Does Mikan have any argument to be ranked higher than Hakeem?

[tsherkin]

The limited game footage, scouting reports, general touch in the paint, and in-era FT% indicate a competent outside shooting ability. Some names of Cs, PF/Cs, and C/PFs with an 80.0+ career FT%:

Oooh, but he granny tossed, so his FT% doesn't actually speaking to his shooting ability at all.

[penbeast0]

He wasn't a guy known for shooting range, even in his era. His rep was more like Shaq's in Shaq's era; a big physical player who overpowered opponents in the low post and drew a lot of fouls who had underrated skill moves and good passing instincts. Then . . . unlike Wilt and Shaq, he made his FTs (the granny thing apparently works!)

[lessthanjake]

I feel like the answer to this one is pretty easy:

Yes, he has an argument to be ranked higher than Hakeem, but only if you take a very strongly era-relative approach to evaluating players. In era-relative terms, he won 5 titles and was the league’s best player during that time. He didn’t have longevity at all, but he achieved way more in his era than Hakeem did. At the same time, Mikan’s era was definitely a very nascent league and so I think most people do not take an era-relative approach to evaluating him. If you discount his era, then it’s easy to put Hakeem ahead, and it is also pretty easy to justify that with the eye test if you watch them play. Most people will come out in favor of Hakeem here (and I am one of them), but I don’t think an entirely era-relative approach is inherently wrong, particularly when talking about an amorphous concept like “greatness.”

[FrodoBaggins]

The limited game footage, scouting reports, general touch in the paint, and in-era FT% indicate a competent outside shooting ability. Some names of Cs, PF/Cs, and C/PFs with an 80.0+ career FT%:

Oooh, but he granny tossed, so his FT% doesn't actually speaking to his shooting ability at all.

Actually, it does. What having spent the better part of two decades around the semi-professional level has taught me is that the guys who do shoot well from the FT line, tend to shoot well from everywhere—regardless of what technique they use at the charity stripe. I've seen great shooters screw around in practice with the underhand technique and hit just as good as their regular form.

This is because much of basketball skill comes down to innate genetics. Natural dexterity (coordination of the fingers & hands/fine motor skills), joint flexibility, balance, coordination/kinetic chain, etc. These qualities can be improved, but only so much. Genetics determines a baseline and a ceiling of potential, just like with everything in life. It wasn't some special technique or drill, or simply practicing more, that made Steph the best FT shooter ever. It was genetics. Conversely, some guys suck no matter how hard they try or what technique they use.

George's technical proficiency at the FT line (78.2% FT/109 FT+) speaks to his good hands, soft touch, balance, and smooth, coordinated kinetic chain. It's a strong signal of general basketball ability that adds to the other hand-related elements of his sport-specific skillset. Ambidextrous post scoring and paint finishes, passing, rebounding, and ball handling.

We can debate about how much of a signal it is, but to say it indicates absolutely nothing is a bit ridiculous. Consistently putting the ball in the hoop from 15 feet tells you a lot, irrelevant of the specific technique used.

[tsherkin]

Actually, it does. What having spent the better part of two decades around the semi-professional level has taught me is that the guys who do shoot well from the FT line, tend to shoot well from everywhere—regardless of what technique they use at the charity stripe. I've seen great shooters screw around in practice with the underhand technique and hit just as good as their regular form.

It's possible, but I think they were already going to be great shooters. He certainly had a feel for arc and so forth, but I don't think it necessarily directly connects to shooting ability in a live-game context as much as proficiently shooting a more classic FT.

I'm not willing to die on the hill of "it adds nothing," I'm just quite skeptical, and hesitant to project too much from that of what he would be doing in an alien context compared to the game he played.

[FrodoBaggins]

Two clips of George hitting fadeaway/fallaway jump shots out of the post:



And of course the smooth, fluid underhanded FT technique:

[FrodoBaggins]

Some quotes:

John Kundla (Lakers coach, 1947-57, '58-59):

"George was unbelievable. I never had any trouble with him. He was brought up fundamentally sound by Ray Meyer. He was coachable; he would listen. I didn't teach him anything to speak of. He played defense, he played offense. And he knew if he didn't get the ball, he couldn't score. But he was a team ballplayer, and he knew when they pressed us to come out high, he'd pass off and he had a lot of assists the same way. But he was easy to coach, very coachable. And all the players knew this and they knew that he brought championships."


Vern Mikkelsen (Lakers, 1949-59):

"George had more desire than other players, that probably would be the defining nature. Other players were good athletes but they didn't have that burning desire to win which carried George throughout his competitive career. Those of us who played with him as teammates recognized this real early, that as far as George was concerned we couldn't get beat and we were going to win the game. He was the ultimate player you could ever hope to have as a teammate. Every team has a leader, the strong player, and then there are the role players. We were all very, very satisfied in taking our positions as role players because we knew this combo was going to win for us. And George was never a selfish player. He was a dominant player and knew that he could get the job done. But he was very, very quick to hand off praise and accolades to the other players, saying he couldn't do it alone. And obviously he couldn't. Somebody had to get the ball into him. We did it and we did it very well. Once he got it, he did what he was supposed to do with it—he put it in the hoop. He's also a very gracious man. George was the first person to ask anybody along with him. He was catered to by a lot of people. He still attracts people very readily. Back then, he was Bird and Magic and Jordan all wrapped into one and he was invited to the nicest restaurants and people's houses, and he always insisted that his teammates go with him. We were in Tri-Cities, playing the Blackhawks on New Year's Eve in 1949 or '50, and there were some very wealthy people there and they invited George out after the game. They were having a New Year's Eve party and George accepted the invitation, and after the game we were getting dressed and he said, 'Hey, c'mon guys, we're going to a party.' Can you imagine the hostess? She invites George and here comes 10 guys over six feet tall walking into her house. I could still see her over in the corner just chewing out her husband something fierce. But George thought, 'If I go, my teammates go.' He didn't care. It was great, and he ended up having a marvelous time getting to know the people, nice people. The hostess finally decided it wasn't such a bad deal after all. We weren't very rowdy and we didn't eat or drink too much. But George insisted that we were going—if he was going, we were going."


Slater Martin (Lakers, 1949-56, Knicks, '56, Hawks, '56-60):

"It was pretty easy playing with George Mikan. All you had to do was give him the ball. You just had to throw it to George, and he could do just about anything with it. He was a good solid player, a real competitor. He made me a better player because I learned how to pass the ball to him and learned how to cut behind him and get the ball back and screen, the whole thing. He taught me a jillion things. But, overall, he was a hell of a competitor and hell of a basketball player. He knew how to win. He was a great free throw shooter. He'd get to the line if there was one second left, he'd make the free throws to win the game."


Bud Grant (Lakers, 1949-51): Cheating a bit here because he's in a different sport's HOF, but it's a good quote, so deal with it

"George was a great offensive player and he got up and down the floor as good as any of the big men at the time. So in order to counter that, other teams had to get big men who could move up and down the floor like George and become a part of the offense. George changed the game. The evolution of basketball had a lot to do with the way he, Mikkelsen, and Pollard played—everyone had to meet those standards. I have played with and coached many great players. And I've seen and coached against some of the best. But I'd have to say that George Mikan is the greatest competitor I've ever seen or been around in any sport."


Bob Cousy (Celtics, 1950-63, Royals, '69-70):

"George was a pain in the ass. Simply because the Lakers won all the time in those days. He was so dominant physically. In those days of a six-foot lane, George would just come down and position himself. That made it a little more difficult to trap down. Nowadays, you can trap down more easily because you have less distance to travel to get from whoever your defensive assignment is down to the big man. In those days, you had to travel a little bit farther to get to him and George didn't waste a lot of time before he shot. He obviously wasn't in the mold of today's Hakeem Olajuwons and Patrick Ewings. I guess Shaquille O'Neal comes closest to him today in how he played the game. There was nothing fancy about George's game, he was just literally overpowering."


Arnie Risen (Kautskys, 1945-48, Royals, '48-55, Celtics, '55-58)

"George was great. The only advantage I had [over him] was that I got up and down the court a little faster. Everybody thought George was slow running the court. He wasn't as fast as some of us, but he was very quick. I don't think there was anyone else in the league that I played against, as a big man, that was quicker than George. His hands were quick, and he had quick movements in the pivot despite his size—which I'm sure helped him a lot."


Bob Kurland (Oklahoma A&M, 1942-46)

"George was by far the most dominating center in his day. There were other guys who were better centers, better post players, but George had the ability to play with his back against the basket, and as he moved across the lane (before it got that wide), particularly in college, he was a very effective scorer and a good rebounder. He was a good passer, strong and had good stamina. What we know about post play today and what existed in those days are two different things. Strength and weight were not that essential in those days. Footwork and positioning and a little finesse was probably the most important thing and George had all those abilities."


Red Auerbach (Coach, Capitols, 1946-49, Blackhawks '49-50, Celtics '50-66)

"Mikan was a giant amongst men. There weren't many guys who could stand up against him physically in those days. This is what made him outstanding. He was a little more mobile than people thought he was, and he knew how to put the ball in the hole. He knew how to use his weight properly."


Bill Russell (Celtics, 1956-1969)

"I didn't get to see him very much. But with George it was more how he carried himself and conducted himself. An extraordinarily fine gentleman, and I just found him awesome. When I met him, he was one of the most generous people in terms of his conduct toward kids that I had met at the time. I met him in California when the NBA was playing an exhibition game there. I was in high school at the time. George was just so kind to me—all the other people I had encountered had not been as gracious as he was. I think he was the most gracious person I had met outside my family at the time. I wanted to play on the Lakers because of George Mikan. I was greatly impressed. When he came out to California to meet me, that was the first I thought about playing pro basketball. Although there was no reason I should have been thinking that at the time, because I wasn't very good. He was a real inspiration—one of the men I respect in the history of the NBA. I've seen bits of him playing on film. All my teammates at Boston had played against him, and they had overwhelming respect for him. He established the way the center position was played when he played. That was the standard by which players who came later were judged—judged by George Mikan. He was probably one of the most competitive players to ever play the game. He would go out and compete every night. If you beat the Lakers, you had to beat them—they didn't lose to you. His legacy is one of a quality player and quality individual in establishing the NBA as a major league. I always look to him as a guy that brought prestige and dignity to the league. I love George Mikan. I think he's great."

[penbeast0]

One of the nice things about this thread is that both were extremely classy decent people from everything I've heard. Their teammates loved them, their opponents respected them. Hakeem also was one of the first to put a lot of his money toward helping people in Africa giving the NBA a positive world profile.

[FrodoBaggins]

A March 1952 op-ed from Mikan detailing his basketball philosophy and how he plays the game. You can tell he was intelligent, and his basketball IQ, awareness, and decision-making reflected that. A clear understanding of shot selection (expected ppp/value, counters & feints), the symbiotic relationship between scoring and passing, and his role and its specific deliverables within the team concept.

https://from-way-downtown.com/2021/06/03/george-mikan-how-i-play-the-pivot/

George Mikan: How I Play the Pivot, 1952

If you are a big, tall fellow who plays the pivot in basketball, your job is to score. Certainly that’s my job—or, at least, the biggest part of it. Like every pivot man, I am so constantly near the basket that when I get the ball, I have to be able to put it through the hoop. I know no one else on my team is going to be getting closer shots at the basket. Once in a while, they may break in for a layup but I’m always somewhere near the backboard. It’s important to remember that a pivotman can take just about every shot in the book with a reasonable chance of hitting. But the players on the outside have just so many shots. In the pivot, I can take any shot that my teammates on the outside can take—and more besides.

There’s the routine over-the-head, two-hand set or the one-hand push—both taken while you’re facing the basket. My height permits me to get off good jump shots, too—shots that won’t be blocked. While these are shots that almost any man on the floor can take, I still have a variety of shots unique to the pivot post. The old fallaway—a pretty-looking shot—is tough to score with, but it’s important to have in your repertoire. When I’m being guarded closely, fading away from the basket gives me the room to arc the ball over my shoulder, over the outstretched hands of my defender and into the basket—I hope.

Then there is the standard hook shot, which a pivot man must be able to make regularly if he expects to get anywhere. It forces the defender to respect your offensive strength, and it sets up your best and most-important shot—the layup. When your opponent starts watching for your hook shot, you can fake with a pivot and then drive around him for a layup. The fake-and-layup routine is the pivot man’s most effective weapon. Naturally it’s the easiest shot to make and it puts you in position to rebound if the shot misses. Tap-ins, by the way, produce a lot of points if you develop the timing and soft hands necessary to tap the ball through the hoop.

With all this talk about scoring, it should not be forgotten that the pivot man has other jobs. He has to be able to execute passing assignments and he has to be in position to get the ball off the boards. In most games, when the pivot is having good success with his shots, the opposition tends to ignore his teammates and put a closer guard on him. That’s when I concentrate on handing off or passing to players breaking around me. When I pass off, I try to hide the ball with my body so my opponent can’t block the pass. The pass itself has to be clean and direct because of the speed of the play.

Passing from the pivot is important if you plan to keep your opponents off balance. We often use a cutter coming in for a pass as a decoy. I fake to him and then take a hook shot. Or we’ll reverse it. I’ll fake the shot and then pass off to the cutter. Good faking is important to the pivot man. It allows him a wide variety of shot possibilities and it bothers the opposition. My best one is a head fake, a darting glance at the basket over either shoulder and a quick look to see if the defender is reacting. If he jumps or moves, I hook the other way or I pass to a teammate cutting in on the other side. Other pivot men may be more successful using their shoulders and arms to fake with, or even their entire bodies, but they will all agree that the important thing in feinting is to get the opponent to commit himself. Once he has, don’t waste time with additional fakes and motions. Make your play quickly. Otherwise, you may have given him enough time to recover. It is also important to remember that too many fakes can trick your teammates into bad moves or fouls.

The new 12-foot zone has forced me to take most of my hook shots from farther out. But it has opened up the center lane for the players cutting around me. I can also cut more easily toward the basket because of the extra room I have. The only difficulty I’ve found with it is that I have to move out of the 12-foot area within three seconds, and that takes a lot of moving.

There are loads of good pivot men in the pro ranks. Arnie Risen of the Rochester Royals is one of the best, I think. He is also an excellent defender against the pivot. Ed Sadowski, the old pro, was always a threat. He was tough and tricky. Leroy (Cowboy)Edwards, who plays pro ball in Oshkosh, was also in effective pivot man. I remember a particular game when I was playing against Edwards. The referee kept warning us to keep the center open. When I was on offense, Cowboy would lay all over my back. Finally, on one play, while Edwards was leaning particularly heavily, I quickly stepped out and Cowboy fell flat on his face. Of course, that’s not the way to play the pivot.

[SHAQ32]

Hakeem by all accounts was a great guy. That said, there might not be a more overrated player in the Top 20 than him.

[kcktiny]

I feel like the answer to this one is pretty easy... He didn’t have longevity at all

On the contrary. Just the opposite.

Mikan retired after the 1955-56 season at the age of 31, having played 9 seasons in the NBA/BAA/NBL.

At that time, 1219 different players had played in the NBA/BAA/NBL (19 year span, 1937-38 to 1955-56), and only 12 players had played more seasons than did Mikan. So at the time of his retirement just 0.1% of players had played more years (10+) in pro ball than he did.

Now compare this to the last 19 seasons - 2006-07 to 2024-25. There were 2067 players that played, and 271 of those had 10+ year careers. That's 13% of the players that played 10+ years in the league.

So for his era Mikan had a long career.

And why was he considered such a dominant player? Because from 1946-47 to 1953-54 (8 seasons) he scored 11,374 points. No one else in the NBA/BAA/NBL over that time had scored more than 8003 points. He had scored 20+ pts/g in a season 6 times, no other player had done so more than 3 times, and he had the 3 highest per game scoring seasons - 28.4 pts/g (1950-51), 28.3 pts/g (1948-49), and 27.4 pts/g (1949-50).

[eminence]

Some quotes:

I don't have the article to hand, but there's an interview from Jim Pollard's wife that mentions how she thought Mikan was a bad influence on Jim because he was too competitive.

[Samurai]

I feel like the answer to this one is pretty easy... He didn’t have longevity at all

On the contrary. Just the opposite.

Mikan retired after the 1955-56 season at the age of 31, having played 9 seasons in the NBA/BAA/NBL.

At that time, 1219 different players had played in the NBA/BAA/NBL (19 year span, 1937-38 to 1955-56), and only 12 players had played more seasons than did Mikan. So at the time of his retirement just 0.1% of players had played more years (10+) in pro ball than he did.

Now compare this to the last 19 seasons - 2006-07 to 2024-25. There were 2067 players that played, and 271 of those had 10+ year careers. That's 13% of the players that played 10+ years in the league.

So for his era Mikan had a long career.

And why was he considered such a dominant player? Because from 1946-47 to 1953-54 (8 seasons) he scored 11,374 points. No one else in the NBA/BAA/NBL over that time had scored more than 8003 points. He had scored 20+ pts/g in a season 6 times, no other player had done so more than 3 times, and he had the 3 highest per game scoring seasons - 28.4 pts/g (1950-51), 28.3 pts/g (1948-49), and 27.4 pts/g (1949-50).

I don't think there is any question that Mikan's longevity could have been greater if he had access to modern medicine. He had 10 broken bones and 16 stitches that he often had to play through in his career; seems logical that modern training, nutrition and medical care to deal with injuries would have been helpful. As far as dominance, I don't have his rebounding stats prior to 50-51, but he led the league in rebounds/game twice so I would assume he would have been an elite rebounder over the first half of his career as well. And based on reputation in the absence of stats, it seems logical that he would have been a member of the All Defensive Team as well as a favorite for DPOY throughout his prime if those awards existed at the time.

To the original question of this thread, I personally would rank Hakeem over Mikan but I wouldn't argue with someone who ranks Mikan higher if their criteria was based solely/primarily on how a player did compared to his peers and didn't make adjustments for era strength.

[FrodoBaggins]

It's intriguing to note the inherent physical similarities between Mikan and Jokic. Both are around the same size and described as slow and relatively earth-bound, yet display quick & agile bodily movements, particularly in short ranges. Not to mention, incredible strength, balance, and coordination; and superb endurance, both relative to weight & in absolute terms, to fuel a high motor. Impervious to physical contact; has minimal effect on touch. Very quick two-footed leapers that don't jump high but have great repeat efforts/re-jumpability.

Both had documented training regimens that greatly improved their athletic ability. George trained with boxers and dancers; Nikola is reportedly the first one in and last one out the Nuggets gym.

Where do they differ?

Mikan appears more athletic in body composition, displaying more visible muscle tone, leanness, and separation. Looks more like an athlete, for sure. And I think that correlates with greater speed and power production, which is why George could leverage his size and strength to draw more fouls. More like a Jeff Ruland in that regard. Part of it is a difference in play style/mindset (bully-ball vs. finesse; how one seeks contact), but George looks more explosive to my eye. Jumps higher, gets down the court faster, quicker off the catch when cutting, slashing, facing up.

Jokic has superior hands and dexterity, moves more smoothly and fluidly, and rotates and pivots better. He's definitely the more natural basketball athlete as far as skills are concerned.

[ProcessDoctor]

I have Hakeem 15th and Mikan 16th. I can definitely understand if someone has Mikan rated slightly higher though.

I think if Mikan's career were longer, he'd be a surefire top-10 player.

[giordunk]

Sometimes I look at how modern backup big men are already so much skilled than starting centers in the 00s (Kendrick Perkins, Etan Thomas, Erick Dampier, etc.,) so I don't see any argument for Mikan vs Hakeem. If your only metric is in era dominance, then yes. But other than that, absolutely no argument.