldn't be able to play point at today's level. love the people that argue that we, as humans, have evolved in the psat 50 years so much so that a player from the aforementioned era would lack the innate physical tools to match up with a player from today's era.

the improvements that we see can be exclusively attributed to..

a) stylistic changes in the game/coaching strategies/rules

b) advancements in sports medicine, equipment and training regiments

c) expansion of the game internationally, creating a larger talent pool

Has NOTHING to do with the human species developing into genetic freaks.

[JustOneFix]

[quote="pancakes3"

hah. yeah sure. athletes evolve the same as cars do. that makes total sense.

[/quote]

You're denying the influence of new technology, training programs or the drugs?

Why do you think we're having a new world record in something (running, lifting, swiming, whatever) almost every year?

[NYK 455]

i know that these 2 pics have been posted in a similar comparison thread in the past; however, i think it's worth posting them again.





with modern training, i don't see why he wouldn't be able to play point at today's level. love the people that argue that we, as humans, have evolved in the psat 50 years so much so that a player from the aforementioned era would lack the innate physical tools to match up with a player from today's era.

the improvements that we see can be exclusively attributed to..

a) stylistic changes in the game/coaching strategies/rules

b) advancements in sports medicine, equipment and training regiments

c) expansion of the game internationally, creating a larger talent pool

Has NOTHING to do with the human species developing into genetic freaks.

Not only is Steve Nash a much better athlete, he is a better passer, and on another planet as a shooter. He's even a better defender. If Cousy had Nash's skills, then yea, he'd be good enough to be in the NBA. But he didn't.

[JustOneFix]

love the people that argue that we, as humans, have evolved in the psat 50 years so much so that a player from the aforementioned era would lack the innate physical tools to match up with a player from today's era.

Has NOTHING to do with the human species developing into genetic freaks.

No, not we the ordinary people. Average human probably looks the same as humans 50 or 100 years ago.

We're talking about athletes. I don't see how can one ignore the influence of modern training, food, new drugs (steroids?) and everything else that's going on today.

[pancakes3]

You're denying the influence of new technology, training programs or the drugs?

Why do you think we're having a new world record in something (running, lifting, swiming, whatever) almost every year?

i thought you meant that people were genetically getting stronger independent of technology. If the advances you're talking about were all an influence of era, then sure... i agree with you 100%.

Germaine to the topic at hand, that would aslo mean that cousy would be able to compete in today's game because physically he'd be no different than the aformentioned Nash.

We're setting world records in track because of shoes, surfaces, training methods, etc. we're setting simming records because of lasersuits, training, heck even the pools themselves are now engineered to break records. the athletes themselves though? very little difference between mark spitz and michael phelps. Jessie Owens would have given Michael Johnson a run for his money (not bolt though. that guy is a FREAK). Why wouldn't cousy who dominated 6 footers of his era be hard pressed to even MAKE the NBA in this era?

[kooldude]

i know that these 2 pics have been posted in a similar comparison thread in the past; however, i think it's worth posting them again.





with modern training, i don't see why he wouldn't be able to play point at today's level. love the people that argue that we, as humans, have evolved in the psat 50 years so much so that a player from the aforementioned era would lack the innate physical tools to match up with a player from today's era.

the improvements that we see can be exclusively attributed to..

a) stylistic changes in the game/coaching strategies/rules

b) advancements in sports medicine, equipment and training regiments

c) expansion of the game internationally, creating a larger talent pool

Has NOTHING to do with the human species developing into genetic freaks.

Please tell me this is a giant joke. The difference between Nash and Cousy is massive.

[The Main Event]

love the people that argue that we, as humans, have evolved in the psat 50 years so much so that a player from the aforementioned era would lack the innate physical tools to match up with a player from today's era.

Has NOTHING to do with the human species developing into genetic freaks.

No, not we the ordinary people. Average human probably looks the same as humans 50 or 100 years ago.

We're talking about athletes. I don't see how can one ignore the influence of modern training, food, new drugs (steroids?) and everything else that's going on today.

I recognize the advancements in modern training, sports medicine etc. It's backwards thinking to assume that Cousy, given his ability to play at the level in which he did 50 years ago, wouldn't greatly benefit from the previously mentioned improvements.

On the other hand, how would Nash look if he grew up in the '30-'40's; learning to play under the rules of that era, utilizing the equipment, training methods and coaching strategies of that time period?

Obviously if you transferred Cousy straight from his era to now he would look awkward and out of place. Clap, clap, clap. This is a fantastic discovery that we've made. This type of thinking says more about the posters who hold this belief then it does about Cousy's game.

[ponder276]

I've watched Cousy in PLENTY of old, full game footage, and he would not even come remotely close to making an NBA team today. Very few players from his era would.

[The Main Event]

hah. yeah sure. athletes evolve the same as cars do. that makes total sense.

You're denying the influence of new technology, training programs or the drugs?

Why do you think we're having a new world record in something (running, lifting, swiming, whatever) almost every year?

I'm gonna quote TrueLAFan on this subject because he basically covers everything that needs to be said to disprove the fallacy that athletes have greatly improved from the 50's until now.

Here is a short list of runners who ran between 9.9 and 10 second 100m dashes in the 1960s. It is not complete.

Armin Hary, Harry Jerome, Horace Esteves, Bob Hayes, Jim Hines, Enrique Figueroa, Paul Nash, Ronnie Ray Smith, Jim Greene.

From 1991 to now, the world record has improved by 4 times that much...over .20 seconds. Coincidentally, this is when the most money has been spent on designing track suits and developing "better" tracks. The difference in the material of a record-quality track and a standard track in the 60s is huge. According to the 1978 article "Fast Running Tracks" in Scientific American, the change in track surface at Harvard in 1977-8 resulted in a 2.91% improvement in times. The authors conclude that, with a well designed outdoor track, "We predict that the world record for the mile could be improved by as a much as seven seconds." In fact, the change over the last 30 years--when several well designed outdoor tracks have been built--is about six seconds, with the numbers flattening out in the last decade and a half as technology leaps and improvements have become smaller and more incremental.

(By the way--that article,

McMahon. T.A. and P.R. Greene. "Fast Running Tracks. " Scientific American, 239:6 (1978): 112-121.

was/is groundbreaking in terms of track surfaces, orthopedic biometrics, and plyometrics, and should be required reading for anyone who doesn't understand how large technological improvements based on human physiology and physics can be in sports can be and actually are.)

Silver Bullet wrote:And how does technology explain the progression of the marathon record, where they still run on the same roads they ran on in 1900. The shoes are largely the same (not that they would help). Yet the record has been improved by almost 6%.

If you think "the shoes are largely the same," then we start with an enormous fallacy. The difference between running shoes today and 30 years ago in massive. The difference between running shoes of the 1940s and 50s and now is much larger than that. Here's an article for an everyday runner that gives a brief overview

http://florence20.typepad.com/renaissan ... nning.html

Here's a more thorough piece

http://www.podiatrytoday.com/article/4629

I especially like the statement "The technological advancements we have seen with running shoes over the past 20 years is staggering." Or, you can go nuts and get one of the NASA funded studies like

Leg Muscle Usage Effects on Tibial Elasticity During Running
Antich, Peter P; Jan 2006; 6 pp.; In English
Contract(s)/Grant(s): DAMD17-02-1-0219
Report No.(s): AD-A484850

which discusses surface incline and strike mechanics.

To be fair, Steve Haake published an article in Physics World that says that "the 100-metre sprint is dominated by human ability and that improved performance is most likely caused by improvements in diet, coaching, fitness and physiology, with technology playing a relatively minor role." Of course, he also says that "Most developments have focused on improving the surface of the track and designing running shoes that are lighter and give a better fit." and that "The winning times for the 100-metre sprint at the modern Olympics show a downward trend that appears to be levelling out." His conclusion is that modern time improvements are about .006 seconds per year. In a 9.8 second race, this is a change of .06% per year...meaning that we see a 1% decrease in times every 15-20 years. I'm very comfortable saying that technology can account for such a small difference.

In the marathon, we have two things occurring--technological improvements and a greater number of marathons, which results in more opportunities for discovering "better" courses and, consequently, lowered times. To use this with the time period we are talking about (the last 45-50 years)...the record for the marathon has dropped from 2:09.37 in 1967 to 2:03.59. But this 4.4% difference can largely be attributed to finding fast courses...four of the six fastest marathons of all time, for instance, were run on the Berlin course.

What we need to do is look at times on a course that has not changed and in a competition that regularly attracts elite competition. Thanks to the Boston Marathon, we have exactly this. The course record is 2:07.14, set in 2006. In 1975, Bill Rodgers won the race in 2.09:55...which was not his best time on the course. The winning time in 1970 was 2:10.30. Keep in mind that the Marathon is far more influenced by external factors (temperature, humidity, road condition) than any other type of race. I'm going to say that the 2.5% change in the last 40 or so years is pretty negligible. Or, to put it another way, if Bill Rodgers had run in the last seven Boston Marathons, on the same course, finishing in his 1975 time (not his best), here is how he would have done in the standings:

2009—Deriba Merga, Daniel Rono, Ryan Hall, Tekeste Kebede, Bill Rodgers
2008—Robert Cheruiyot, Abderrahime Bouramdane, Bill Rodgers, Khalid El Boumlili,Gashaw Asfaw
2007—Bill Rodgers, Robert Cheruiyot, James Kwambai, Stephen Kiagora, James Koskei
2006—Robert Cheruiyot, Benjamin Maiyo, Meb Keflezighi, Bill Rodgers
2005—Bill Rodgers, Hailu Negussie, Wilson Onsare, Benson Cherono
2004—Bill Rodgers, Timothy Cherigat, Robert Cheborer, Martin Lel
2003—Robert Cheruiyot, Bill Rodgers and Benjamin Kimutai (tie), Martin Lel

which makes him highly competitive to say the least.