ISH All-time Top 25 Guards Project: #7 - Dwyane Wade vs. Bob Cousy

[G.O.A.T]

Because while "winning" and accomplishments are nice, context matters. I won't even consider the era stuff (though how well a player's game/skillset translates decade to decade matters to me).

Of course context matters, but to argue against Cousy you have to pick and choose where you apply which portion of the context.

Celtics when they were winning often had very mediocre offenses...sometimes the worst in the league (I expect better if the offense is being led by a player who is going to be voted as a top 4 PG of all-time). It was their defense (which was the best in the league by huge margins in most years) anchored by Russell and supported by guys like KC Jones, Satch Sanders, Sharman and so on, that made them a dynasty.

This is an example. This is an entirely true statement, but it ignores a lot of context.

1) The Celtics were the best offense in pro basketball history to that point from 1951-1956 led by Cousy. They were running a shot clock era offense even before the shot clock.

2) From 1957-1960, Cousy's only prime years with Russell, the Celtics were top three in the league in scoring, field goal percentage and assists every year.

3) KC and Satch weren't really in the rotation until 1962 when Cousy was on his way out.

Cousy's contributions were replaceable. Nice piece to have I'm sure but not necessary, what he brought to the table did not have an affect on whether they won or not. They could win with him quaterbacking them while they were a mediocre offensive team. They could win when he got old and began playing under 30 minutes a game. And they could win when he retired. Cousy wasn't the identity of those teams, it was Russell and the other guys who made the Celtics who they were defensively, combined with the clutch shooting of guys like Jones and Havlicek.

Really it was two teams and while not being the best player, Cousy was the face of the first one. That team with Cooz, Sharman, Heinsohn, Loscutoff and Ramsey as the key components alongside Russell was what I call an "old-NBA" team. Those guys grew up with pro games being played to scores in the 40's and 50's with shooting percentage below 25% often. The next team with the Jones boys, Hondo, Satch, Seigfried and co. was a new NBA team. Better athletes, guys who grew up playing a different kind of game then there peers a decade or so older.

To your point though, I don't think Cousy contributions were replaceable, neither the tangible or intangible. That's wholly subjective, but i can tell you that most certainly was not the common opinion during his time.

Guards back then shot poorly...but Cousy was horrific. I'm sure his playmaking was great, it is in all the old games I've seen of him (game 7 of the '62 finals impressed me for example), but dude never even broke 40%, was always shooting much lower than league average, and by much lower I mean more than 10 percentage points under league average in some of their runs. That's just awful from a guy who is being ranked this highly because of his offense.

This is misleading. Cousy shot over or near the league average for most of his prime. The game changed and a 32 year old Cousy could not adjust with it. But you can't hold that against him. By that point he had already had a longer career than almost anyone of his contemporaries and even once the game passed him by from a skill and style standpoint, he could still be a high level playmaker.

Even though he led the playoffs in APG for eight straight years and led the playoffs in PPG three times, his shooting percentages during playoff runs are dreadful, no doubt and that's a good reason to keep him a level below the Oscar's and West and Magic despite a similiar resume. But to think it's not valid for someone to prefer one of the most illustrious and accomplished careers of all-time over a very impressive but inconsistent eight year run is not reasonable in any context.

[WillC]

[QUOTE=Gotterdammerung]Break it down ISH style:

ISH logic: GOAT must be the better playground player, the one with high NBA 2k rating, better athlete.

G

[Clippersfan86]

Of course context matters, but to argue against Cousy you have to pick and choose where you apply which portion of the context.



This is an example. This is an entirely true statement, but it ignores a lot of context.

1) The Celtics were the best offense in pro basketball history to that point from 1951-1956 led by Cousy. They were running a shot clock era offense even before the shot clock.

2) From 1957-1960, Cousy's only prime years with Russell, the Celtics were top three in the league in scoring, field goal percentage and assists every year.

3) KC and Satch weren't really in the rotation until 1962 when Cousy was on his way out.



Really it was two teams and while not being the best player, Cousy was the face of the first one. That team with Cooz, Sharman, Heinsohn, Loscutoff and Ramsey as the key components alongside Russell was what I call an "old-NBA" team. Those guys grew up with pro games being played to scores in the 40's and 50's with shooting percentage below 25% often. The next team with the Jones boys, Hondo, Satch, Seigfried and co. was a new NBA team. Better athletes, guys who grew up playing a different kind of game then there peers a decade or so older.

To your point though, I don't think Cousy contributions were replaceable, neither the tangible or intangible. That's wholly subjective, but i can tell you that most certainly was not the common opinion during his time.



This is misleading. Cousy shot over or near the league average for most of his prime. The game changed and a 32 year old Cousy could not adjust with it. But you can't hold that against him. By that point he had already had a longer career than almost anyone of his contemporaries and even once the game passed him by from a skill and style standpoint, he could still be a high level playmaker.

Even though he led the playoffs in APG for eight straight years and led the playoffs in PPG three times, his shooting percentages during playoff runs are dreadful, no doubt and that's a good reason to keep him a level below the Oscar's and West and Magic despite a similiar resume. But to think it's not valid for someone to prefer one of the most illustrious and accomplished careers of all-time over a very impressive but inconsistent eight year run is not reasonable in any context.

. Great post G.O.A.T.

[Big164]

Bob cousey

If wade died today no one would remember him in 50 years. He'd be lost in the shuffle as some guy from the kobe era. Kobe won 3 before wade and 2 after. The guy is a footnote as of now.

Bob cousey 50 years later is still a legend and no guard from that era is even close to him.

Easy vote.

[WillC]

Bob cousey

If wade died today no one would remember him in 50 years. He'd be lost in the shuffle as some guy from the kobe era. Kobe won 3 before wade and 2 after. The guy is a footnote as of now.

Bob cousey 50 years later is still a legend and no guard from that era is even close to him.

Easy vote.

Cousy was so memorable that you forgot how to spell his name.

[Warriors fan]

Cousy was so memorable that you forgot how to spell his name.

big164 is a wade hater

[Odinn]

I mostly agree with ShaqAttack3234, KBlaze8855 and Fatal9 in this thread.

I vote for Dwyane Wade, again.

[Big164]

Cousy was so memorable that you forgot how to spell his name.

Im not Bob's mother, sorry. That'd be really embarrassing...

Bob Cousy

[Kblaze8855]

While every single post in favor of Cousy both makes me laugh and wonder when the ability to play basketball went out the window...

I am interested in what some of the Cousy voters will do when presended with what guys like George Mikan and Neil Johnson actually did compared to guys like Shaq and Barkley. Still pretend its close?

And I wonder where guys like Bob Davies are when we are putting more value on being an innovator and accomplishments than the ability to play basketball well. Did Pistol Pete end up higher than Davies?

Im not sure how Cousy is better than Wade but Paul Arizin probably wont be higher than say...KG..on the forward list.

Being a Celtic and having 6 rings gifted to you by a guy who won 5 without you sure gets you a lot of love.

[Rnbizzle]

If you guys would look at these players on the court, there is no question Wade is the better player. The fact that you count his 6 rings (Which he only won because he played with Russell) is so retarded to me. Give Wade a good/great team and he will get a shitload of rings as well.

Wade is a proven winner.

[oolalaa]

All this comes down to is if you care one speck about the ability to play basketball.

If not its cousy by a mile. Legacy Wade will never match.

If ability to play the game matters..its Wade by a mile. Cousy couldnt shoot(dont tell me you saw him make a set shot from 3 point range...I did too..but fact is if he shot 34-35% he either missed almost all his shots or a hell of a lot of layups). Ive heard from his mouth that kids today are better ball handlers than he was(not that id make that case). Russel said Cousy didnt have any interest in defense at all and Russell helped build their fast breaking style for the express purpose of finding a way to get something out of Cousys lack of defense. Someone can find the article im sure but the basic story...

Cousy did not want to play good D. He didnt see it as a key towinning...so when his man would abuse him Russell would block it and mastered quick outlet passes because after a whhile once cousy got blown by he would know Bill was there to reject it and throw it to him leaking out down the court.

So we have his own teammates saying he played no D...

He got rebounds...on a teams scoring 120 ppg in a league that shot like 38-42%. Lot of rebounds to grab.

Fact is...all Cousy could be argued better than Wade at is passing......and playing with Bill Russell.

He was on a team as one of 3HOf players and had never even played a finals game before Bill. I wanna say they won a ring in a game he and Sharman combined for like 5 of 40 shooting. Their frontcourt won them titles. Russell. Heinson. Sanders. Their defense and frontcourt won those rings which is probably why they won 5 or 6 without him.

Point blank period....

A vote for cousy is a total disregarding of the ability to play basketball. I dont wanna hear shit about winning when a guy puts up 21/6 on 28% shooting in the playoffs losing in the second round or tops out at 26 on 50 in a sweep in the first round. Then Russell arrives and he makes 7 straight finals winning 6....then he retires...and they win one mre game...and win the title in even more dominant fasion. One of the 5 they didnt need him for.

Im hearing no "he was a winner" arguments in that situation.

He was a teammate of Bill Russell. That makes anyone a winner.

I was going to write pretty much the same as this but now i don't have to.



Anyone who chooses cousy over wade is either 60 years old or just plain ignorant.

[KGMN]

Bob Cousy

[1987_Lakers]

Cousy impacted the league more & has a greater legacy, but Wade is simply the better player.

[G.O.A.T]

While every single post in favor of Cousy both makes me laugh and wonder when the ability to play basketball went out the window...

Really being a d[COLOR="Black"]ic[/COLOR]k with this whole "abilty to play basketball" thing.

A ton of people a lot smarter and with more knowledge have come to the conclusion that Cousy is a better player than Wade. It's far from unreasonable.

Any Cousy as very good at playing basketball. In his time some people even said he was the greatest ever.

Now I know you are smarter than those people and the game is just so superior now, but what does that mean this generations players and observers are fated for in 50-100 years

Bring the level of conversation up or take it elsewhere.

[IGOTGAME]

Really being a d[COLOR="Black"]ic[/COLOR]k with this whole "abilty to play basketball" thing.

A ton of people a lot smarter and with more knowledge have come to the conclusion that Cousy is a better player than Wade. It's far from unreasonable.

Any Cousy as very good at playing basketball. In his time some people even said he was the greatest ever.

Now I know you are smarter than those people and the game is just so superior now, but what does that mean this generations players and observers are fated for in 50-100 years

Bring the level of conversation up or take it elsewhere.

who has said this?