Was JJ Redick right about Jerry West, Bob Cousy and 60s basketball? A critical analysis

As the NBA world mourns the death of Jerry West, some fans have dug up one of his biggest viral clips from the past few years. His rebuttal to some of JJ Redick’s comments on the early days of the league has been chief among them.

It all started when Redick was on ESPN’s "First Take", and got into a debate regarding Chris Paul and Bob Cousy. West responded, coming to the defense of the stars from his era.

Debates between eras are an ongoing topic in NBA circles, and this back-and-forth ignited things for a while. That said, it's hard to pick a definitive side on who is right or wrong.

---

Breaking down the JJ Redick vs Jerry West debate

Jerry West brings up an interesting point in his rebuttal, stating that numbers need to matter at some point, which should be the case in any era. Guys like West and Bob Cousy were phenomenal players at the time, and it's why they're recognized as all-time greats.

Even though the competition was weaker in the 1960s, not many players performed like Jerry West did. At 23 years old, he averaged 30.8 points and 5.4 assists for the LA Lakers. As for Cousy, he never averaged fewer than six assists per game past his rookie year except in 1970 when he came out of retirement at 41 years old.

JJ Redick used the wrong words, but some of the things he mentioned do hold weight. Back then, fewer teams were in the league and players weren't as skilled as today. Part of that is because today's generation can dedicate more time to improving their craft.

Redick's "plumbers" remark might be accurate for the average player back then, but it doesn't fit for the star talents. Guys like Jerry West, Wilt Chamberlain, Bill Russell, and Bob Cousy could have played in any era. They all had transcendent talent and a much higher basketball IQ than most. Because of this, they could be dropped into any decade and would likely have similar success with the same resources.

At the end of the day, greatness will always find a way to succeed. However, the stars back then had fewer teams to face, squaring off against a much smaller pool of players. While it shouldn't discredit what they did, it is a factor to consider in any debate.

Truly, both Redick and West are correct here. The stars in the early days of the NBA faced a lower talent pool, but it doesn't mean the greats weren't great. The numbers they put up then were merely a testament to how ahead of their time they were.