Cousy vs Curry

With all the attention that curry has been receiving over the past year I thought that a comparison between Curry and Cousy stats over their 1st 6 years in the league might be quite interesting.  Check out the difference in 2pfg%. A huge difference there.

  http://bkref.com/tiny/Cw3D4

 swish

And here's a little add on information. In his 1st 6 years Cousy was an all star 6 times and all nba 5 times while Curry was an all star 2 times and all nba 2 times in his 1st 6 years.

swish

swish,

Sorry, but this is gobbledy-gook to me.

Different league, different rules, different roles.

Cousy was a classic pass first point guard, shooter second.  Curry is the opposite.  I'd be fall down shocked if Curry's numbers weren't a lot higher.

Hand checking vs no hand checking.  BIG difference.  HUGE difference.  Imagine Jerry West with the 3pt line.  Imagine Kobe having to play against defenders who could hand check.  How would one adjust for the impact of those changes?  I don't think there's much doubt that Jerry West and Elgin Baylor could hit today's 3s if the league made it worth their while to do it.  Could Kobe do as well if a defender could have their hand on his hip without getting whistled?  If West/Baylor had the 3pt line, how many would they have to hit before the defenses came out to them and they drove past them to hit open 2s, which they were doing already anyway.  

The NBA adopted the 24 second shot clock in 1954 (Cousy had already been in the league 3 years at that point) specifically to quicken the pace.  Quicker pace means more possessions and more fgas.

The adoption of the 3pt shot opened up the middle, creating opportunities for more wide-open 2pt fgas, because the defense was out at the perimeter defending the 3.

Here is the table that shows the NBA by year over the years.  

http://www.basketball-reference.com/leagues/NBA_stats.html

Look at how the league's fg% has gone up over time.  It isn't just Curry, it's the whole league.  Why?  In part, because the league has changed and many of the changes they have made were specifically to increase shooting and scoring.  It should not be a surprise, therefore, when today's players are better shooters and scorers.  The league is doing what it can to encourage that and make it more so for them.  And it's not about the athleticism of the players today neither, because today you still have to defend against your peers and not against players from the '50s or any other era.  Difference in size?  Avery Bradley is a 6'2" SG and Jae Crowder is a 6'6" SF and they are part of a top 5 (certainly) NBA defense today.  It's not about the difference in physique.  If today's shooters are more taller and more athletic so are the defenders trying to stop them.  Now, of course, if you even so much as look hard at one of these $50M assets a ref will blow a whistle to protect them and calm everything down.  Hard foul?  Somebody will be shooting a technical now and maybe the defender even gets ejected.  Back then?  Just a foul.  

Comparing eras is, in my opinion, a fatally flawed effort because the game has evolved in many ways.  It might not be the difference between apples and oranges, but it might be the difference between Blood Oranges and Mandarin Oranges.



bob



.

I agree that you can't at all compare Cousy to Curry.
It's like comparing Babe Ruth to Barry Bonds.

There was hand checking when Cousy played?
Maybe it was allowed, but almost never utilized.
We have talked about the 50's and 60's video many, many times.
The defense played back then was practically no contact.

As for Kobe, he loves contact. He was never a pure shooter like Ray Allen, Dale Ellis or Steph Curry who thrive off of open shot opportunities. Kobe is one of the best, maybe the best of all time with making shots with a defender right on him.

bob. Below years are all shot clock years.

http://bkref.com/tiny/Or8On
" pass 1st point guard "
Like the above figures show he was right up there with the back court "gunners "of the day. The very 1st of the combination guards.

swish

BobH,

To the point about Kobe, I think he could've managed well with hand-checking as he's more of a hardnosed player than the brunt of the league today. He's one of very few active players that played in the 90s when the game was more physical than it is today.

Of course, the league has drastically changed throughout the decades.


KJ

Bob,

  "hand checking"

Hand checking in the 50's and 60's as a factor in the movement of a player. Now that's a joke. They could have played in gowns and tuxedo's in those early years. Basketball in those early years was considered a "no touchem game"

"The 3 point line"

 The 3 point line as a factor would have had very little affect on players like Baylor. When initiated in 1979 there were 2-3 attempts per team per game with an average shooting % of .280 and 7 years later it was still 2-3 shots per game per team with an average shooting % of .282.  As a shooter with a lifetime shooting average of under .250 I just can not see him as a successful 3 point shooter,


As to an overview as to the differences  between the early years and the present.

 1- Shooting skills -  Steady yearly improvement from the 50's into the 80's. where 1t has since leveled off
 2- Ball Handling Skills - Pre teens in elementary schools with handles that the pros back in the 50's and 60's could only dream of.
 3- And the most important-  is the speed and quickness that the black basketball, under 6'8" player, has brought to the game. While white 6'8" and under Americans dominated the roster at 94 % in 1956 it is now down to 5% in 2014-15.

Its all about the talent level.

swish

We have discussed alot of these aspects before, the overall athleticism in the 50's and 60's is no where near even the college level today, therefore the defense is actually so much better today than back when Baylor dominated....anybody think Baylor a 6'5" combo forward, considered the first high flyer, could put up those same numbers today? I don't think so.

cowens/oldschool wrote:We have discussed alot of these aspects before, the overall athleticism in the 50's and 60's is no where near even the college level today, therefore the defense is actually so much better today than back when Baylor dominated....anybody think Baylor a 6'5" combo forward, considered the first high flyer, could put up those same numbers today? I don't think so.

Cow,

You compete against whom you compete against.  50 years from now SGs will all be 6'9" and up.  Could MJ, at 6'6", put up the same numbers against them?  Unlikely.  How good a job could 6'4" Dennis Johnson do trying to guard someone when every single player he had to stop, every single night, was Magic Johnson's size or taller?  MJ and DJ aren't in the HOF, and will still be in the HOF 50 years from now, because they could beat the players of the year 2065.

Joe Louis fought with 8 oz gloves.  Only fighters under 160# fight with 8 oz gloves now, over 160# use 10# gloves.  Put 10 oz gloves on Joe Louis and he doesn't have anywhere near as much stopping power.  Change the rules, change the results.  Change the results, change the reliability of any comparisons.

Rocky Marciano is considered one of the top fighters of all time.  He was 5'11", 190#.  You don't hear boxing pundits argue over how well he would do against Mike Tyson or against current heavyweight champion 6'9" 257# Tyson Fury.

Cross-era comparisons are worse than fantasy leagues.  At least with fantasy leagues you're dealing with a practical possibility.  What's even odder is that I never seem to hear anybody try to do that except for basketball, which is a sport which has had more rule changes than almost any other except perhaps NFL.  Do you ever hear people try to compare Vince Lombardi's Packers to the Belichick's Patriots?



bob



.

Cousy was great and fun to watch. Curry is great and fun to watch. So I guess they're comparable.

Outside

I agree with that statement 100%. I got unbelievable enjoyment watching Cousy throughout his career. I thought that the Celtics back then were the greatest (and they were ). They have been my favorite basketball team for 65 years but unlike most old timers I have absolutely no fear of recognizing that the talent level of the last 35 years has far out stripped the level of play of the 50's and 60's. I strongly believe that the younger fans on this board have every reason to believe that they are watching basketball at its best.

swish

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/stephen-curry-larry-bird-shooting-statistic_56609c7de4b08e945fee8a95?ncid=txtlnkusaolp00000592



This Should Put Steph's 3-Point Shooting In Proper Perspective
Larry Legend has nothing on Chef Curry.
Juliet Spies-Gans
Editorial Fellow, HuffPost Sports
3 hours ago






Larry Bird was no slouch from behind the arc. For his career, the Boston Celtics legend shot threes at a 37.6 percent clip, and his efficiency spiked a few years into his professional play, when he found his NBA sea legs. By some pundits’ estimation, Bird can even be ranked among the top long-range shooters of all time. Larry loved to embarrass opponents from behind the arc. Remember this three-point shootout?




All of which makes the statistic that ESPN's Tom Haberstroh just tweeted out all the more mind-blowing.


Tom Haberstroh ✔@tomhaberstroh
Just dropped on @SportsCenter: Steph Curry is on pace to make more 3s in his last 2 seasons than Larry Bird did in his entire 13-yr career.
8:14 AM - 3 Dec 2015
 557 557 Retweets  320 320 likes


While Curry drilled 286 triples in his 2014-2015 campaign, in just 20 games thus far this year he’s already hit 102 -- meaning that, if he keeps shooting at this clip, he’ll have tallied roughly 410 made threes on the year before the playoffs even tip off.





At the rate that Curry’s going, the league’s annals will be smattered with his name by the time he calls it quits. Sorry, Bird, and everyone else.


bob


.

Check out Bogut's and Kemba Walker's reaction to this Curry corner 3. Walker is #15 along the baseline.

They both knew it was 'money'.

https://vine.co/v/iWTvqqA9PLq


bob

.

was a different game in Birds time, believe me if they emphasized the 3 as much in Birds era or if he magically were playing in this era, Bird could adapt, he could hit more 3's. He is as much responsible for 3 pointers making such dramatic impact as any player in history.

Like with Cousy and Curry, there's no way to compare Bird and Curry as three-point shooters just looking at the numbers because they played in such different eras.

I have no doubt that Bird would be an excellent three-point shooter today. He was one of the greatest shooters of all time. He'd have one advantage over Curry, which is his height, which would help him get his shot off against defenders.

Even so, I'd have to give the three-point shooting nod to Curry. His ballhandling ability and quick release are even more of an advantage for getting shots off than Bird's height would be. And Curry's range -- I haven't seen anything like it. I'm obviously biased, but having watched a lot of Warriors games the past couple of years, it's become apparent that he's the best three-point shooter the game has ever seen.

For me, the guy who comes to mind as the more apt comparison to Curry as a shooter is George Gervin. While different players in many regards, what strikes me as similar is how smooth they are as shooters. Again, different eras -- Gervin took fewer three-point shots in his career (451) than Curry has in a season (over 600 attempts each of the last three seasons, on pace for 910(!) this season), but there's a reason Gervin's nickname was "the Iceman." His outside jumper looked so easy, and it was deadly.

As outside shooters, Bird and Curry remind me of each other in their confidence. Bird was far more brash about it, but even though Curry is understated verbally, his body language on the court reeks of confidence.

Bird is in a small group of players that I rank as the best to ever play the game. Curry would have to play at this level for years to come to be considered for that lofty company, but he's the better three-point shooter. What he's done the past few years is remarkable, and what he's doing this year is unbelievable.

Now watch, after saying all that, he'll have an off game next week against Boston.

bobheckler wrote:Check out Bogut's and Kemba Walker's reaction to this Curry corner 3.  Walker is #15 along the baseline.

They both knew it was 'money'.

https://vine.co/v/iWTvqqA9PLq

Bob,

I saw that clip on a sports show today, and they pointed out Kemba Walker's utterly forlorn gesture of resignation, but I missed Bogut's reaction. That's priceless.

bob

Meaningful intergenerational comparisons are really very easy to make. Here's one aspect of the Packer - Patriot comparison

Your statement below.

" Cross-era comparisons are worse than fantasy leagues. At least with fantasy leagues you're dealing with a practical possibility. What's even odder is that I never seem to hear anybody try to do that except for basketball, which is a sport which has had more rule changes than almost any other except perhaps NFL. Do you ever hear people try to compare Vince Lombardi's Packers to the Belichick's Patriots? '

1962 Packer Offensive line average weight per player --- 243 lbs
2014 Patriot Offensive line average weight per player --- 315 lbs
1962 Packer defensive line average weight per player --- 252 lbs
2014 Patriot defensive line average weight per player --- 291 lbs

Quite a change in 52 years

swish




bob