Bob Cousy - closer to Oscar Robertson or Bob Davies and Bobby McDermott?

[LA Bird]

All pioneers of the game and MVP point guards but in terms of their value as players, who is Cousy closer to? In the last RealGM list, Oscar was ranked 14, Cousy 63, and Davies/McDermott out of the top 100. Both Oscar and Davies have one season where they overlapped with Cousy on All NBA 1st team. McDermott never played in the NBA but he won four straight NBL MVPs in 1943-46 right before Davies so he played in a similar era too.

Sidenote: There were so many Bobs back then - McDermott, Davies, Cousy, Kurland, Feerick, Wanzer, Pettit. I can't remember a single Bob in the NBA in recent years besides Varejao's nickname of Sideshow Bob.

[Colbinii]

Robert was the most popular boy name from 1924-1937. It stayed in the Top 5 until 1974.

[HeartBreakKid]

All pioneers of the game and MVP point guards but in terms of their value as players, who is Cousy closer to? In the last RealGM list, Oscar was ranked 14, Cousy 63, and Davies/McDermott out of the top 100. Both Oscar and Davies have one season where they overlapped with Cousy on All NBA 1st team. McDermott never played in the NBA but he won four straight NBL MVPs in 1943-46 right before Davies so he played in a similar era too.

Sidenote: There were so many Bobs back then - McDermott, Davies, Cousy, Kurland, Feerick, Wanzer, Pettit. I can't remember a single Bob in the NBA in recent years besides Varejao's nickname of Sideshow Bob.

Which reminds me, when is Dick coming back as a name?

There is Bobby Portis btw. Pretty much the same name.

[HeartBreakKid]

I don't think that highly of Cousy though he had some unreal skills. Bob Davies and McDermott are likely a bit underrated relative to what they did (all MVPs just like Bobby in a more humble era).

Oscar I think is a top ten player of all time. Bob Cousy is quite down my top 100, maybe not even in it if I did a recount. If using Cousy's 63 ranking as a medium of sorts, he's still closer to guys out of the top 100, even if those guys are like 130, 140, 150 etc as the tiers start to have more players in them the lower down the rankings you go.

[penbeast0]

I'd say Cousy was more like Davies, they even had the same nickname (Houdini of the Hardwood). Both were the big assist generaters of their era with some scoring. Neither were known for other skills.

Oscar was the size of a modern SF, about 6'5 in stocking feet and built like a tank and very strong. His playstyle was very different from either of the other two being very fundamental and using his size and strength to bully his way into the lane for short midrange, finishing, or drawing doubles and passing out. More like a higher scoring Magic Johnson.

[trex_8063]

I think there are a number of ways to answer this, as I think there are multiple ways by which to define/interpret "closer".
I'll answer in THREE different ways, depending on which capacity you mean.....


In terms of actual player quality, who is he closer to?
Definitely Bob Davies and McDermott.


In terms of total career value, who is he closer to?
Didn't I just answer this with player quality? No, imo I did not. Player quality alone does not determine career value for me (and a lot of other people). Things like longevity, statistical footprint and era played in, and other "legacy" factors which are---to some degree, at least---associated with simple luck.......these also factor into career value.

So if we were to assign a numerical value to his career (and did likewise to Davies, McDermott, Robertson), who would Cousy "score" closer to? idk......This question is close, imo. Might actually be closer to Robertson, depending on your criteria. I think he's more or less somewhat close to a midway position between them (though this depends a lot on your criteria, how you assess career value).


In terms of rank on an ATL, who is he closer to?
For this one I'm going to say closer to Robertson, if we're talking about number of places between them.

That said, it REALLY needs to be emphasized that the difference [in career value] between places gets smaller the further down on a list you go. The difference between #15 and #50 is actually probably BIGGER [in terms of career value] than the difference between #50 and #100.

[HeartBreakKid]

I think there are a number of ways to answer this, as I think there are multiple ways by which to define/interpret "closer".
I'll answer in THREE different ways, depending on which capacity you mean.....


In terms of actual player quality, who is he closer to?
Definitely Bob Davies and McDermott.


In terms of total career value, who is he closer to?
Didn't I just answer this with player quality? No, imo I did not. Player quality alone does not determine career value for me (and a lot of other people). Things like longevity, statistical footprint and era played in, and other "legacy" factors which are---to some degree, at least---associated with simple luck.......these also factor into career value.

So if we were to assign a numerical value to his career (and did likewise to Davies, McDermott, Robertson), who would Cousy "score" closer to? idk......This question is close, imo. Might actually be closer to Robertson, depending on your criteria. I think he's more or less somewhat close to a midway position between them (though this depends a lot on your criteria, how you assess career value).


In terms of rank on an ATL, who is he closer to?
For this one I'm going to say closer to Robertson, if we're talking about number of places between them.

That said, it REALLY needs to be emphasized that the difference [in career value] between places gets smaller the further down on a list you go. The difference between #15 and #50 is actually probably BIGGER [in terms of career value] than the difference between #50 and #100.

What would be a relevant example of statistical footprint that would differ player quality from career value for you?

[Doctor MJ]

All pioneers of the game and MVP point guards but in terms of their value as players, who is Cousy closer to? In the last RealGM list, Oscar was ranked 14, Cousy 63, and Davies/McDermott out of the top 100. Both Oscar and Davies have one season where they overlapped with Cousy on All NBA 1st team. McDermott never played in the NBA but he won four straight NBL MVPs in 1943-46 right before Davies so he played in a similar era too.

Sidenote: There were so many Bobs back then - McDermott, Davies, Cousy, Kurland, Feerick, Wanzer, Pettit. I can't remember a single Bob in the NBA in recent years besides Varejao's nickname of Sideshow Bob.

Love the thread. Okay so let's first distinguish:

You're asking about value/GOAT rankings rather than playstyle, but I actually want to get into both.

So on GOAT rankings:

I would rank Oscar way ahead of the other 3, which technically answers your question, but I'd be remiss if I didn't also say that I rank Davies ahead of Cousy.

I think you can definitely argue that Cousy's peak performance (early in his career) deserves to be ranked ahead of Davies, but even that's not so clear. Cousy peaked at around age 25, and when Davies was 25 he was in World War II. At age 26 I would consider Davies to have been the best offensive player in the professional world.

The big differentiator for me then is the fact that Cousy's style became extremely inefficient as he aged whereas Davies did not. Davies had a positive TS Add all the way to the end at age 35. Cousy on the other hand was never all that efficient and fell to major negative TS Add while still in his 20s. Yes the defensive focus of the Celtics played a role in this, but so did Cousy's tendency to chuck. Davies acted as an excellent volume scorer early in his career, but was one of those point guards who seemed to have an excellent sense of what was actually an efficient shot, and scaled down his volume gracefully as he aged.

Regarding McDermott: So much here depends here on how you evaluate scale of accomplishment relative to the difficulty of the competition. McDermott was absolutely the top pro of the World War II era...during which most able-bodied men of pro basketball playing age were in the military.

In '45-46, when the boys (including Davies) come home from war, McDermott leads the best regular season team by record, but he gets stifled badly in the matchup against Davies' Royals because of the tough defense of Davies' teammate Al Cervi, and really after that McDermott exits the conversation of best pro in the game. Note that while McDermott is 32 at that time and thus was possibly "past his prime", Cervi was 29 and would continue to be seen as a dominant man defender until at least 33. So we're not really talking about McDermott getting surpassed by the next generation so much as the NBL being able to consolidate all the best white talent in the land after World War II, and once that happened, McDermott looked less impressive.

I'll also note that the player who was considered the greatest talent of the era - Hank Luisetti both in between McDermott & Cervi - never played in the pros. He played some AAU ball - where you had a cushy job that paid the bills at a time when the actual pro leagues couldn't pay that much - and then he went off to World War II. Ned Irish, the king of Madison Square Garden and the original owner of the New York Knicks, is said to have been making plans to sign Luisetti when he came back and have him be the star of his team. Instead, Luisetti caught an illness in the military that ended up forcing him to retire.

All this to say that while McDermott technically dominated the pros in a fashion more complete than any of these other guys, the pro leagues really didn't have a monopoly on even the best white talent until after the war...and since McDermott's reign ends when the boys come home, I struggle to make the case for him over any of these other guys.

So my GOAT ranking of these 4 would be:

1. Oscar Robertson
2. Bob Davies
3. Bob Cousy
4. Bobby McDermott

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

What about stylistically?

Well first, McDermott was totally different from the rest. The other 3 guys were playmakers first and foremost, while McDermott was the GOAT set shot shooter. McDermott's range went well past the modern 3-point line, which is certainly impressive, but as a 6'0" guy whose didn't use a jump-shot, it's easy to see why his game may not scale as the game got filled with bigger players who could jump higher. Cervi, the McDermott-killer, was only 5'11" (albeit with very long arms), so you could imagine what taller guys would be able to do.

Realistically if McDermott were going to survive in future eras he'd need to change his shot dynamics. Maybe he could, and maybe one could conclude that he did everything he needed to in his own era so there's no reason to criticize, but aside from the fact that he did get stifled by his contemporaries when they came back to war, there's also the matter that Luisetti was demonstrating much more modern shot taking in a taller, more athletic frame back in college in the '30s. Even in McDermott's heyday, he wasn't the perimeter scorer the basketball world was most excited by.

Between the 3-point guards, what's interesting here is that Davies & Cousy - both heavily influenced by Luisetti who was also an incredible ballhandler and passer - were very similar in their tendency to attack in transition, whereas Oscar was the slow-it-down control guy.

This eventually led to the conflict between Cousy & Oscar when Cousy coached Oscar. Cousy kept trying to get Oscar to attack faster, and he eventually traded Oscar away because he wouldn't do it. Cousy's time as a coach would be regarded as a humiliating failure and not just by others, but by Cousy himself.

Funny thing though: As much as Cousy seemed to coach as if he never understood that it was the Celtic defense that was really the value-add rather than the offense he led...the guy he effectively handed the reins to after Oscar - Tiny Archibald - really did lead a more effective ORtg than Oscar did. Take that for what you will.

[Doctor MJ]

Robert was the most popular boy name from 1924-1937. It stayed in the Top 5 until 1974.

I remember working with a bunch of older engineers when I was a college intern. I swear they were all named "Bob" or "Bill". Meanwhile I didn't grow up with anyone who went by those names. "Bob" turned into "Bobby" or "Rob". "Bill" turned into "Will".

[Colbinii]

Robert was the most popular boy name from 1924-1937. It stayed in the Top 5 until 1974.

I remember working with a bunch of older engineers when I was a college intern. I swear they were all named "Bob" or "Bill". Meanwhile I didn't grow up with anyone who went by those names. "Bob" turned into "Bobby" or "Rob". "Bill" turned into "Will".

My uncles name is William. He goes by Will and is a Dick.

[trex_8063]

I think there are a number of ways to answer this, as I think there are multiple ways by which to define/interpret "closer".
I'll answer in THREE different ways, depending on which capacity you mean.....


In terms of actual player quality, who is he closer to?
Definitely Bob Davies and McDermott.


In terms of total career value, who is he closer to?
Didn't I just answer this with player quality? No, imo I did not. Player quality alone does not determine career value for me (and a lot of other people). Things like longevity, statistical footprint and era played in, and other "legacy" factors which are---to some degree, at least---associated with simple luck.......these also factor into career value.

So if we were to assign a numerical value to his career (and did likewise to Davies, McDermott, Robertson), who would Cousy "score" closer to? idk......This question is close, imo. Might actually be closer to Robertson, depending on your criteria. I think he's more or less somewhat close to a midway position between them (though this depends a lot on your criteria, how you assess career value).


In terms of rank on an ATL, who is he closer to?
For this one I'm going to say closer to Robertson, if we're talking about number of places between them.

That said, it REALLY needs to be emphasized that the difference [in career value] between places gets smaller the further down on a list you go. The difference between #15 and #50 is actually probably BIGGER [in terms of career value] than the difference between #50 and #100.

What would be a relevant example of statistical footprint that would differ player quality from career value for you?

I'm not sure I could give a good specific example (particular with details on exactly how it might shift the needle).

But I think it's something that [vaguely, at least] plays into the consciousness of persons doing player analysis. And sometimes it feels like the benchmark or threshold type statistical achievements play into peoples' minds more than a more general accumulation.

For example, remember how some people seemingly very suddenly acknowledged a greater placement in the all-time hierarchy for LeBron once he surpassed Kareem? It's not like much changed in the grand scheme of things in that one day; yet all of a sudden.....

Or notice how some people will say "so and so only scored above 20 ppg twice in his whole career" (maybe ignoring that he scored 19 ppg SEVEN other times, or whatever)?
Or how someone might say "so and so is one of only 3 players to ever avg X pts Y reb and Z ast in the same season)......

....and so on.


Can't really get more specific, and I don't really want to render a judgment on whether or not it's "right" or "wrong" to put stock into such things. But I think you'd be kidding yourself to assume people DON'T consider these things on some level.

[HeartBreakKid]

I think there are a number of ways to answer this, as I think there are multiple ways by which to define/interpret "closer".
I'll answer in THREE different ways, depending on which capacity you mean.....


In terms of actual player quality, who is he closer to?
Definitely Bob Davies and McDermott.


In terms of total career value, who is he closer to?
Didn't I just answer this with player quality? No, imo I did not. Player quality alone does not determine career value for me (and a lot of other people). Things like longevity, statistical footprint and era played in, and other "legacy" factors which are---to some degree, at least---associated with simple luck.......these also factor into career value.

So if we were to assign a numerical value to his career (and did likewise to Davies, McDermott, Robertson), who would Cousy "score" closer to? idk......This question is close, imo. Might actually be closer to Robertson, depending on your criteria. I think he's more or less somewhat close to a midway position between them (though this depends a lot on your criteria, how you assess career value).


In terms of rank on an ATL, who is he closer to?
For this one I'm going to say closer to Robertson, if we're talking about number of places between them.

That said, it REALLY needs to be emphasized that the difference [in career value] between places gets smaller the further down on a list you go. The difference between #15 and #50 is actually probably BIGGER [in terms of career value] than the difference between #50 and #100.

What would be a relevant example of statistical footprint that would differ player quality from career value for you?

I'm not sure I could give a good specific example (particular with details on exactly how it might shift the needle).

But I think it's something that [vaguely, at least] plays into the consciousness of persons doing player analysis. And sometimes it feels like the benchmark or threshold type statistical achievements play into peoples' minds more than a more general accumulation.

For example, remember how some people seemingly very suddenly acknowledged a greater placement in the all-time hierarchy for LeBron once he surpassed Kareem? It's not like much changed in the grand scheme of things in that one day; yet all of a sudden.....

Or notice how some people will say "so and so only scored above 20 ppg twice in his whole career" (maybe ignoring that he scored 19 ppg SEVEN other times, or whatever)?
Or how someone might say "so and so is one of only 3 players to ever avg X pts Y reb and Z ast in the same season)......

....and so on.


Can't really get more specific, and I don't really want to render a judgment on whether or not it's "right" or "wrong" to put stock into such things. But I think you'd be kidding yourself to assume people DON'T consider these things on some level.

Right, I know the Lebron James example for some people. But I am asking for you specifically because you said you take that into account. For you is it mainly just longevity?

[trex_8063]

Right, I know the Lebron James example for some people. But I am asking for you specifically because you said you take that into account.

Did I, though??

For you is it mainly just longevity?

Mostly yes. Though there are some "legacy points" that factor in [small-scale] for me too......team successes, mostly.

I like to view these successes [or lack there of] within the context ["luck"] they occurred in. Though I think there are some potential pitfalls and slippery slope concerns with disregarding the team results entirely, which I don't have the time to go into right now; but they've been discussed before, so I'm not sure I have to.