RealGM 2017 Top 100 List: #23

[drza]

"Chef" Curry? A man of many talents!

You can blame Drake and Hip Hop for that nickname.

Hadn't realized it was a real nickname; thought it was autocorrect being "helpful."

Stephen Curry

Pronunciation: \STEFF-ihn\

Wardell Stephen Curry II ▪ Twitter: StephenCurry30

(Steph, Baby-Faced Assassin, Chef Curry)

"I been Steph Curry with the shot
Been cookin' with the sauce,
Chef Curry with the pot, boy" --Drake, 0 to 100 (real quick)

And a nickname is born...

[penbeast0]

I have consciously boycotted any mention of Drake since "Cell Phone."

[ardee]

Ok, finally back from Europe, I've missed a bunch but eager to start back up.

The two main candidates for me here are Nash and Paul. I am probably going with Nash here, mainly because:

1. I think he gives his teams a higher ceiling. People call Nash's style of play "risky", but I don't see that it didn't provide results. Meanwhile, I think Paul didn't take enough risks. He always made the "safe" play, while this limited his turnover numbers, I think at times his overdribbling may have capped his team's offense. Not that he wasn't a great player but at this level it makes a difference.

2. Paul's injuries in the Playoffs are substantial. 2009, 2012, 2015, 2016: I think 2015 you can't really blame his level of play against the Rockets for the collapse at all, but if he hadn't missed those 2 games, one of which they lost, they might've won 4-1 and never been in a position to collapse. One or two injured years, like 2005 Duncan, can be overlooked, this is a trend however.

3. I think Nash did more with less. The Phoenix teams never game him as talented rosters as the 2014 and 2015 Clippers. Blake was a top 5 player those years, Nash never had that, and still pushed his team performance higher. I think there is definitive evidence that players' productivities increased under Nash and dropped after they ceased being teammates, not so with Paul.

4. Finally, I think Paul having a longevity edge is overblown. People seem to pass over the fact that Nash was still a truly great offensive player in 2011 and 2012. He still played 75/82 and 62/66 games those years, was in the 32ish mpg range, elite efficiency, elite on/off. I would say he was in contention for top 10 both years, 85-90% as good as 2010 when he was in my top 6.

I will add a bit more later, but for now

Vote: Steve Nash

2nd: Chris Paul

[mischievous]

Ok, finally back from Europe, I've missed a bunch but eager to start back up.

The two main candidates for me here are Nash and Paul. I am probably going with Nash here, mainly because:

1. I think he gives his teams a higher ceiling. People call Nash's style of play "risky", but I don't see that it didn't provide results. Meanwhile, I think Paul didn't take enough risks. He always made the "safe" play, while this limited his turnover numbers, I think at times his overdribbling may have capped his team's offense. Not that he wasn't a great player but at this level it makes a difference.

2. Paul's injuries in the Playoffs are substantial. 2009, 2012, 2015, 2016: I think 2015 you can't really blame his level of play against the Rockets for the collapse at all, but if he hadn't missed those 2 games, one of which they lost, they might've won 4-1 and never been in a position to collapse. One or two injured years, like 2005 Duncan, can be overlooked, this is a trend however.

3. I think Nash did more with less. The Phoenix teams never game him as talented rosters as the 2014 and 2015 Clippers. Blake was a top 5 player those years, Nash never had that, and still pushed his team performance higher. I think there is definitive evidence that players' productivities increased under Nash and dropped after they ceased being teammates, not so with Paul.

4. Finally, I think Paul having a longevity edge is overblown. People seem to pass over the fact that Nash was still a truly great offensive player in 2011 and 2012. He still played 75/82 and 62/66 games those years, was in the 32ish mpg range, elite efficiency, elite on/off. I would say he was in contention for top 10 both years, 85-90% as good as 2010 when he was in my top 6.

I will add a bit more later, but for now

Vote: Steve Nash

2nd: Chris Paul

Good post. I take Nash over Paul for similar reasons. Many people act like it's as simple as "they are similar offensively but Paul is better defensively so he's better overall" I don't think works like that at all.

[Lou Fan]

2nd vote Nash I just can't get over CP3s lack of success.

[trex_8063]

Thru post #104 (fairly nice turnout of 27 votes, requiring 14 for outright majority):

George Mikan - 6 (janmagn, JordansBulls, JoeMalburg, penbeast0, wojoaderge, Winsome Gerbil)
Bob Pettit - 4 (Dr Positivity, Doctor MJ, Pablo Novi, scabbarista)
Patrick Ewing - 4 (trex_8063, Hornet Mania, Clyde Frazier, drza)
Chris Paul - 3 (2klegend, Narigo, Bad Gatorade)
Kevin Durant - 3 (andrewww, Joao Saraiva, pandrade83)
Elgin Baylor - 2 (euroleague, Outside)
Steve Nash - 2 (ardee, micahclay)
Stephen Curry - 2 (oldschooled, twolves97)
Scottie Pippen - 1 (RCM88x)

Pippen is eliminated, his vote transfers to Mikan.

Mikan - 7
Pettit/Ewing - 4 each
Paul/Durant - 3 each
Baylor/Nash/Curry - 2 each

Baylor, Nash, and Curry are next on the chopping block. twolves97 unfortunately never specified his 2ndary pick (indicated it would be either Chris Paul or Steve Nash), so (unless he's specifying as I write this), his becomes a ghost vote. There was also one 2nd pick for Bob Cousy which becomes a ghost vote as he's not eligible. Otherwise we have one to Mikan, one to Pettit, and two transferring to Chris Paul.....

Mikan - 8
Pettit and Paul - 5 each
Ewing - 4
Durant - 3

Durant is eliminated. One 2ndary vote [for Curry] becomes a ghost vote; otherwise have one vote transferred to Paul, one to Ewing.

Mikan - 8
Paul - 6
Ewing and Pettit - 5 each

Pettit and Ewing are then eliminated. The 2ndary votes for three of Pettit's voters become ghost votes [were for Nash, Hondo, Baylor], and one transfers to Chris Paul. Two of Ewing 2ndary votes become ghost votes [Pettit and Baylor], two more transfer to Chris Paul.....

Chris Paul - 9
George Mikan - 8

Hmm.....this is an odd result: Mikan had twice as many first place votes (6 to 3), but Paul had [at least] three times as many 2nd place votes (6 to 2, or potentially 7 to 2 as twolves had indicated he was between Nash and CP3 for his 2ndary pick).

It feels somewhat weird giving Paul the spot in this fashion, but I suppose we must get used to it. This is the method we've been using, and I imagine as the project goes on and we get more and more threads with 7-10 different players receiving votes, we're going to have some outcomes like this.

Although I guess if we were doing a point-based ballot system, this may have gone to Paul anyway, depending on how things were weighted. For example, we used a 1st/2nd/3rd-ballot system in the last peaks project, with a 1st place vote worth 3 pts, 2nd place worth 2, 3rd place worth 1.
By that scale, Paul's three 1st picks and seven 2nd picks (assuming twolves97 went with Paul for his 2nd) would equal 23 pts (a 3rd-place value from twolves would yield 22 pts). Mikan's six 1st votes and two 2nd votes would come to 22 pts.

So I guess it feels fair enough.


Calling it for Paul. Will have next thread up shortly.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

[Doctor MJ]

Wow. Quite unexpected, but yeah, the type of thing that can happen.

It also gives us an indication that "championed" picks, where a segment of the panel is sold and everyone else isn't, are up for a frustrating time.

To be clear not judging those in the championing position - most of us will be there are various point in time during the project.

[JoeMalburg]

admittedly, I like the criteria for the voting results here. So it's petty to complain because a result doesn't go my way, but that's not what I am doing.

Additionally, I admit this is a rather arbitrary criteria but I think it's a legit question people would ask:

If the 23rd greatest player of all-time couldn't carry a team with multiple all-NBA teammates past the second round, who is the next best player to fall short with the same or similar circumstances?

McGrady?
Nique?

[Dr Positivity]

Whoa, I was expecting 5-10 threads of analytics vs ringz war before CP got in!

[dhsilv2]

admittedly, I like the criteria for the voting results here. So it's petty to complain because a result doesn't go my way, but that's not what I am doing.

Additionally, I admit this is a rather arbitrary criteria but I think it's a legit question people would ask:

If the 23rd greatest player of all-time couldn't carry a team with multiple all-NBA teammates past the second round, who is the next best player to fall short with the same or similar circumstances?

McGrady?
Nique?

As Paul is in, this is a better place than moving it to the #24 thread.

I disagree strongly with Paul here, but I think this assessment is poor. Paul's peak was 08 and 09. Those two seasons he did not have anything like an all nba second play. David West and Tyson Chander were his guys and one can argue both were their best or near best offensively on that team. He carried that team to a near win against the spurs in the second round in 08 and the team regressed a bit in 09. That peak is as high imo as any point guard we have left on the list and really any player.

Paul has been playing with one knee since 11 and has never been the same player, yet he's still managed hobbled, to consistently make all nba teams and to be one of the highest impact defenders at the point we have in the league and one could argue especially if we adjust for era, he's the best defensive point guard ever. Yes, it is fair to be critical of Paul for his clipper's days, but one should keep the context that for many (myself if I'd voted for him) his value and rank are largely based on how great his peak was, and that was not on team with nearly the talent you're talking about. I also give him bonus points for having to play on a team with doc rivers coaching and gm's....that can't be easy.

The other factor we have to consider is where he's played. It might sound silly, but he's been on two of the most failed franchises ever. Who else had an owner basically kicked out of the league and had the league actually take ownership of his team, and then the league refused a trade with him? I'm not sure how to factor that in, but Paul has not been given an ideal situation.

[euroleague]

The problem with this method is it devalues 3rd votes. I think we should be able to vote for 3/4? Half the second place votes became ghosts, and I had Mikan higher than CP3 by a large margin.

CP3 I had more than 10 spots below this

[Hornet Mania]

Seems fitting to have Paul get in this way, in a controversial manner. If the Paul/Harden Rockets don't make a serious run at the tite yet he continues to pile up godly advanced stats the 2020 arguments are going to be a **** nightmare.

[rebirthoftheM]

A few things.

1) Impact stats don't tell you how good a player is. They specifically measure how much a player's presence correlates to a team result. It's an actual measurement, not a value statement. Thus, it's more like looking at how many points someone scored as evidence of the statement "he's a great scorer".

So for Kawhi, we can factually say that his presence on the court this year didn't correlate with a big positive change in his team's defensive scoring margin. That's not saying Kawhi is nothing special on defense, it's indicating a fact that the Spurs defense this year didn't have their defensive scoring margins tied to Kawhi's presence. Then, it's up to the analyst to interpret what that means. In 2015 & 2016, Leonard finished in the top-7 in DRAPM both years, the only player besides Draymond to do so. Thus, in previous years he DID correlate with excellent defensive results. Was 2017 a fluke? Was his impact majorly affected by Duncan's retirement? Were teams playing Kawhisolation offense this year and exposing the weaknesses in the Spurs defensive frontline when Kawhi was on the court? Was Kawhi focused more on offense than defense this season, which affected his defensive output? These, and other factors/questions have to be considered before deciding whether Kawhi was "anything special" on defense in 2017. You're not going to be able to make a value statement for his defensive goodness with only a DRAPM score, especially not from a single season.

2) Impact stats ARE influenced by situation...just like boxscore stats are.

3) Impact stats can be noisy, and the strength of the measure improves with more data/repeated measures.

.

I wanted to chime in here for a second.

I think the issue that some of us have with these impact stuff is how they are often utilized and approached in these conversations. For instance, if you have a look at a thread below about peak Harden v peak Paul, there are references to James Harden's RAPM from 15-16 and 16-17 and how it didn't change much, therefore supporting the argument that Harden's campaign was clearly overrated. No serious analysis beyond this, and if there is, the analysis is constructed to support the premise "James Harden's 16-17 campaign was overrated". Impact stuff like RAPM therefore act as a closer to a conversation. This was the same problem with PER in the mid 00s.

Now, through out the list threads, you have demonstrated that this is clearly not your approach. But to others, RAPM is the end all/be all. What it indicates must be true (i.e. high DRAPM=Great D, low DRAPM=bad D etc.) and therefore we should credit/discredit players in single seasons along these lines. It is the ultimate trump card, and folks will categorically dismiss opinions that don't support what RAPM might be suggesting.

As long as the impact stuff are appropriately contextualized, then it has its benefits. But it should never act as a closer to a conversation, which unfortunately is a trend I see happening around here. It is unfortunate when we see people dismiss things they never even saw a fraction of with their eyes (for e.g. looking at RAPM from 04, and making definite conclusions about certain things).

[dhsilv2]

A few things.

1) Impact stats don't tell you how good a player is. They specifically measure how much a player's presence correlates to a team result. It's an actual measurement, not a value statement. Thus, it's more like looking at how many points someone scored as evidence of the statement "he's a great scorer".

So for Kawhi, we can factually say that his presence on the court this year didn't correlate with a big positive change in his team's defensive scoring margin. That's not saying Kawhi is nothing special on defense, it's indicating a fact that the Spurs defense this year didn't have their defensive scoring margins tied to Kawhi's presence. Then, it's up to the analyst to interpret what that means. In 2015 & 2016, Leonard finished in the top-7 in DRAPM both years, the only player besides Draymond to do so. Thus, in previous years he DID correlate with excellent defensive results. Was 2017 a fluke? Was his impact majorly affected by Duncan's retirement? Were teams playing Kawhisolation offense this year and exposing the weaknesses in the Spurs defensive frontline when Kawhi was on the court? Was Kawhi focused more on offense than defense this season, which affected his defensive output? These, and other factors/questions have to be considered before deciding whether Kawhi was "anything special" on defense in 2017. You're not going to be able to make a value statement for his defensive goodness with only a DRAPM score, especially not from a single season.

2) Impact stats ARE influenced by situation...just like boxscore stats are.

3) Impact stats can be noisy, and the strength of the measure improves with more data/repeated measures.

.

I wanted to chime in here for a second.

I think the issue that some of us have with these impact stuff is how they are often utilized and approached in these conversations. For instance, if you have a look at a thread below about peak Harden v peak Paul, there are references to James Harden's RAPM from 15-16 and 16-17 and how it didn't change much, therefore supporting the argument that Harden's campaign was clearly overrated. No serious analysis beyond this, and if there is, the analysis is constructed to support the premise "James Harden's 16-17 campaign was overrated". Impact stuff like RAPM therefore act as a closer to a conversation. This was the same problem with PER in the mid 00s.

Now, through out the list threads, you have demonstrated that this is clearly not your approach. But to others, RAPM is the end all/be all. What it indicates must be true (i.e. high DRAPM=Great D, low DRAPM=bad D etc.) and therefore we should credit/discredit players in single seasons along these lines. It is the ultimate trump card, and folks will categorically dismiss opinions that don't support what RAPM might be suggesting.

As long as the impact stuff are appropriately contextualized, then it has its benefits. But it should never act as a closer to a conversation, which unfortunately is a trend I see happening around here. It is unfortunate when we see people dismiss things they never even saw a fraction of with their eyes (for e.g. looking at RAPM from 04, and making definite conclusions about certain things).

Can we PLEASE stop saying that people using stats never saw a second of the game? Seriously, if you're upset with RAPM being an end game, then so be it. But wildly claiming that everyone who spends the time to even FIND RAPM let alone have some idea what it means aren't watching games is down right insulting.

As for the thread in questions since I guess I was the "dumb stats" or "eye test" guy in that one, I'll comment on that as well. It did end the conversation but not because I seeded to RAPM, it ended it because the poster couldn't explain further why it was the case when Harden both elevated his teams wins AND filled up the box score stats while playing a different role (system). The poster didn't have more depth and we moved on. If I'd spent more time watching the rockets and even had a copy of RAPM for the year (anyone have those numbers the last few years btw?) I might have gone further, but as much as I like the real plus minus data, it can't be used as that poster used it. Debating why ridged regression year over year might not capture value is a time waster generally. The stat however imo is a great tool to look at outlier who just are down right bad, and to look at multiple years to see if they are consistent. For example I'll bet Wiggins has been a massively under performing defender for the past 3 years. Now would that prove my view that he's one of if not the worst non point guard defender over the last decade? Hell no! Would it show that my claim isn't just outright outlandish once adjusted for minutes played? Yes, I think it can do that assuming I'm right and RAPM and RPM agree with wiggins which my eye test assumes they will.

[rebirthoftheM]

A few things.

1) Impact stats don't tell you how good a player is. They specifically measure how much a player's presence correlates to a team result. It's an actual measurement, not a value statement. Thus, it's more like looking at how many points someone scored as evidence of the statement "he's a great scorer".

So for Kawhi, we can factually say that his presence on the court this year didn't correlate with a big positive change in his team's defensive scoring margin. That's not saying Kawhi is nothing special on defense, it's indicating a fact that the Spurs defense this year didn't have their defensive scoring margins tied to Kawhi's presence. Then, it's up to the analyst to interpret what that means. In 2015 & 2016, Leonard finished in the top-7 in DRAPM both years, the only player besides Draymond to do so. Thus, in previous years he DID correlate with excellent defensive results. Was 2017 a fluke? Was his impact majorly affected by Duncan's retirement? Were teams playing Kawhisolation offense this year and exposing the weaknesses in the Spurs defensive frontline when Kawhi was on the court? Was Kawhi focused more on offense than defense this season, which affected his defensive output? These, and other factors/questions have to be considered before deciding whether Kawhi was "anything special" on defense in 2017. You're not going to be able to make a value statement for his defensive goodness with only a DRAPM score, especially not from a single season.

2) Impact stats ARE influenced by situation...just like boxscore stats are.

3) Impact stats can be noisy, and the strength of the measure improves with more data/repeated measures.

.

I wanted to chime in here for a second.

I think the issue that some of us have with these impact stuff is how they are often utilized and approached in these conversations. For instance, if you have a look at a thread below about peak Harden v peak Paul, there are references to James Harden's RAPM from 15-16 and 16-17 and how it didn't change much, therefore supporting the argument that Harden's campaign was clearly overrated. No serious analysis beyond this, and if there is, the analysis is constructed to support the premise "James Harden's 16-17 campaign was overrated". Impact stuff like RAPM therefore act as a closer to a conversation. This was the same problem with PER in the mid 00s.

Now, through out the list threads, you have demonstrated that this is clearly not your approach. But to others, RAPM is the end all/be all. What it indicates must be true (i.e. high DRAPM=Great D, low DRAPM=bad D etc.) and therefore we should credit/discredit players in single seasons along these lines. It is the ultimate trump card, and folks will categorically dismiss opinions that don't support what RAPM might be suggesting.

As long as the impact stuff are appropriately contextualized, then it has its benefits. But it should never act as a closer to a conversation, which unfortunately is a trend I see happening around here. It is unfortunate when we see people dismiss things they never even saw a fraction of with their eyes (for e.g. looking at RAPM from 04, and making definite conclusions about certain things).

Can we PLEASE stop saying that people using stats never saw a second of the game? Seriously, if you're upset with RAPM being an end game, then so be it. But wildly claiming that everyone who spends the time to even FIND RAPM let alone have some idea what it means aren't watching games is down right insulting.

As for the thread in questions since I guess I was the "dumb stats" or "eye test" guy in that one, I'll comment on that as well. It did end the conversation but not because I seeded to RAPM, it ended it because the poster couldn't explain further why it was the case when Harden both elevated his teams wins AND filled up the box score stats while playing a different role (system). The poster didn't have more depth and we moved on. If I'd spent more time watching the rockets and even had a copy of RAPM for the year (anyone have those numbers the last few years btw?) I might have gone further, but as much as I like the real plus minus data, it can't be used as that poster used it. Debating why ridged regression year over year might not capture value is a time waster generally. The stat however imo is a great tool to look at outlier who just are down right bad, and to look at multiple years to see if they are consistent. For example I'll bet Wiggins has been a massively under performing defender for the past 3 years. Now would that prove my view that he's one of if not the worst non point guard defender over the last decade? Hell no! Would it show that my claim isn't just outright outlandish once adjusted for minutes played? Yes, I think it can do that assuming I'm right and RAPM and RPM agree with wiggins which my eye test assumes they will.

Dude, no one said anything of the sort nor I did have you in mind when I was writing about how impact stuff are wielded.

Perhaps you should improve your comprehension skills and stop being emotional. The world doesnt revolve around you.

[dhsilv2]

I wanted to chime in here for a second.

I think the issue that some of us have with these impact stuff is how they are often utilized and approached in these conversations. For instance, if you have a look at a thread below about peak Harden v peak Paul, there are references to James Harden's RAPM from 15-16 and 16-17 and how it didn't change much, therefore supporting the argument that Harden's campaign was clearly overrated. No serious analysis beyond this, and if there is, the analysis is constructed to support the premise "James Harden's 16-17 campaign was overrated". Impact stuff like RAPM therefore act as a closer to a conversation. This was the same problem with PER in the mid 00s.

Now, through out the list threads, you have demonstrated that this is clearly not your approach. But to others, RAPM is the end all/be all. What it indicates must be true (i.e. high DRAPM=Great D, low DRAPM=bad D etc.) and therefore we should credit/discredit players in single seasons along these lines. It is the ultimate trump card, and folks will categorically dismiss opinions that don't support what RAPM might be suggesting.

As long as the impact stuff are appropriately contextualized, then it has its benefits. But it should never act as a closer to a conversation, which unfortunately is a trend I see happening around here. It is unfortunate when we see people dismiss things they never even saw a fraction of with their eyes (for e.g. looking at RAPM from 04, and making definite conclusions about certain things).

Can we PLEASE stop saying that people using stats never saw a second of the game? Seriously, if you're upset with RAPM being an end game, then so be it. But wildly claiming that everyone who spends the time to even FIND RAPM let alone have some idea what it means aren't watching games is down right insulting.

As for the thread in questions since I guess I was the "dumb stats" or "eye test" guy in that one, I'll comment on that as well. It did end the conversation but not because I seeded to RAPM, it ended it because the poster couldn't explain further why it was the case when Harden both elevated his teams wins AND filled up the box score stats while playing a different role (system). The poster didn't have more depth and we moved on. If I'd spent more time watching the rockets and even had a copy of RAPM for the year (anyone have those numbers the last few years btw?) I might have gone further, but as much as I like the real plus minus data, it can't be used as that poster used it. Debating why ridged regression year over year might not capture value is a time waster generally. The stat however imo is a great tool to look at outlier who just are down right bad, and to look at multiple years to see if they are consistent. For example I'll bet Wiggins has been a massively under performing defender for the past 3 years. Now would that prove my view that he's one of if not the worst non point guard defender over the last decade? Hell no! Would it show that my claim isn't just outright outlandish once adjusted for minutes played? Yes, I think it can do that assuming I'm right and RAPM and RPM agree with wiggins which my eye test assumes they will.

Dude, no one said anything of the sort nor I did have you in mind when I was writing about how impact stuff are wielded.

Perhaps you should improve your comprehension skills and stop being emotional. The world doesnt revolve around you.

I didn't think it was about me, the comments on not watching games. I just in general would like for that comment to stop. Even if it is true, it seems like a comment that is best just not made sweepingly.

The rest was actually about a thread I was in, which is why I responded for other posts here to hear, not for you as I just wanted them to have context since I was a part of that. I assume you knew what happened, but if you missed why i backed off I don't mind it being said.

[rebirthoftheM]

I didn't think it was about me, the comments on not watching games. I just in general would like for that comment to stop. Even if it is true, it seems like a comment that is best just not made sweepingly.

The rest was actually about a thread I was in, which is why I responded for other posts here to hear, not for you as I just wanted them to have context since I was a part of that. I assume you knew what happened, but if you missed why i backed off I don't mind it being said.

This thread will probably be locked because it is now OT. The problem with your request is that you don't even care to know what was said. The word used was 'often'. Often can mean many things, but what it certainly does not mean is always. In fact, in that post, I clearly noted that DRZA was generally speaking, not one of those posters I was referring to. I was referring to people like that poster in the other thread whose argument about 17 Harden really rests on his RAPM. That this type of lazy RAPM based approach reigns supreme on this board. That the points being raised to discredit Harden's 17 RS campaign are reflective of what often goes on around here.

My own reading of posts on this board, as well as the many conversations I have engaged in lead to that conclusion. If you disagree, that is up to you. But we can only go off what we see and experience.

So your entire intervention here is misplaced, and the only reason I can see that would make you react the way you did, is that as a strong believer and user of this metric, you felt offended. And I'm saying to you, the world doesn't revolve you. If you are not a part of the 'often' crew, there is no need for you to respond to me.

[WestGOAT]

Spoiler:

How is Mikan even being considered at this point when none of his contemporaries are even close to being selected. Doesn't that speak volumes of the terrible competition he had? Yes he beat what was in front of him but that should not allow him to be this high on this list. At least not in front of others guys currently being discussed.

Did ANY of his contemporaries dominate to the degree he did?

I don't have the statistical data for the NBL, but he apparently was the clear [not close] stand-out MVP of that league, and won two consecutive NBL titles, iirc. Then he joined the BAA/NBA.

In '49 he led the BAA in ppg and was 3rd in TS%, while the Lakers were 1st/12 in ppg allowed.
In '50 he led the league in ppg, was 4th in TS%, and the Lakers were 2nd/17 in ppg allowed.
**We don't have rebounds recorded, but he was likely 1st or 2nd in that as well. And they won the title both years.
In '51 he led the league in ppg, was 5th in TS%, 2nd in rpg, while the Lakers were 1st/11 in ppg allowed.
In '52: 2nd in ppg (+2.08% rTS), 1st in rpg, while anchoring the #1 defense (#1 by a pretty good margin that year, one of the greatest defenses in NBA history). Championship.
'53: 2nd in ppg (+3.51% rTS), 1st in rpg, again anchoring #1 defense. Championship.
'54: 4th in ppg (+2.39% rTS), 2nd in rpg, anchored #2 defense. Championship.


Which of his contemporaries came even close to this level of impact and dominance? That should speak volumes as to why he should be considered long before any of his contemporaries are.

This is a valid point but I would like to add. How many white players have dominated the game post Mikan era? How many white players today are top 10 players? The game has historically been dominated by black players. If black players are allowed to play in Mikan's era, does he still standout this way? I strongly believe he would not. I understand once again that he beat what was in front of him but is he even play anything close to the best players available at that time?

In my opinion, he should not be given extra points for being a pioneer either. Players that are better should be placed accordingly.

Mikan is just being awarded for his white privilege. You even had people wondering why he should be "penalized" for playing in a weaker era. However dominant he was amongst his peers, it doesn't change the fact that potentially 75% of a "regular" NBA player pool was missing. But each to their own regarding how much weight they want put on his stats.