RealGM Top 100 List #22

[Warspite]

Wow i've used weak era against Mikan, but i think the race thing is a little unnecessary.

Race is absolutely a factor. Blacks were simply not allowed in the game in Mikan's era and had low penetration in the Pettit era. Blacks are 75% of the best players in the world today. If 75% of the best players disappeared, the league would become weak. Its a huge factor and ignoring it wont change the fact that Mikan played in an era of no blacks

Blacks didnt play basketball untill they migrated from the south to the urban centers of the north. I know you think that "ghetto" is a black term but its not. In the beginning basketball was primarily a jewish sport since its jews who lived in the urban ghetto while blacks were still working in the cotton fields of the south untill WWII.

This myth that there was this huge talent pool of black players that werent allowed to play simply is not based in fact.

[DQuinn1575]

Also, this got me looking at some historical things that are interesting.

As we've talked about '51-52 is when Mikan's dominance started waining. He want from 28.4 PPG on 50.9% TS to 23.8 PPG on 45.9% TS and the Lakers went from being a 1.3 points above average on offense to 1.6 below average.

'51-52 was also when the league widened the lane from 6 to 12 feet, specifically to get in Mikan's way. So I suppose it worked. (Remember also the lane is now 16 feet) I would be inclined to say that this is more evidence that there's no reason at all to think MIkan could be an offensive focal point today, but y'all know my bias on this.

Interestingly here's Mikan's take on the rule change:

http://www.nba.com/history/season/19511952.html

Actually, it opened up the lane and made it more difficult for them to defense me," Mikan said. "Opposing teams couldn't deter our cutters going through the lane. It moved me out and gave me more shot selection instead of just short pivots and hooks. I was able to dribble across the lane and use a lot more freedom setting my shot up.

So yeah it would seem he has no concept of how much less effective he was, though perhaps he was simply bluffing.

Regardless though, in the end it should be all about defense when people look at Mikan. If you're voting for him now, you should probably be thinking he's on the short list of GOAT defenders.[/quote

I went back and read some stuff from the time - he was also quoted on saying it would make it harder for him, but that it was better for the game.

I guess most guys would whine, but he had more class than that.

He still was the best player on the best team in the league that won 3 times in a row, and was the leader in WS/48 over those 3 years. So, he was less effective, but still really really good.

He was 2nd in the league in scoring and his team won the title in 52 and 53. Can anyone else other than Jordan top that?

The 12 foot lane took him from being by far the best player, to merely the best player - but still a 3peat.


There were 3 major rule changes because of Mikan:

1. goaltending - popularized by a few, including him, in college in the 40s
2. 12 foot wide lane - it did impact his effectiveness.
3. 24 second clock - teams stalled on the Lakers, resulting in little action and bored fans

[Doctor MJ]

I went back and read some stuff from the time - he was also quoted on saying it would make it harder for him, but that it was better for the game.

I guess most guys would whine, but he had more class than that.

He still was the best player on the best team in the league that won 3 times in a row, and was the leader in WS/48 over those 3 years. So, he was less effective, but still really really good.

He was 2nd in the league in scoring and his team won the title in 52 and 53. Can anyone else other than Jordan top that?

The 12 foot lane took him from being by far the best player, to merely the best player - but still a 3peat.


There were 3 major rule changes because of Mikan:

1. goaltending - popularized by a few, including him, in college in the 40s
2. 12 foot wide lane - it did impact his effectiveness.
3. 24 second clock - teams stalled on the Lakers, resulting in little action and bored fans

Well but when you talk about being 2nd in scoring, look more closely at that.

In '51-52:

Paul Arizin 25.4 PPG at 54.6% TS
George MIkan 23.8 PPG on 45.9% TS

Can you even fathom praising someone for their scoring today because they were 2nd in the league in scoring while being 9% less efficiency than the 1st guy? Wouldn't you be asking, "Damn, maybe he shouldn't be shooting so much." Wouldn't you be checking, "Wait, is that team offense even effective?" (Mikan's Lakers were below average.)

Like I say, this to me is another one of these cases where a big is getting points because his team is force feeding him the ball when they shouldn't. It made sense before the rule change. Afterward it didn't, and of course the lane is even wider now. Mikan is thus basically completely unproven as a truly stellar offensive player under modern rules, and there's every reason to be skeptical.

None of this means though he wasn't the best player in the world at the time, it just means it was because of his defense. So if you see MIkan as the equal of guys like Patrick Ewing on defense and don't care about longevity issues, I get voting for Mikan.

[Doctor MJ]

Wow i've used weak era against Mikan, but i think the race thing is a little unnecessary.

Race is absolutely a factor. Blacks were simply not allowed in the game in Mikan's era and had low penetration in the Pettit era. Blacks are 75% of the best players in the world today. If 75% of the best players disappeared, the league would become weak. Its a huge factor and ignoring it wont change the fact that Mikan played in an era of no blacks

Blacks didnt play basketball untill they migrated from the south to the urban centers of the north. I know you think that "ghetto" is a black term but its not. In the beginning basketball was primarily a jewish sport since its jews who lived in the urban ghetto while blacks were still working in the cotton fields of the south untill WWII.

This myth that there was this huge talent pool of black players that werent allowed to play simply is not based in fact.

Great point I hadn't thought about that.

Basketball has always been THE urban game because very quickly after its invention basketball courts were included in urban planning basically as a default. Hence whatever groups lived in those areas were going to be pretty prominent in basketball circles.

[magicmerl]

17 EWING -- ronnymac2, ShaqAttack3234, fpliii, magicmer1, 90sAllDecade, RayBan-Sematra, Basketballefan, RSCD3_, colts18, Clyde Frazier, FJS, SactoKingsFan, Doctor MJ, lukekarts, trex_8063, PCProductions, ShaqAttack3234

6 MIKAN -- batmana, DQuinn1575, Warspite, Owly, Moonbeam, Jim Naismith

Through post #177

Penbeast, I think we can book this one. Ewing's lead is only growing larger.

Through to #204

[colts18]

Blacks didnt play basketball untill they migrated from the south to the urban centers of the north. I know you think that "ghetto" is a black term but its not. In the beginning basketball was primarily a jewish sport since its jews who lived in the urban ghetto while blacks were still working in the cotton fields of the south untill WWII.

This myth that there was this huge talent pool of black players that werent allowed to play simply is not based in fact.

Blacks started moving from the South in 1910. The first wave of Black immigrants happened from 1910-1930, well before Mikan's NBA time.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Migr ... n_American)

[90sAllDecade]

In this runoff, I'm advocating for Ewing based on things I've elaborated on in this thread and the past couple ones.

But after researching Mikan I appreciate him and I will share more info I've found on my perspective to help others rank him later. I actually think he's a top100 player at the moment based on past rankings of 50s players and I'll try to contribute both sides of the coin for him.

But as I said, I'll be sharing Ewing info here. Here's a documentary about Ewing I hadn't seen before:

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vpGwMO3W8e4[/youtube]

[Doctor MJ]

Blacks didnt play basketball untill they migrated from the south to the urban centers of the north. I know you think that "ghetto" is a black term but its not. In the beginning basketball was primarily a jewish sport since its jews who lived in the urban ghetto while blacks were still working in the cotton fields of the south untill WWII.

This myth that there was this huge talent pool of black players that werent allowed to play simply is not based in fact.

Blacks started moving from the South in 1910. The first wave of Black immigrants happened from 1910-1930, well before Mikan's NBA time.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Migr ... n_American)

Right but look at the graphs on that page.

Black population in New York:
1910 - 1.8%
1930 - 4.7%
1950 - 9.5%
1970 - 21.1%

The trend started in 1910, but it's not like all was said & done by 1930.

[DQuinn1575]

.

In '51-52:

Paul Arizin 25.4 PPG at 54.6% TS
George MIkan 23.8 PPG on 45.9% TS

Can you even fathom praising someone for their scoring today because they were 2nd in the league in scoring while being 9% less efficiency than the 1st guy? Wouldn't you be asking, "Damn, maybe he shouldn't be shooting so much." Wouldn't you be checking, "Wait, is that team offense even effective?" (Mikan's Lakers were below average.)

Like I say, this to me is another one of these cases where a big is getting points because his team is force feeding him the ball when they shouldn't. It made sense before the rule change. Afterward it didn't, and of course the lane is even wider now. Mikan is thus basically completely unproven as a truly stellar offensive player under modern rules, and there's every reason to be skeptical.

None of this means though he wasn't the best player in the world at the time, it just means it was because of his defense. So if you see MIkan as the equal of guys like Patrick Ewing on defense and don't care about longevity issues, I get voting for Mikan.

But the league TS% in 1952 was 43.9% - so he is shooting ABOVE the league TS% - he is scoring 2nd most in the league and his team is winning the 1st of 3 championships.

How is this a bad thing?

[penbeast0]

At this point, while I hope the discussion continues, I am going to call this one for Patrick Ewing (even without FJS's vote).

[90sAllDecade]

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oZ5eljJhYKY[/youtube]

[Warspite]

Blacks didnt play basketball untill they migrated from the south to the urban centers of the north. I know you think that "ghetto" is a black term but its not. In the beginning basketball was primarily a jewish sport since its jews who lived in the urban ghetto while blacks were still working in the cotton fields of the south untill WWII.

This myth that there was this huge talent pool of black players that werent allowed to play simply is not based in fact.

Blacks started moving from the South in 1910. The first wave of Black immigrants happened from 1910-1930, well before Mikan's NBA time.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Migr ... n_American)

and then add a generation or 2 once they arrive. If I moved to India I wouldnt learn cricket but my kids might and my grandkids would.

[Doctor MJ]

.

In '51-52:

Paul Arizin 25.4 PPG at 54.6% TS
George MIkan 23.8 PPG on 45.9% TS

Can you even fathom praising someone for their scoring today because they were 2nd in the league in scoring while being 9% less efficiency than the 1st guy? Wouldn't you be asking, "Damn, maybe he shouldn't be shooting so much." Wouldn't you be checking, "Wait, is that team offense even effective?" (Mikan's Lakers were below average.)

Like I say, this to me is another one of these cases where a big is getting points because his team is force feeding him the ball when they shouldn't. It made sense before the rule change. Afterward it didn't, and of course the lane is even wider now. Mikan is thus basically completely unproven as a truly stellar offensive player under modern rules, and there's every reason to be skeptical.

None of this means though he wasn't the best player in the world at the time, it just means it was because of his defense. So if you see MIkan as the equal of guys like Patrick Ewing on defense and don't care about longevity issues, I get voting for Mikan.

But the league TS% in 1952 was 43.9% - so he is shooting ABOVE the league TS% - he is scoring 2nd most in the league and his team is winning the 1st of 3 championships.

How is this a bad thing?

You've got a point. As wretched as Mikan's efficiency is by later standards, it isn't bad compared to the norms at that moment.

Still, c'mon, how serious can you take Mikan as a scoring talent when he was so drastically inferior to Arizin? Or put another way, if you consider Mikan's scoring impressive there, shouldn't you be frothing at the mouth to talk about Arizin?

[Warspite]

.

In '51-52:

Paul Arizin 25.4 PPG at 54.6% TS
George MIkan 23.8 PPG on 45.9% TS

Can you even fathom praising someone for their scoring today because they were 2nd in the league in scoring while being 9% less efficiency than the 1st guy? Wouldn't you be asking, "Damn, maybe he shouldn't be shooting so much." Wouldn't you be checking, "Wait, is that team offense even effective?" (Mikan's Lakers were below average.)

Like I say, this to me is another one of these cases where a big is getting points because his team is force feeding him the ball when they shouldn't. It made sense before the rule change. Afterward it didn't, and of course the lane is even wider now. Mikan is thus basically completely unproven as a truly stellar offensive player under modern rules, and there's every reason to be skeptical.

None of this means though he wasn't the best player in the world at the time, it just means it was because of his defense. So if you see MIkan as the equal of guys like Patrick Ewing on defense and don't care about longevity issues, I get voting for Mikan.

But the league TS% in 1952 was 43.9% - so he is shooting ABOVE the league TS% - he is scoring 2nd most in the league and his team is winning the 1st of 3 championships.

How is this a bad thing?

You've got a point. As wretched as Mikan's efficiency is by later standards, it isn't bad compared to the norms at that moment.

Still, c'mon, how serious can you take Mikan as a scoring talent when he was so drastically inferior to Arizin? Or put another way, if you consider Mikan's scoring impressive there, shouldn't you be frothing at the mouth to talk about Arizin?

Arizin was a great player who IMHO is top 30 if we had adv stats for the 50s like we do today. The inventor of the fade-away jumper and the 1st exclusive jump shooter. He had a huge advantage over the rest of the league to the point that coaches were trying to get him or his jump shot banned. I watched him play in the 1962 all star game the other day and he was holding his own. He reminds me of the Chris Mullin of that era but in 52 he is a LBJ, MJ type transcendent player.