Retro Player of the Year 1953-54 — George Mikan

[eminence]

I'd push back just slightly against any sort of definitive statement that Dolph had the better numbers when healthy (I presume you refer to the rs)......

Schayes rs (per 100 estimates): 23.75 pts @ +5.75% rTS, 16.8 reb, 4.1 ast (4.5 pf) in 36.9 mpg. 24.5 PER, .267 WS/48.
Mikan rs (per 100 estimates): 28.4 pts @ +2.39% rTS, 22.3 reb, 3.8 ast (5.8 pf) in 32.8 mpg. 29.0 PER, .258 WS/48.

So I do not agree there is a clear edge [by the individual numbers] to Schayes; it seems completely debatable, depending on which aspects one most values.
And, although he's also commiting more fouls/100, I'd assume (based on size, reputation, and limited video I've seen of both players) that Mikan's the better rim protecter between the two [perhaps by a significant margin].......which has me leaning slightly toward Mikan as the better all-around performer in the rs.
Then the playoffs is not a contest.

To be clear, I never said Schayes had a clear edge, merely that he had the edge IMO. Also, not sure why we are using per 100 estimates when both teams played at the same pace and thus, this adjustment only serves to inflate the production of the player who played fewer minutes (Mikan).

In terms of the playoffs, I was referring to the pre-Finals games before Schayes got injured in the last game against the Celtics. Over that stretch, he averaged 24.0 ppg, 16.3 rpg, 62.6% TS vs Mikan's 20.8 ppg, 13.2 rpg, 56.6% TS. If we look game by game, Schayes had 5 straight 20 point games until injury in the 6th game - Mikan hadn't had any 5 consecutive 20+ point games since before the widening of the key. Now obviously Schayes did get hurt (hence my healthy caveat) but by game 7 of the Finals, he was back to playing 41 minutes and had a decent enough scoring performance whereas Mikan laid an egg. I totally understand if people pick Mikan instead but to me, Schayes appeared the better player who still almost managed to eke out a win while playing with a broken wrist on a much weaker team.

wrt the change seen going from '54 to '55, I'd note that Lovellette was a helluva card to have up their sleeve. He was clearly underutilized in the rs (as became apparent in the playoffs, perhaps). He was sort of like Marcin Gortat in Orlando: a clearly starter-level C who was just not getting the playing time because they had a star at that position (and PF, too); except Lovellette was even better than Gortat, relative to the league environment.
We also cannot say for sure whether he improved in his sophomore season.

At any rate, that's who they were able to just plug in for half of Mikan's lost minutes (Clyde goes from 17.4 mpg in '54 to 33.7 in '55 [+16.3]). They also increased the utilization of SF Dick Schnittker in '55, who was a decent scorer, fwiw. They still fell by 6 wins [would by more like 7 in an 82-game schedule] and -1.75 SRS.

Yes, these players were there in '54, too; but you can only floor five guys at a time, and there's only one ball to go around. These were clearly underutilized players in '54 [Lovellette would have started for every other team in the league save maybe the Pistons, and Schnittker would have been a starter for about half the league].

I am well aware of how good Lovellette is. He was the only player ever to win NCAA championship and scoring title in the same year and he also won the NIBL title after taking over Bob Kurland's AAU team. The problem is that if we are using depth as the justification for the lack of SRS dropoff after Mikan's retirement, how do you explain the Lakers having a lower SRS than the Nationals in the first place despite Mikan being the POY, Pollard being at worst the second best #2, Martin and Mikkelsen being strong starters, as well as two additional starter level players off the bench? That is beyond stacked. Other than Schayes/Seymour, who did the Nationals have? You are correct to say Lovellette was under-utilized as Mikan's backup but an under-utilized All Star level player is still far more valuable than a fully-utilized average bench scrub.

Do you mean for the POs only for 5 game 20+ runs? Mikan had a couple RS ones after the key widened.

I like Pollard, but wouldn't put him that high this season either. Seymour, Braun or Gallatin on the Knicks, Sharman, Hutchins, Royal?. I think it's pretty arguably he was a below average #2 at this point in time.

[trex_8063]

I'd push back just slightly against any sort of definitive statement that Dolph had the better numbers when healthy (I presume you refer to the rs)......

Schayes rs (per 100 estimates): 23.75 pts @ +5.75% rTS, 16.8 reb, 4.1 ast (4.5 pf) in 36.9 mpg. 24.5 PER, .267 WS/48.
Mikan rs (per 100 estimates): 28.4 pts @ +2.39% rTS, 22.3 reb, 3.8 ast (5.8 pf) in 32.8 mpg. 29.0 PER, .258 WS/48.

So I do not agree there is a clear edge [by the individual numbers] to Schayes; it seems completely debatable, depending on which aspects one most values.
And, although he's also commiting more fouls/100, I'd assume (based on size, reputation, and limited video I've seen of both players) that Mikan's the better rim protecter between the two [perhaps by a significant margin].......which has me leaning slightly toward Mikan as the better all-around performer in the rs.
Then the playoffs is not a contest.

To be clear, I never said Schayes had a clear edge, merely that he had the edge IMO. Also, not sure why we are using per 100 estimates when both teams played at the same pace and thus, this adjustment only serves to inflate the production of the player who played fewer minutes (Mikan).

Thank you for clarifying what you meant.
While I don’t usually like to delve too deeply in semantic debates over the definition of individual words, I admit I can sometimes be a stickler regarding semantic clarity in one’s choice of words. As such, I hope you can understand why I replied in the manner I did: because you did not say “Schayes arguably had better individual numbers” or “Schayes had better individual numbers, IMO”.
You said only “Schayes had better individual numbers”. The absence of words like “arguably”, “debatably”, or “IMO” makes it seem as though it were a mere statement of fact that is above discussion; something that simply IS, something that should be obvious or “clear” to all.


Re: per 100 estimates (why use them?)
OK, without using them..……Mikan is +1.0 ppg, +2.2 rpg, -0.6 apg (at shooting efficiency -3.36% to Schayes [note: though still solidly “good” relative to league avg]). Again, still no clear edge to anyone, imo.

And I think there’s room/reason to look at rate metrics (like PER, WS/48, and yes: per 100 estimates) in the comparison, as long as you’re citing mpg as well [I did]; particularly when the per-game figures don’t clearly separate the players in question.

To further show where it might be of some use in distinguishing between players, imagine we’re comparing two individual star-level players by their per game averages, and it turns out they have the EXACT same figures in ppg, rpg, apg, fpg, and shooting efficiency, for teams of similar calibre……but one guy produces that in 36 mpg while the other is doing it in 32 mpg. Void any other information, who might we say is slightly better?
Most of us would probably give the edge to the guy who’s getting the same amount done in LESS time, because his rate metrics would be better straight across the board. And it’s not like there is NO production from his position when he goes to the bench; someone comes in and produces. And assuming equal replacements, the guy replacing Player A [the 32 mpg star] will produce more than the guy replacing Player B [our 36 mpg star], simply because he has 4 extra minutes on the court.
Ergo, the Player A + replacement combo is producing more [per game] than the Player B + replacement combo (in the same combined mpg).

In terms of the playoffs, I was referring to the pre-Finals games before Schayes got injured in the last game against the Celtics. Over that stretch, he averaged 24.0 ppg, 16.3 rpg, 62.6% TS vs Mikan's 20.8 ppg, 13.2 rpg, 56.6% TS. If we look game by game, Schayes had 5 straight 20 point games until injury in the 6th game - Mikan hadn't had any 5 consecutive 20+ point games since before the widening of the key. Now obviously Schayes did get hurt (hence my healthy caveat) but by game 7 of the Finals, he was back to playing 41 minutes and had a decent enough scoring performance whereas Mikan laid an egg. I totally understand if people pick Mikan instead but to me, Schayes appeared the better player who still almost managed to eke out a win while playing with a broken wrist on a much weaker team.

Fair enough.
And fwiw, I’m going to back off a little bit on my “playoffs is no contest” statement. I guess I had overlooked just how good Schayes was leading up to the Finals.

wrt the change seen going from '54 to '55, I'd note that Lovellette was a helluva card to have up their sleeve. He was clearly underutilized in the rs (as became apparent in the playoffs, perhaps). He was sort of like Marcin Gortat in Orlando: a clearly starter-level C who was just not getting the playing time because they had a star at that position (and PF, too); except Lovellette was even better than Gortat, relative to the league environment.
We also cannot say for sure whether he improved in his sophomore season.

At any rate, that's who they were able to just plug in for half of Mikan's lost minutes (Clyde goes from 17.4 mpg in '54 to 33.7 in '55 [+16.3]). They also increased the utilization of SF Dick Schnittker in '55, who was a decent scorer, fwiw. They still fell by 6 wins [would by more like 7 in an 82-game schedule] and -1.75 SRS.

Yes, these players were there in '54, too; but you can only floor five guys at a time, and there's only one ball to go around. These were clearly underutilized players in '54 [Lovellette would have started for every other team in the league save maybe the Pistons, and Schnittker would have been a starter for about half the league].

I am well aware of how good Lovellette is. He was the only player ever to win NCAA championship and scoring title in the same year and he also won the NIBL title after taking over Bob Kurland's AAU team. The problem is that if we are using depth as the justification for the lack of SRS dropoff after Mikan's retirement, how do you explain the Lakers having a lower SRS than the Nationals in the first place despite Mikan being the POY……

I mean, short answer: redundancy (which I already alluded to).

……Pollard being at worst the second best #2…..

Hmm….I think you’re either overrating Pollard or underrating at least 2-3 of Paul Seymour, Ed Macauley, Bobby Wanzer/Arnie Risen, Carl Braun, and Andy Phillip to say that Pollard could be only the 2nd-best Robin “at worst”.

, Martin and Mikkelsen being strong starters, as well as two additional starter level players off the bench? That is beyond stacked. Other than Schayes/Seymour, who did the Nationals have?.

Here too I think perhaps you underrate certain members of the Nats and/or overrate certain members of the Lakers……

*George King had better numbers than Slater Martin almost straight across the board. I know Martin has a better defensive reputation, but given he’s a 5’10” 170 lb guard who gets only 2.4 rpg [in nearly 36 minutes], I’m skeptical his defensive imprint could be all that enormous. King would continue to be a 30 mpg player on a deeper Nat roster the following year when they won the title.
**Earl Lloyd had the metrics of a [more or less] average NBA player, though this may be missing a good chunk of his value, for he had an excellent defensive reputation (I even included him in my HM’s for DPOY).
***Bill Gabor and Billy Kenville both look to be reasonably respectable guards to have coming off the bench. Neither quite a starter-level player, but nor is either of them a scrub [or even a replacement-level player].
^^^All of these guys had serviceable NBA careers.
****Bob Lavoy wasn’t exactly a bad forward to have in an 8th-man role, too.

I offer that as counterpoint to any insinuation that this team was Schayes + Seymour + not a single other decent player.

Does it match the cast Mikan had? No, I’ll openly concede that point.

[Dr Positivity]

I think Lloyd is meaningful as a great defender and average, not poor on D.