could Bob Cousy make the NBA team today ?

[Devilzsidewalk]

If you took Cousy and gave him 50s style training while everyone else got the benefit of modern training. . . no, he couldn't. If you look at the level of domination against his peers, he is on the level of a Chris Paul type player.

This.

BTW, do you think that Alexander the Great would be a bad general today, because he has no experience with tanks, guns and planes?

The army wouldn't let him in because he was gay.

underrated

[rrravenred]

TrueLA fan owns, even when being used second hand.

Cousy would get by no problems. The man had court vision (which is one of the few things that people don't claim has "evolved") and a reasonable turn of speed and athleticism (though not out of the ballpark). The rest is skills development and physical training, which is situational.

As an interesting counter-comparison, how effective would a drag-and-drop AI have been if he had played in the 50s / 60s.

"The ball to Iverson... and the whistle goes for a palming violation. Again."

[Bobbcats]

not addressing the actual question, just in response to the stuff that always shows up in replies on these types of threads:

the argument about today's equipment and today's training can only go so far. The big thing is today's numbers and the prominence of basketball today. back then Basketball wasn't as big as it is today, and wasn't as open to as many people as it is today. and maybe someone suited for basketball was more interested in another sport because basketball wasn't seen on the same level. When you pick the top 5 basketball players out of 50 random people or the top 5 out of 500 random people, even if, or I should say, especially if, you give them the same training and equipment, it's a pretty good guess that the second group wins. and there's also a huge chance that the best few players are all in that second group.

and another point though not nearly as important as the other one, not everyone benefits the same from training and watching footage and using techniques which weren't available. Don't get me wrong, some of them would have benefited greatly from the training and changes, but it's wrong to assume that everyone would benefit the same. today's players are the best today after actually going through that training (or some of them are just freakishly athletic, but that apparently was enough to do the trick). Maybe some of the folks from a different era of basketball wouldn't have been as interested in lifting weights, watching MJ and Magic and copying their moves, listening to their coaches etc, just like today there are probably plenty of players, who, if they'd been more serious about the weightroom or paid more attention to coaches talking about today's more advanced sets, would be playing NBA ball. Or, to put in the context of this argument, if the others who actually made the NBA hadn't had all that equipment and training, they would've looked much better in comparison.

The same goes for those in the '60s maybe there is somebody who didn't make the NBA that would have looked much better compared to his contemporaries if all of them had access. But since we're comparing players who actually played, today's NBA players have proved they can succeed with today's equipment, whereas not all of those '60s guys would necessarily have.

ultimately, we should just compare players within their own generations, but if you want to keep pushing the argument i don't see any rational way yesterday's players would be better than today's players given the same circumstances, simply because they succeeded out of a much larger and more inclusive group.

[The Main Event]

not addressing the actual question, just in response to the stuff that always shows up in replies on these types of threads:

the argument about today's equipment and today's training can only go so far. The big thing is today's numbers and the prominence of basketball today. back then Basketball wasn't as big as it is today, and wasn't as open to as many people as it is today. and maybe someone suited for basketball was more interested in another sport because basketball wasn't seen on the same level. When you pick the top 5 basketball players out of 50 random people or the top 5 out of 500 random people, even if, or I should say, especially if, you give them the same training and equipment, it's a pretty good guess that the second group wins. and there's also a huge chance that the best few players are all in that second group.

and another point though not nearly as important as the other one, not everyone benefits the same from training and watching footage and using techniques which weren't available. Don't get me wrong, some of them would have benefited greatly from the training and changes, but it's wrong to assume that everyone would benefit the same. today's players are the best today after actually going through that training (or some of them are just freakishly athletic, but that apparently was enough to do the trick). Maybe some of the folks from a different era of basketball wouldn't have been as interested in lifting weights, watching MJ and Magic and copying their moves, listening to their coaches etc, just like today there are probably plenty of players, who, if they'd been more serious about the weightroom or paid more attention to coaches talking about today's more advanced sets, would be playing NBA ball. Or, to put in the context of this argument, if the others who actually made the NBA hadn't had all that equipment and training, they would've looked much better in comparison.

The same goes for those in the '60s maybe there is somebody who didn't make the NBA that would have looked much better compared to his contemporaries if all of them had access. But since we're comparing players who actually played, today's NBA players have proved they can succeed with today's equipment, whereas not all of those '60s guys would necessarily have.

ultimately, we should just compare players within their own generations, but if you want to keep pushing the argument i don't see any rational way yesterday's players would be better than today's players given the same circumstances, simply because they succeeded out of a much larger and more inclusive group.

your whole argument is based around "maybe's"

[Devilzsidewalk]

no the situational stuff doesn't transfer over, they aren't being rated if they had today's athletic training, nutrition, education, parenting, and super absorbent diapers, that would make them a completely different person. The bottom line question is "would their bull **** prehistoric basketball techniques and skills from the paleolithic age fly in 2010?", and the answer is "no". Its always "no", doesn't matter who it is or how awesome they were back in the golden oldies when people weren't sure if they wanted to share water fountains with black people. In 2010 their games are garbage and would promptly be laughed off the court.

[Warspite]

Cousy could run a fast break better than Kidd but he had a slow release on his shot and literaly had no jumper because he took a set shot (jumpshot was invented and made legal when Cousy was in college) If Cousy can develope a jump shot and increase his release speed he has np in todays rules. If he cant well then hes out of the league. The answer of course is I dont know.

Oh and when Cousy said that todays players were so much better LBJ hadnt been born yet. He wasnt talking about todays kids he was talking about DrJ, Magic and Larry Bird.

[Volcano]

He's already a better passer than most PG's in the NBA and I'm sure he's smart enough to adjust his game after looking at everyone else play or after experiencing all of his shots getting blocked.

[Baddy Chuck]

Chris Quinn is in the NBA. Think about it.

/thread

[Point forward]

I say that 1950s Cousy, with his gargantuan disadvantage of 1950s education, nutrition, training etc. would start over 2010 Derek Fisher on the Lakers.

[The Main Event]

no the situational stuff doesn't transfer over, they aren't being rated if they had today's athletic training, nutrition, education, parenting, and super absorbent diapers, that would make them a completely different person. The bottom line question is "would their bull **** prehistoric basketball techniques and skills from the paleolithic age fly in 2010?", and the answer is "no". Its always "no", doesn't matter who it is or how awesome they were back in the golden oldies when people weren't sure if they wanted to share water fountains with black people. In 2010 their games are garbage and would promptly be laughed off the court.

100% agree.

i think the whole premise of such a comparison is just a pathetic attempt to tickle our ego's in this situation by boasting about the ability of players of today who, ironically, would not EVER have had a glimmer of hope to be given the chance to utilize and develop their innate skills in basketball if it weren't for the outliers of the sport, like Cousy, who lay the groundwork for future players. That's where his value lies; not in some hypothetical situation as to whether or not he could play in today's game if he were magically transported from the past. Obviously the answer is no, but what does that prove? it doesn't tell me that he was any less physically capable then say, Steve Nash. It doesn't tell me that he didn't have the cognitive ability to develop a fantastic understanding of the game as a playmaker. It sure as hell doesn't tell me that he had any less competitive fire then any given player from today's era.

So what does the answer to this question really tell us? it tells us that Bob Cousy, circa 1958-59, would look like a sucker if he were to go toe to toe with a PG of today's NBA. People who need to celebrate this kind of a discovery are special people.

[Point forward]

For all who want to appreciate the real legacy of Bob Cousy, I highly recommend "The Rivalry: Bill Russell, Wilt Chamberlain, and the Golden Age of basketball" by John Taylor.



That book lists several points of Cousy:

* First NBA guy to do the behind the back dribble
* First NBA guy to do the ambidextrous dribble
* First NBA guy to base his game around spinning and twisting moves
* Executor of the GOAT fast break
* Considered "too small for the NBA" by Red Auerbach (!), but clawed his way into the NBA

Hard to imagine Magic, Maravich, Wade or Manu without Cousy. He also legitimised the small, quick guard, paving the way for guys like Goodrich, Archibald, Iverson etc.

Also, to counter the claim that Cousy could not score... he was a 20ppg scorer for most of his career and shot .375 -- an ok figure for a guard back then, especially if you see that a low post scorer like Bob Pettit only shot .425. He had a "Steve Nash" mode when he wanted to dish out, but also a "Dwyane Wade" mode for slashing -- for years, he was the only guard in Top 5 FTs attempted. Cooz was one of the first players to score 50 in a playoffs game (vs the Nats in the 1953 playoffs) and hit 30 of his 32 (!) FTs, expressing how good he was from the charity stripe and how unguardable he was.

[aura]

Cousy would have trouble against top tier NCAA teams. You guys need to understand the advance in technology in the past 50-60 years, ESPECIALLY in the area of kinesiology has been HUGE!
The league has gotten richer and richer, the sport has gotten bigger and bigger, the training services and facilities have advanced and become more abundant. The whole world is playing basketball now, funding for athletics programs in the elementary, junior high, high school AND college levels has grown exponentially.

Lets take a look at the 100m dash results from the 50s compared to the 00s
1952 - Gold - 10.4, Silver - 10.4, Bronze - 10.4
1956 - Gold - 10.5, Silver - 10.5, Bronze - 10.6

2004 - Gold - 9.85, Silver - 9.86, Bronze - 9.87
2008 - Gold - 9.69, Silver - 9.89, Bronze - 9.91

Human evolution you say? I say not! What we know about how to train our bodies, from nutrition to exercise, plyometrics to weight training, strategy and business management, and so on has just . . . increased. The amount of money that the league has available to spend on players in order to ensure that they're bodies are in elite shape has a lot to do with it as well (this also factors in with medical advancements). In those days, the sport of choice was not basketball for the majority of young athletes, the populatation density of basketball players was significantly lower. In fact, the population density of athletes was much lower. The public personification and glorification of athletes in those days did not exist in the same way it does today. Our culture has evolved on a socio-economic level and our trends have shifted towards sports and media. There were not many people chasing the 'dream' or even percieving being a professional athlete as a 'dream' to begin with.

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

As for the argument that goes, 'If you took Cousy and gave him 50s style training while everyone else got the benefit of modern training. . . no, he couldn't. But if he recieved the same life style advantages of those training in modern society, then yes he would." This is completely invalid argument to make on a philosophical, logical and rational level. It is for no one to say how great Cousy would have been had he been born in a different era; how is mind would have reacted to a different society, would he even have been a basketball player, would his life even be the same, if so, how could you prove it? There are simply too many academic factors that are being overlooked when making such a statement. When comparing players from different eras, we must always assume that these players are hypothetically able to exist next to each other without the physical constraints that the 3rd dimensional universe places on us with linearly flowing time.

[Point forward]

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

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

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

[bastillon]

comparing Bob Cousy to Steve Nash is ridiculous. Stevie has MAJOR advantage in every single category. he has better size, better speed, better quickness, massive gap in ballhandling, WORLDS away as a passer (hell, Steve Nash is the master of the left hand... Cousy couldn't even use it ), WORLDS away as a shooter.

@pointforward

Cousy wouldn't make starting line-up on the Lakers over Derek Fisher, because he doesn't have 3pt range, can't play any defense whatsoever, doesn't jump on his shot. somebody mentioned Chris Quinn, but he does have a much better jumpshot.

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

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

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

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

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

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

[oaktownwarriors87]

It would be like 1A state champs playing 6A state champs

The fact is more people play the game today than they did in the past. Not only are people more physically advanced but the amount of competitors is much larger.

[Bobbcats]

1.Brandon Roy (not sure if he's 100% white)
2.Deron (not sure either)
3.Jason Kidd (50% white)
4.Noah
i like the way the first one you're sure is a white american isn't white or american

[bastillon]

i like the way the first one you're sure is a white american isn't white or american

haha, my bad. good response, though. hope you had a good time rofling at me

[Point forward]

Cousy wouldn't make starting line-up on the Lakers over Derek Fisher, because he doesn't have 3pt range, can't play any defense whatsoever, doesn't jump on his shot. somebody mentioned Chris Quinn, but he does have a much better jumpshot.

You seem very sure that Cousy was a lousy defender and cannot shoot. Just assuming that was 100% true, how about setting up the offense, bringing everybody into play, starting fast breaks and seeing the floor, passing w/o turning it over, running the point, the true qualities of a POINT guard? Jason Kidd is a miserable shooter and gets burnt on D by quick guards but is way above D-Fish for reasons stated above.

Apart from that, you just bypassed about 70% of the prior discussion, where it was pointed out that bringing in 1950s guys straight up into 2010 is unfair, because the NBA in 1950 was so different from 2010. How could Cousy develop a jump shot when there was exactly one guy (Joe Folks) who had a J? How could he develop a defensive game when "defense" as a concept was not invented yet?

Steve Nash is the master of the left hand... Cousy couldn't even use it )

I understand that you are a great fan of Steve Nash, but stick to the facts. Cousy was ambidextrous.

At the age of 13, he fell out of a tree and broke his right arm. So he did what any other kid would have done: he learned how to dribble and shoot with his left arm. When his former coach, Lou Grummond, saw the ambidextrous youngster playing in neighborhood leagues, he invited him back on the team.

http://www.nba.com/history/players/cousy_bio.html

[G35]

mmmhmm. the magical leap of evolution between the 60s and 70s. i guess people just naturally started playing better after games were broadcast in color?

What's the difference between the Olympic players that played against the original Dream Team and the players that play now.

Meaning why has the competition caught up the Dream Team players now. I think it's because the Dream Team raised the level of play, caused more people to want to play basketball and increased the talent pool which in turn produced better players. You can't attribute everything to weight rooms and sports drinks. Just like the NFL and MLB. Bigger talent pool now. But I'm not ready to say Cousy couldn't make the team because I do think players in the earlier era's played with more heart and love for the game.....

[Ortho Stice]

no the situational stuff doesn't transfer over, they aren't being rated if they had today's athletic training, nutrition, education, parenting, and super absorbent diapers, that would make them a completely different person. The bottom line question is "would their bull **** prehistoric basketball techniques and skills from the paleolithic age fly in 2010?", and the answer is "no". Its always "no", doesn't matter who it is or how awesome they were back in the golden oldies when people weren't sure if they wanted to share water fountains with black people. In 2010 their games are garbage and would promptly be laughed off the court.

yeah it's almost like saying, well, the average american businessman of the 50s could make as much money today IF he learned how to speak chinese. but would he be willing to do that? who says a cousy born 25 years ago would have done what it takes to become an mvp in today's game? it's pretty much pure fantasy. the context would be different, and he may even be less interested in basketball than the earlier cousy.