J.J. Redick had a long but not particularly impactful NBA career during which he averaged 12.8 ppg while proving to be a below average passer, ballhandler, rebounder, and defender. He played sparingly last season before retiring, and he was heading rapidly toward obscurity if he did not do something to grab attention. Redick has begun working for ESPN, and has apparently chosen "Screamin' A" Smith as his role model. Smith has demonstrated that he does not understand the difference between volume and depth, because the less sense he makes the louder he screams. Redick does not scream, but he shares Smith's penchant for blurting out nonsense and refusing to admit that there is no historical or logical basis for what he says.
Redick recently declared that Bob Cousy's Hall of Fame numbers and records mean little because Cousy played against "plumbers and firemen." Cousy is not only one of the greatest point guards of all-time, but he is a class act who is still alive and well, and it is awful that he is repeatedly subjected to having his legacy trashed not only by uninformed media members but now by a mediocre retired player who is seeking attention.
How great was Bob Cousy, and who did he play against? Consider Cousy's 1956-57 MVP season, during which he ranked first in assists (478, 7.5 apg), sixth in free throw percentage (.821), and eighth in scoring (1319, 20.6 ppg). The next six finishers in the MVP voting (Bob Pettit, Paul Arizin, Dolph Schayes, George Yardley, Maurice Stokes, and Bill Russell) are all Hall of Famers, as are two other players who each received one MVP vote (Harry Gallatin and Jack Twyman). The league consisted of just eight teams of 11 players each, and those rosters were stacked with Hall of Famers. The worst team in the league that season, the Rochester Royals, finished 31-41 and was led by Hall of Famers Stokes and Twyman. No teams practiced "load management," and no teams tanked, which meant that Cousy could not pad his numbers against inferior competition. Also, the games were physical, the scheduling and traveling were brutal, and the arenas, training regimens, and equipment were nowhere close to what would be considered standard or acceptable now.
As I noted in February 2022, Amin Elhassan regularly demeans Cousy for no reason:
Elhassan worked in an NBA front office a long time ago, and when he confines himself to talking about his observations of players who he has seen play he displays a basic level of competence--nothing profound, but nothing foolish. However, when Elhassan strays from that comfort zone he descends into sounding like a fan whose biases far outstrip his analytical abilities, as I mentioned in my analysis of the NBA's 75th Anniversary Team when I refuted his bizarre obsession with demeaning Bob Cousy:
While we are talking about small point guards, it must be said that the people who suggest that Cousy could not play in today's game are--and there is no polite way to put this--speaking foolishly (I am trying to avoid labeling people, and instead just labeling their behavior). I think that there is more than a little reverse racism that rears its ugly head when assessing Cousy, and I also think that far too many people who speak about him have little to no knowledge of NBA history. Amin Elhassan--who does a solid job of analyzing current NBA players--has made it a running gag during his Sirius XM NBA Radio appearances to mock Cousy's career field goal percentage (.375) and suggest that Cousy is vastly overrated. Cousy's career free throw percentage is .803, so we can dismiss the notion that he was a bad shooter. By the way, the league's free throw shooting percentage during Cousy's career was .734, and in the middle to latter portion of his career it was right around .750, which is comparable to the league's free throw shooting percentage now. Put young Cousy in a shooting contest with today's NBA players and I think that the results would surprise many people. Back to Cousy's field goal percentage: Did Cousy have horrible shot selection and/or was he incapable of scoring when closely guarded?
The NBA's average field goal percentage during Cousy's career was .391, so a .375 field goal percentage was not terrible at that time. Why were field goal percentages so low during that era? Keep in mind that during basketball's early days players were called "cagers" because the courts were surrounded by wire cages to keep the players inside and the fans outside. Yes, the cages were gone by the time Cousy played in the NBA, but that rough and wild mentality still pervaded the league. The game was much more physical than today's game. Yes, the players were smaller, but not by as much as you may think, and if a 6-4, 220 dude elbows you in the face it is going to hurt a lot and it may dissuade you from driving to the hoop (and may affect your field goal percentage not only after you have been hit but also prior to that because you are keeping your head on a swivel to avoid being hit). The early NBA arenas had worse lighting, worse playing surfaces, worse temperature control, and just worse conditions in general than NBA arenas today. Also, it is my understanding--but I cannot find the archival articles to confirm this--that during some of the NBA's earliest seasons a missed field goal attempt when a player was fouled was counted in the statistics, which would obviously have a negative effect on a player's field goal percentage, and that effect would be more pronounced for a player like Cousy who drew a lot of fouls (now, when a player is fouled while shooting the attempt only counts if the player makes the field goal attempt). Also, NBA half court sets and strategies had to evolve after the 24 second shot clock was introduced.
During Cousy's era, players traveled by train, not private airplanes, and the scheduling was brutal. Cousy's physical attributes--6-1, 180, wiry strong, exceptional peripheral vision/ballhandling--are no worse than John Stockton's or Chris Paul's. Put Cousy in today's game, and he would have a field day playing under modern conditions with defensive players not being allowed to touch him. Put Stockton or Paul in the 1950s, and their numbers would not have been any better than Cousy's.
Another difference between the 1950s and subsequent eras is that as time passed a greater focus developed on individual statistics and efficiency. Modern players hesitate to shoot long shots at the end of the shot clock or end of the quarter because such shots hurt their field goal percentages. Shane Battier talked about this in the highly publicized interview that he did about so-called "advanced basketball statistics" many years ago. He was dubbed the ultimate team player because he did not care about his individual numbers, but even he admitted that he declined to take shots at the end of the shot clock or end of the quarter that could only help the team but might hurt his individual field goal percentage.
Red Auerbach is rightly considered one of the greatest coaches of all-time, if not the greatest, and he led the Celtics to nine NBA titles. If he thought that Cousy's shot selection was hurting the team you can be sure that Auerbach would have done something about it.
Comparisons between eras are fraught with peril and should be done with great care and thoroughness. The ignorant way that Elhassan (and his co-host Zach Harper, whose qualifications to be on the show remain a mystery to me) mocks Cousy is disgraceful. Based on listening to other segments of the show, I realize that Elhassan understands how to analyze basketball players that he has seen, so I wish that he would restrict his commentary/analysis to what he understands, and leave the historical comparisons to those who are better informed.
Comparing athletes from two different eras involves two main considerations: (1) How great was each athlete compared to the athletes from his own era, and (2) a skill set comparison of each athlete. The first is much easier to determine, but the second is more complex and nuanced.
It is obvious that Cousy was much greater in his era than Kyrie Irving--to cite the modern player who Redick asserts would be viewed as a "wizard" if he were teleported to the 1960s NBA--is in this era: Cousy won one regular season MVP, made the All-NBA First Team 10 years in a row, won six championships (and was an All-NBA First or Second Team player for each of those championship teams), led the league in assists for eight straight seasons (1953-60,), ranked in the top 10 in free throw percentage for eight straight seasons (1952-59), led the league in triple doubles in five different seasons, and still ranks 12th all-time with 33 regular season triple doubles. Only nine other players have earned at least 10 All-NBA First Team selections: LeBron James, Kobe Bryant, Karl Malone, Kareem Abdul-Jabbar, Tim Duncan, Jerry West, Michael Jordan, Bob Pettit, and Elgin Baylor. Only John Stockton won more assist titles (nine) than Cousy.
In contrast, Irving's resume is much thinner: he not only has never won a regular season MVP, but he has never received a single top five MVP vote. He has never made the All-NBA First Team, and during his 11 year career he has received one All-NBA Second Team selection and two All-NBA Third Team selections (the All-NBA Third Team has only existed since 1989, long after Cousy retired). Irving has won one NBA title, he has never ranked in the top 10 in assists, he has ranked in the top 10 in free throw percentage four times, and he has just three career triple doubles.
Cousy was not playing against "plumbers and firemen"--he was playing against some of the best players of all-time, and he was the best guard in the NBA for at least a decade. Irving has never been close to being the best guard in the NBA in any one season, let alone being the best guard for a decade. Supposedly the level of competition is much higher now, but that argument can cut both ways: yes, the modern game is globalized while the 1950s NBA drew from a smaller talent pool, but there are also many more teams in the NBA now, and thus the talent is more spread out/diluted. As noted above, in Cousy's MVP season the worst team in the league went 31-41 (a .436 winning percentage which is slightly worse than the winning percentage of this season's New Orleans Pelicans, a playoff team). The rampant practices of tanking and "load management" also help today's players to post gaudy numbers. Every season of Irving's career he not only regularly takes time off for one reason or another, but he also has the opportunity to boost his numbers by playing against teams that are losing on purpose.
Regarding the skill set comparison, Cousy may not have been the first player to dribble behind his back and throw no-look passes, but he was the first player to do such things while being the point guard for multiple NBA championship teams. Cousy was a pioneer. The showmen who came after him patterned their games on Cousy's game; Kyrie Irving would not exist as we know him today without Cousy, Pistol Pete Maravich, Archie Clark, Isiah Thomas, Tim Hardaway, and the many other great ballhandlers who preceded him, so it is not fair or relevant to speak of teleporting Irving to the 1960s without acknowledging the debt that he owes to the great players who came before him. On the other hand, if you teleported young Cousy into today's game and permitted Cousy to travel, to carry the ball, and to dribble all over the court without perimeter defenders being permitted to touch him there is every reason to believe that Cousy would be as great now as he was in his time.
You may think that comparing the shooting skills of two players just involves looking at shooting percentages, but such a simplistic view fails to take into account how different today's game is from the NBA game in the 1950s and 1960s: the defensive rules are different, the addition of the three point line changed both offensive and defensive strategies, and there are other differences (medical care, playing four games in five days, etc.) that impacted shooting percentages (and other statistics). Cousy's field goal percentage was above average during his career, and he was one of the league's top free throw shooters. Irving's field goal percentage is also above average relative to his era, and he is one of the league's top free throw shooters. There is no objective way to measure Cousy's range because the three point shot did not exist during his career, but throughout the past 40-plus years we have seen many players who were not nearly as accomplished as Cousy add the three point shot to their repertoire after entering the league as below average outside shooters, so there is no reason to think that Cousy would not have been at least a good three point shooter if he had played in the modern era.
Statistically, Cousy is one of the greatest playmakers of all-time, while Irving is a solid playmaker. I would not put too much stock in assist numbers alone, because those numbers are very subjective (although I trust the pre-1980s assist numbers more than I trust the post-1980s assist numbers, because in the 1980s the scorekeepers began awarding assists more generously), but I would note that Cousy was the top playmaker not just for his team but in the entire league, while Irving has generally been primarily a scorer while serving as a secondary playmaker for his teams.
Defense is even more difficult to compare than the categories listed above. Neither Cousy not Irving would be considered elite defensive players, but Cousy was the point guard for championship teams that were known for playing great defense and then for turning those defensive stops into fast break opportunities, and he played an important role at both ends of the court.
Redick's "hot take" got him the attention that he wanted, but it also let informed basketball observers know that Redick does not take basketball analysis or basketball history very seriously. According to one set of "advanced basketball statistics," based on Redick's NBA career his probability of being inducted in the Naismith Memorial Basketball Hall of Fame is 0.0%, which coincidentally is also the likelihood that he has the slightest idea what he is talking about.