Redoing the NBA Hall of Fame (1960 or earlier players)

[eminence]

A thought I should clarify that I think I only alluded to earlier - I very much see the '47 BAA, '48 BAA, and '49 NBL as the minor league in each of those seasons.

[Owly]

Don't understand framing of" big 3".

It's a big 1, as Mikan made clear with impact on the Gears, then Lakers then even in his comeback. Then it's a gulf. Then you can argue. Which leads to ... I don't get your certainty re Pollard 2, Martin 3. This era is a very fuzzy picture.

3 guys on the Laker dynasty appear to be locks to be in our 10. All I'm saying is that if you're picking 3 guys from that dynasty because of that dynasty, Pollard should be in that group. He should frankly be the 2nd guy in that group ahead of Martin before you factor in what Martin did later on, but regardless, he's ahead of Mikkelson in terms of what all he did for that Laker team, and since Mikkelson appears to be about to make our list and Pollard isn't, that seems rather bizarre to me.

I often say that there's an inertia in evaluation wherein guys tend to have reputations from earlier in the career that color opinion of them later on. This tends to mean older guys are still seen as better than younger guys for longer than they should be.

We all know this to some degree whether we think about it or not, and I know that I was shaped by that to a degree when I presumed Mikkelson was a greater player than Pollard.

I think though at this point what we're seeing is a kind of backwards-inertia where we're focused on stats and the assumption of progress and not actually looking at who a team truly depended on to have the success they did. Go look at the '53-54 season and you see Pollard > Mikkelson based on basically every traditional way of judging who the most respected players are, and so it feels like a bizarre sort of revisionist history for Pollard to get the brush off in favor of Mikkelson.

I'd argue bad efficiency in the pre-clock era worse rather than "[not] the problem a modern observer would think it was", given there's less pressure to drive usage on a good team (often leading). I don't see why anyone's "having to take the shot" most of the time (late game and down, yes).

but part of the problem with Fulks' aging is that he was a volume scorer.

... He's fourth in field goal attempts twice whilst on the same team as Mikan. He's not Fulks in the Philly system but hard to say that he's not a scorer because he misses enough that he's lower on the scoring totem (with the caveat that it was probably easier for bigs to score efficiently) ... I have trouble buying.

I think that's too logicky. Clearly the teams didn't actually make use of the no-shot-clock to say:

We're going to take our time to make sure Mikan gets the shot every time.

Mikan was Plan A, other people were going to take shots too.

Re: 4th in FGA, so not NOT shooting. That's true, but let's consider team context here and break it down by perimeter vs interior attack.

As we know as modern basketball observers, one of the problems with trying to build your offense around interior scoring is that you need to pass the ball to those guys, and if the defense knows that's what you want to do on every possession, then they can make that hard.

It's worth noting, for example, that in general, MIkan, Mikkelson, and Lovellette were all tending to see their FGA's go down in the playoffs, and I don't see any reason think that that was about Pollard and Martin getting greedy.

Let's also note that the M&M combo shot their most combined FGAs in '50-51 at 37.3, but the best ORtg the championship team had came in '52-53 when they only shot 30.3, with it again going down in the playoffs.

I would suggest that with the Mikan-led attack, there was only so much interior shooting you were going to be able to expect, and perimeter guys were going to have to do the rest. You can certainly argue that the Lakers should have distributed their perimeter shots in a more egalitarian matter, but who exactly did you want taking those shots?

The Laker back up plan was Pollard and it worked for them.

I'll also note that when he was 4th in FGA he was also 4th in FG's made and in general when you look at Pollard's leaderboard placement, he's not more represented on the FGA side than on the FG side. He was not ultra-efficient or ahead of his time, but neither was he glaringly behind his time.

I'd also note, not as an argument but just to say, Pollard was known to be a guy with ahead of his time athleticism. Clearly he was not encouraged to use it to attack as a volume scorer so it lied dormant there, but in terms of understanding why Jack Kundla was so insistent on playing Pollard so much, he was particularly high BBIQ guys with great tools for a perimeter guy. If you're looking to use your perimeter guys as supporting players who shoot when Plan A doesn't work, it makes sense that Pollard would be the kind of guy you'd likely want, and it probably made as much sense to have him shoot those shots as any other realistic option.

Gallatin 7th in rotation is misleading in a tight 7 man rotation. Came out 2nd in total WS. And per Neft and Cohen had seemingly been a starter since year 2 (49-50) so framing him as emerging after the finals runs (though in the East so not always a great team) doesn't quite fit except to say the Knicks became less of an ensemble. His production is there in '53. their best year (though Ernie and Dick are certainly also highly productive - as ever harder for "smalls").

Not sure on the "upgrade" in Naulls at PF (Sears I like better though he didn't last too well and couldn't stop the Knicks freefall. From the little footage, the little reporting/potted bios and the ft% his shooting touch seems feathery).

Let me apply the WS's back to Mikkelson before I go to Gallatin.

Did you realize that Mikkelson's biggest rebounding year was in '57-58, but that his defensive Win Shares that year were only 1.1 compared to the 6.6 they were at his peak? Why, because the stat basically apportions credit to team success using the limited box score it has access to. Back when Mikkelson played with Mikan, that meant Defensive WS's thought Mikkelson was a DPOY type of guy, but later in his career as the same guy, they thought nothing of him because he was getting those numbers on terrible defenses.

What's the throughline? That Mikkelson could get rebounds without much correlation to defensive impact, and also that this means that his Win Shares during the MIkan years should probably be seen as a rather drastic inflation.

Back to Gallatin. He has the WS edge over his teammates because he was a rebounder and in '52-53, New York had a great defense, so Defensive WS are basically crediting Gallatin with that defense.

When I spoke about what I spoke about relating to Gallatin's stardom, I was pointing out that it wasn't until '53-54 that the team actually featured Gallatin. And yeah, I think going from 27 MPG to 37 MPG in the playoffs is a meaningful shift. If a guy is your best player and you're only playing him 27 that's weird and makes us ask questions. If the following year he plays 10 more MPG when it counts, I think that answers the questions.

Fine to say that Gallatin was still a key guy before that, but the year the Knicks decided to make Gallatin the MAN was '53-54.

And incidentally, the last year Gallatin was on a decently effective defense in his entire career was '52-53.

A lot of the "every traditional way" Pollard case could just as well be used for say a later career Baylor. He's still getting accolades, minutes, shots, so what if he's not making them so much any more. Pollard's not as aggressive, Mikan the ideal option is inside and shooting more but if you're cool with minutes, accolades ...

I've long known Pollard as the next most decorated Laker. I'm fine with cynical on Mikkelsen. But from okay Fulks was left behind and then Pollard not because not a volume shooter except okay he is but he's on the outside so he has to shoot except ... ('m struggling to follow the logic).

Then, we've got Pollard causing a drop off but post-Mikkelsen they drop further and not like-for-like sure (Mikan return) but it's ignored.

I think he's fine. I think they go as Mikan goes. I'm struggling to reconcile the Pollard that wanted to be a star, the 40s ABL scorer with ... what is it you think Pollard is ... it's the defense that goes when Pollard does, whilst the offense gets better. Is it a team aging out. Are they badly equipped for shot clock era defense, was Pollard a low-key stopper (his hype seems more on O, "skilled" but sometimes that's phrased as do it all).

I don't know, I'm confused. Struggling to aggregate limited, disparate info fairly.

[eminence]

Everything I've heard on Pollard supported him as a strong defender, I guess I didn't get into that too much because I thought that was the default viewpoint, strong defensive wing who didn't do a ton on offense (largely due to his mediocre scoring efficiency), so I focused on his offense/playmaking. He was kind of the first all around wing in the league imo. I would also say that both the O and the D fully collapsed before Mikan came back in '56, worst team in the league before that happened.

[Doctor MJ]

A lot of the "every traditional way" Pollard case could just as well be used for say a later career Baylor. He's still getting accolades, minutes, shots, so what if he's not making them so much any more. Pollard's not as aggressive, Mikan the ideal option is inside and shooting more but if you're cool with minutes, accolades ...

I've long known Pollard as the next most decorated Laker. I'm fine with cynical on Mikkelsen. But from okay Fulks was left behind and then Pollard not because not a volume shooter except okay he is but he's on the outside so he has to shoot except ... ('m struggling to follow the logic).

Then, we've got Pollard causing a drop off but post-Mikkelsen they drop further and not like-for-like sure (Mikan return) but it's ignored.

I think he's fine. I think they go as Mikan goes. I'm struggling to reconcile the Pollard that wanted to be a star, the 40s ABL scorer with ... what is it you think Pollard is ... it's the defense that goes when Pollard does, whilst the offense gets better. Is it a team aging out. Are they badly equipped for shot clock era defense, was Pollard a low-key stopper (his hype seems more on O, "skilled" but sometimes that's phrased as do it all).

I don't know, I'm confused. Struggling to aggregate limited, disparate info fairly.

I'm sorry I'm all over the place.

I like that you used the analogy to Baylor. Analogies are valuable in part because we learn things by how we can break them.

I should also try to make as explicit as possible that I use the best model/narrative I have until I have a better one. While I may sound like I'm certain of the correctness of my interpretation, it's just that I'm going with something until I or someone else can come up with something better. But what it means in practice is that I'm not shrugging and saying "Who knows?", I'm actively coming up with an interpretation of events to make sense of things that seem discrepant.

The fundamental question of Baylor vs West is whether there was some reason why Baylor needed to shoot more than West given that:

1. West was much more efficient.
2. West was the guard, and thus could call his own number more but didn't.
3. When West did need to shoot more, he scaled exceptionally well.
4. West was much more impactful in general than Baylor.
5. West got more respect in the accolades of the time than Baylor.

If you have an explanation for why given all this it still made sense to have Baylor as lead option, by all means, explain your thinking to me. But as things stand, I think the simplest explanation is inertia. It's tricky to flip the hierarchy, and there would have been temptation both from coaches and West to just basically keep feeding Baylor like he was the Man rather than having some sort of intervention.

Back to Pollard & Mikkelson:

First, as I'm alluding to, it's not like Baylor was given more respect than West, and Pollard WAS given more respect than Mikkelson, which is something I'm desperately trying to communicate here.

Pollard was an All-League guy from the first Laker champoinship in '48 to the 6th in '54 (the was a single year in there were he didn't get the award, but he was still basically the same guy the whole time). Mikkelson was not on the team for the first two runs, was very much not a star during the 3rd, and as mentioned wasn't one again in the 6th. Basically it was only the 4th & 5th championships where Mikkelson was seen as an all-star level player.

Through '54, I don't believe anyone could have seen Mikkelson as having the more accomplished career.
And I would argue that when you think about how empty the rest of Mikkelson's career is, it doesn't make sense to give him the nod based on that. When you just scan Mikkelson's bkref page it looks like "Oh, and then he continued to be an all-star!", but we know that the Lakers' ship was gradually sinking all through that time, and we also know that All-NBA wise, he wasn't getting the same love he'd gotten when he was winning titles.

Second, you mentioned minutes. Look, Pollard, West, and Baylor played minutes like STARS. The fact that Baylor played a smidge more than West doesn't mean anything to anybody. But when you're having play off series where Pollard's playing 40+ MPG and MIkkelson's in the 20s, that's a WTF that needs to be brought up.

It so happens that Mikkelson had about as bad of foul problems as anyone of his stature in history and that the problem got worse rather than better after his early 20s. I'd imagine that some of that had to do with a loss of explosiveness hitting Mikkelson at an age that we'd consider extremely atypical today, but frankly seemed rather common back then. Maybe injury, maybe wear & tear, maybe just a body aging in its own time, but guys don't typically get mentally dumber about fouling other guys.

Before moving on to the last point:

It is theoretically possible that Mikkelson in 20-something minutes was more valuable than Pollard in 40-something. If you actually believe that Pollard was contributing negative offensive value, frankly that's probably not hard to believe. I'm skeptical that Kundla was that dumb to play a guy for 40+ minutes if he were having negative offensive value the whole time.

Third, as I've got into detail on. There's reason to think that Mikkelson may not have been able to scale higher in scoring volume in the context he was in. Where there's another interior scoring presence along side you, and he's the first option, then you're not really likely to be the second option, because if we're passing to the interior, we're looking for the first option and another guy in there isn't going to have that great a spacing. If the reason why Pollard shoots as much as he does is simply that "The Plan" is to get the ball to Mikan and the alternative is catch as catch can, that makes sense to me.

Finally, I tend to keep an eye out for signs of a player being a "coach on the floor" particularly when we're seeing huge minutes. (It also helps when you know they got asked to coach the team they played for.) If a guy is out there all the damn time in a player-coach like role, it means that whatever is working they are a core part of it. The same is true in the negative direction, but we aren't likely to talk about those in a setting like this thread. Suffice to say that Pollard & Martin seem to have played that role, and Mikkelson didn't...and I'd say West did considerably more than Baylor.

If you want a throughline, I tend to ask "Where is the brain?" in these circumstances, and I'm seeing it with Pollard rather than Mikkelson, and West rather than Baylor.

[Dr Positivity]

Pollard may have been bigger part of Lakers dynasty if you value the one extra year he was there (two including NBL) but I don't buy that he's a better player than Mikkelson based on the info we have. The efficiency difference is pretty significant leading to some huge years in WS for Mikkelson including leading the league in WS/48 ones. Pollard seems to be a better passer but not sure if it makes up the difference. Mikkelson also proved himself more in post shot clock. Their accolades are probably about the same in impressiveness, Pollard makes a 1st team but early on before Mikkelson's prime. For the team's play after the 50s, Pollard isn't even playing at that point so I'm not sure how you can claim it's a negative for Mikkelson that he continued to be useful even up to Baylor coming. I do not know who had the higher impact but I think Mikkelson's case is pretty reasonable based on being much more efficient player.

[Jaivl]

An article I'd never seen before on Pollard with an interview of his wife from the early 00's. A claim I'd never heard before is that it was actually Pollard who scouted and drafted West: https://www.recordnet.com/article/20010210/A_SPORTS/302109937

Also, apparently Pollard preferred playing baseball, lol.

Another thought that I've seen before and thought was worth noting from the story - the only thing she bothers to mention about Mikan is that he was a 'win-at-all costs' type (from someone married to a successful professional athlete). I've seen allusions to Mikan being an early version of the hyper competitor that the public came to worship in later decades (tales of him breaking his brothers nose in a college game against one another and of him drilling longer and harder than his teammates). Combined with the visionary stuff from the ABA later I'm really impressed with Mikan's dedication to the game. He could've easily been a solid NBA player off of athletic gifts alone, but everything I've heard says that he really put in the work to truly be the best.

Can you copy it? Doesn't let me open from Spain.

[Dutchball97]

If votes stay as they are I don't mind endorsing Pollard over Fulks so we can move on. I feel like Pollard's role in the early Lakers dynasty along with better longevity and efficiency put him over Fulks, who was a star in the minor league BAA and didn't hold up that well after the leagues merged.

[eminence]

Can you copy it? Doesn't let me open from Spain.

Formatting on it is super weird, but here it is:

Arilee Pollard keeps alive the memory of her Hall of Fame husband

“Now, that’s a funny story! I wasn’t
sure what to make of it at the time, but I quickly realized that Jim always
tried to do the right thing.″

Arilee Pollard sits at her dining
room table in Lodi and easily reminisces about life, love and basketball. They
all intertwined during a long marriage to an NBA pioneer and Hall of Famer.
Jim Pollard, who passed away in
1993 after a lengthy battle with cancer, spent eight seasons as a forward with
the Minneapolis Lakers of the late 1940s and early ’50s. The son of Salvation
Army officers and a trumpet player in the band was an integral part of six professional
championships. He later coached the Lakers for half a season and was responsible
for drafting a shooting guard from West Virginia by the name of Jerry West.
Pollard, known as “The Kangaroo
Kid,” also played in four All-Star games, including the inaugural one half a
century ago in Boston.

″I didn’t go. It was just another
game,″ Arilee said. ″The guys didn’t want to be bothered by wives on the road.
(The All-Star game didn’t have the big fanfare like it does now.″

The story to which Arilee Pollard
referred came during that six-month stint in 1959 as coach of the Lakers. It
was the season before moving to Los Angeles, years before the influx of television
money and shoe contracts, and decades before Jack Nicholson, Dyan Cannon and
Denzell Washington sat courtside.

But it was a showtime -- of another
era and more important cause. The team was on a road trip, using a small chartered
plane that stopped to refuel somewhere in Arizona, Arilee remembered, when Jim
bounced out of his seat and ran out of the plane. When he returned, his wife
inquired as to his whereabouts.

″I remember asking him why he didn’t
tell me he was going to go anywhere when the plane landed,″ she says.

Jim, who was elected to the Naismith
Hall of Fame in 1978, had gone to make sure his black players were going to
be able to eat in the airport restaurant. It wasn’t long after the landmark
civil rights case Brown vs. Board of Education ended segregation, but racist
policies still were entrenched throughout the country. Unlike his playing days,
the Lakers were fully integrated then. But Jim Pollard knew his players still
had to fight for equal treatment.

″He used to counsel his black players
to stay in the big cities whenever possible,″ Arilee said. ″It was in the
back country where they might have problems.″

There were no problems winning championships
as far as Jim Pollard was concerned. They attached to him like barnacles on
a freighter.

He won three league championships
at Oakland Tech, recorded two second-place finishes in Amateur Athletic Union
national tournaments and was a starting forward on Stanford’s 1942 NCAA championship
team. Those were precursors to the six pro championships in eight years he would
win with the Lakers.

″He really liked baseball better,″
his widow said. ″He was a good pitcher.″

Arilee, whose maiden name was Hansen,
also attended Oakland Tech and was a cheerleader in Jim’s class. But the pair
didn’t strike up much of a friendship there. They did, however, earn special
recognition from the school in their senior year. Among the five honorees in
the class of 425, Arilee was honored for her service and Jim for his athletic
prowess.

″We had to go to a formal dinner
and dress up and everything, but we still weren’t an item,″ she said. ″That
didn’t happen for a couple of years.″

The two framed certificates from
that 1940 event still hold special places in Arilee’s home. They’re among dozens
of mementos, photographs and trophies she’s kept from a lifetime of achievement.
The back bedroom remains a hoops-related shrine to her deceased husband.

In his 1991 book, “The Lakers: A
Basketball Journey,” George Lazenby wrote: ″The Lakers brought the NBA its
first jumping jack, Jim Pollard, (who was a rare bird in 1940′s basketball.
He could run and jump and dunk and dribble and pass. He could execute a reverse
jam, though not with so much twist and style as modern (players. He could play
above the rim.″

Despite a career average of 13.1
points in 497 games before the advent of the 24-second clock it wasn’t Pollard
who became a household name. The Lakers didn’t become the first dominant NBA
franchise until a certain 6-foot-10 center from DePaul joined the team. His
name was George Mikan.

″George was one of those guys who
wanted to win at any cost,″ said Arilee, who noted that the team lost its first
five games with the league’s first recognized big man.

The Pollards moved throughout the
country after Jim’s playing career ended. He coached collegiately at LaSalle
for three winning seasons. He roamed the sideline for half a losing season with
the Lakers and a full one with the Chicago Packers. He also coached in the first
three ABA seasons with the Minnesota Muskies, who folded after one year, and
Miami Floridians.

″It was a fun and hectic life,
that’s for sure,″ Arilee said.

It wasn’t all that lucrative.

The Lakers became financially strapped
in Minnesota, which prompted businessman Bob Short, who purchased the team in
1956 for $150,000, to move it to Los Angeles. The team didn’t pay Pollard for
several months -- causing his decision to move on -- or he would have been the
L.A. Lakers’ first coach instead of Fred Schaus.

Jim’s last official duty with the
team was to oversee the 1960 draft. The Lakers were 25-50 the previous season
and had the second choice. Arilee remembers him calling every friend he had
in the college ranks to determine the best available shooter.

″Everyone told him about Jerry
West,″ Arilee said. ″The last thing he did for the Lakers was pick Jerry West.″
His playing and coaching days behind,
Jim Pollard found it difficult landing a job.

Some old Stanford pals helped him
become a physical education teacher in the Lodi Unified School District. At
the same time, Arilee found work at Fremont Middle School in Stockton.

″Every so often, someone would
invite Jim to go to something Hall of Fame related in the Bay Area, and the
school district wouldn’t approve it,″ Arilee said. ″That made him mad, so
he’d take a sick day anyway.″

The Pollards retired from teaching
in 1990. Not long thereafter, Jim developed a form of leukemia, which deteriorated
his body until he passed away on Jan. 22, 1993, at age 70.

″I always say I was (cheated about
not getting to be married for 50 years,″ Arilee said. ″But 48 1/2
years wasn’t too bad.″

Lodi Parks and Recreation now holds
an annual basketball tournament over the Presidents Day weekend in his honor
for sixth-grade boys and girls. Arilee and daughter Jeanne will be there Feb.
24 to distribute the awards.

Meanwhile, Arilee keeps her husband’s
memory alive by attending the NBA Hall of Fame banquet each year, where she’s
introduced as Jim’s widow. She remains in touch with the players and their wives
from the old Minneapolis Lakers and attended the 2000 NBA All-Star Weekend in
Oakland.

Her photo albums are filled. Her
memories are vivid.

Said Arilee: ″I enjoy talking about
Jim whenever I can.″

[eminence]

I see the Minneapolis Lakers having 4 stages.

First the '48/'49 Lakers. Mikan is GOATing, Pollard/Shaefer providing support and the Lakers dominate those two seasons. The Royals look their equal during the RS, but the Lakers go a combined 5-1 in the playoffs against them to assert their superiority (Mikan had beaten the Royals 3-1 the season prior with the Gears). Pollard is held in high regard around the league and makes 2x 1st teams.

Then the '50-'54 Lakers. Mikkelsen arrives and displaces Shaefer. The Lakers continue to dominate the league with the Royals/Nationals/Knicks being the challengers. Pollard (1x 1st, 2x 2nd) and Mikkelsen (3x 2nd) both garner significant all league honors. Martin gradually gains prominence over the run.

Third the '55 Lakers. The GOAT has left but the gang is still together, they're a decent team (likely #3 in the league), Lovellette rounds out a fairly balanced roster. Martin/Mikkelsen get 2nd Team honors, Pollard joins them on the Allstar squad.

Finally '56 onwards - Pollard leaves and the Lakers immediately tank it, they are the worst team in the league until Mikan returns to briefly drag them to mediocrity. Bad but not that bad in '57 and then back to terrible in '58 with Mikkelsen at the helm. Baylor arrives in '59 to bring them back towards the light but it's already too late, the money is gone and they're on their way to LA. Martin goes on to several all-league honors with the Hawks, while Mikkelsen's dry up with the dynasty.

To me there isn't much separation between Pollard/Mikkelsen from '50-'55 (I'd give them the edge on Martin). But I greatly value Pollard's early years over Mikkelsen's late years in this type of vote, Pollard was the #2 on the beginnings of a dynasty, Mikkelsen was somewhere from 1-3 on arguably the worst team in the league over the period. Scoring efficiency being better isn't near enough to close that gap for me.

Slater gets pretty major points for the Hawks run to get back onto the ballot, as he would not make it for me for his Lakers run alone.

[Dutchball97]

I see the Minneapolis Lakers having 4 stages.

First the '48/'49 Lakers. Mikan is GOATing, Pollard/Shaefer providing support and the Lakers dominate those two seasons. The Royals look their equal during the RS, but the Lakers go a combined 5-1 in the playoffs against them to assert their superiority (Mikan had beaten the Royals 3-1 the season prior with the Gears). Pollard is held in high regard around the league and makes 2x 1st teams.

Then the '50-'54 Lakers. Mikkelsen arrives and displaces Shaefer. The Lakers continue to dominate the league with the Royals/Nationals/Knicks being the challengers. Pollard (1x 1st, 2x 2nd) and Mikkelsen (3x 2nd) both garner significant all league honors. Martin gradually gains prominence over the run.

Third the '55 Lakers. The GOAT has left but the gang is still together, they're a decent team (likely #3 in the league), Lovellette rounds out a fairly balanced roster. Martin/Mikkelsen get 2nd Team honors, Pollard joins them on the Allstar squad.

Finally '56 onwards - Pollard leaves and the Lakers immediately tank it, they are the worst team in the league until Mikan returns to briefly drag them to mediocrity. Bad but not that bad in '57 and then back to terrible in '58 with Mikkelsen at the helm. Baylor arrives in '59 to bring them back towards the light but it's already too late, the money is gone and they're on their way to LA. Martin goes on to several all-league honors with the Hawks, while Mikkelsen's dry up with the dynasty.

To me there isn't much separation between Pollard/Mikkelsen from '50-'55 (I'd give them the edge on Martin). But I greatly value Pollard's early years over Mikkelsen's late years in this type of vote, Pollard was the #2 on the beginnings of a dynasty, Mikkelsen was somewhere from 1-3 on arguably the worst team in the league over the period. Scoring efficiency being better isn't near enough to close that gap for me.

Slater gets pretty major points for the Hawks run to get back onto the ballot, as he would not make it for me for his Lakers run alone.

The Hawks championship bought the ticket to the hall for both Martin and Macauley in my opinion. I might not even have included either without it.

[Doctor MJ]

Pollard may have been bigger part of Lakers dynasty if you value the one extra year he was there (two including NBL) but I don't buy that he's a better player than Mikkelson based on the info we have. The efficiency difference is pretty significant leading to some huge years in WS for Mikkelson including leading the league in WS/48 ones. Pollard seems to be a better passer but not sure if it makes up the difference. Mikkelson also proved himself more in post shot clock. Their accolades are probably about the same in impressiveness, Pollard makes a 1st team but early on before Mikkelson's prime. For the team's play after the 50s, Pollard isn't even playing at that point so I'm not sure how you can claim it's a negative for Mikkelson that he continued to be useful even up to Baylor coming. I do not know who had the higher impact but I think Mikkelson's case is pretty reasonable based on being much more efficient player.

First: I'll just emphasize again. Mikkelson was NOT a star for the first half of that dynasty and when Mikan started seriously fading, Mikkelson faded too forcing the team to get by with Pollard & Martin playing the big minutes. There is no "may" about Pollard being a bigger part of the dynasty. He was a MUCH bigger part of the dynasty. Pollard's analogous to Pippen here, Mikkelson would be most analogous to Rodman if only Rodman had been cleanly surpassed by another teammate by the Last Dance (as Martin cleanly surpassed Mikkelson and was on his way to continued all-star success as Mikkelson faded away).

Re: WS. I've talked about WS and why they are so misleading here. In the absence of other box score stats, rebounding becomes the proxy for allocating credit for team success particularly on defense. Look at MIkkelson's biggest rebounding year. You'll see that he has 1.1 Defensive WS. Look at his peak Defensive WS and you'll see it's 6.6. This freaking stat is giving MIkkelson 6 times as much defensive value when he's playing next to MIkan as what it gave him when the same root stat was even bigger.

We typically have to ask ourselves whether a player is over or underrated based on team success, but I would say Win Shares here are causing a DRASTIC overrating of guys 1) whose job it is to rebound but 2) don't actually seem to be strong defensive players. And all the more so on the Lakers where the team was winning like crazy and had the best defensive anchor in the game.

Re: efficiency difference. As I've said, they don't play the same role. Feels like people are looking at the efficiency and thinking "Aha, MIkkelson should have been shooting more, Pollard less", but they weren't getting their shots the same way. Sure seems like Mikkelson played in a way that let him get some easy looks close to the basket but not simply get the ball passed to him to "make something happen". Pollard & Martin on the other hand almost certainly WERE the guys who were left holding the ball and being forced to make something happen when the defense had the interior guys covered.

I've also pointed out that the pinnacle of Mikan/Mikkelson shot volume was early in Mikkelson's career, and that the Laker offensive peak during the dynasty happened with that volume going down. If you think purely about efficiency as "shooter goodness" that should be impossible. But of course when you know that interior scoring-based offenses are really problematic because the defense is able to guard against the necessary pass to the interior, it makes sense. And it's really problematic to look at those perimeter guys and say "Should not be shooting so much, they are hurting the team." They likely shot what the team needed them to shoot, and it worked better than forcing more shots on the interior.

Re: how can it be a negative that Mikkelson continued to play? I didn't actually say it was a negative. I said that it was clear cut that Pollard had the edge through '54, and that Mikkelson really didn't do anything to move the needle after that. Mikkelson's greatness is defined by his time with MIkan just like Pollard's is.

I also want to be clear because your wording makes it sound like you're essentially crediting Mikkelson with greater longevity but Mikkelson's last All-NBA came at 26 and he's career fell off dramatically to an age 30 exit.

Meanwhile in '53-54, the last championship year, Pollard was already 31 and was an absolutely vital part of that run. At an age where Mikkelson would be gone fishing forever, Pollard was playing a bigger role than a prime Mikkelson was.

[eminence]

To note, defensive win shares for that era is approximately 1/4 minutes, 1/2 rebounds and 1/4 assists (yep, assists).

[trex_8063]

.

Re: Harry Gallatin
Well, you've convinced me I've maybe been higher on Gallatin than he strictly deserves. That said, I still think he's got a strong case to be one of the 10 included on this ballot. There are several players who are either no-brainers ahead of him OR at least have strong cases over him......but only several [not 9-10], imo.

Guys like McGuire, Risen, and imo Pollard are FAR from locks or having strong cases over him [I would even go so far as to say the case over Gallatin is tenuous for some of them].
Where Pollard is concerned, I have a few thoughts [which you can consider or disregard as you see fit]....
Generally speaking I feel the professional game was evolving so quickly that, in essence, each successive year in the time-period we're scrutinizing here is more competitive than the year that came before. Pollard's pro career started one year earlier than Gallatin's, and ended THREE years earlier than Gallatin's. In a nut-shell [for me], that means I'm looking at his career statistical output and accomplishments with a pinch more salt than I would Gallatin's.
Then I'll also note the longevity: for whatever quality of player you feel each of them represents, Gallatin's career encompasses TWO extra seasons relative to Pollard's. I realize I tend to value longevity more than most, but nonetheless just putting that out there (I do think it's relevant).
Even if I were to concede Pollard was a slightly better player in most of the years their careers overlap, those^^^ factors pull the comparison back in Gallatin's direction.

Maurice Stokes I fairly flatly believe does NOT deserve a spot ahead of Gallatin [I realize he actually is behind Gallatin in the vote, and I don't think you voted for him either; just soap-boxing here]. A vote for Stokes here----over whomever it is of the rest of the field you bump to make room----feels like a sympathy and/or narrative vote. What happened to him was tragic, and I don't mean to sound unsympathetic, but if we're comparing based on what they actually accomplished on the court in their respective careers, there are at least 10-11 guys on the table who did more than Stokes.

Fuiks's case also seems very narrative driven, although let's say I "get it" a little more than for Stokes.


Re: Vern Mikkelsen
You make some good arguments regarding playoff adjustments (the shifts in their offense), however I'm still somewhat with Owly in that I'm not seeing the open/shut case that Mikkelsen was #4 on that Laker dynasty.

You noted that after Mikan/Pollard/Martin were all gone he continued to "do his thing" and put up similar numbers, but by '58 it was for the worst team in the league. It seems sort of reductive to use this as means to retroactively grade Mikkelsen in earlier years.
I might cite '20 Draymond Green as a comparison. He's basically putting the same numbers as he was in '19, but now without Steph/KD/Thompson, it's for the single-worst team in the league. Based upon that, are we to conclude Draymond was actually only #4 (or perhaps even #4b or #5 to Iggy some years???) in '17-'19? Was he actually only #3 in '15 and '16?

In comparison to Martin, I'll note Martin and a washed up but still effective George Mikan left the Lakers in '57, Martin's role being mostly replaced by a rookie Slick Leonard and the newly acquired Walter Dukes replacing Mikan......leaving Mikkelsen as the only remaining member of the "big 4". They didn't worsen at all [in fact, are probably marginally better] from '56.

And although it's a very crude metric [but any port in a storm], I'll quickly just point out Elgee's WOWYR [which only covers the latter portion of their careers, fwiw]: Martin has a prime WOWYR of +1.8, career value of +1.5. MIkkelsen's are +2.6 and +2.4, respectively.


Re: incomplete stat-keeping
Yes, although within the WS formula for this era they were using assists as a proxy for steals [which is a significant portion of DWS]. They used total rebounds as a proxy for DRebs and Blks (which is probably not all that bad a proxy in most instances; probably more accurate than using assists as proxy for steals anyway).
And for whatever short-comings in the stat-keeping, there still were guards in this era who were somewhat consistently putting up PER's in the 17-22 range (Cousy, Davies, Sharman, Wanzer, Braun), and WS/48 >.100 (sometimes by a lot); and soon there would be super-guards [West, Robertson] who would blow all these guys out of the water with the same incomplete stat-keeping.
So when I look at Slater Martin's career 11.6 PER (peaked at 14.1) and .087 WS/48, I'm still a bit skeptical that he could have had SO much defensive and/or intangible value as to so clearly place him in league with some of these other guards, and ahead of many other non-guards who have much more impressive statistical resumes.

[Doctor MJ]

I see the Minneapolis Lakers having 4 stages.

First the '48/'49 Lakers. Mikan is GOATing, Pollard/Shaefer providing support and the Lakers dominate those two seasons. The Royals look their equal during the RS, but the Lakers go a combined 5-1 in the playoffs against them to assert their superiority (Mikan had beaten the Royals 3-1 the season prior with the Gears). Pollard is held in high regard around the league and makes 2x 1st teams.

Then the '50-'54 Lakers. Mikkelsen arrives and displaces Shaefer. The Lakers continue to dominate the league with the Royals/Nationals/Knicks being the challengers. Pollard (1x 1st, 2x 2nd) and Mikkelsen (3x 2nd) both garner significant all league honors. Martin gradually gains prominence over the run.

Third the '55 Lakers. The GOAT has left but the gang is still together, they're a decent team (likely #3 in the league), Lovellette rounds out a fairly balanced roster. Martin/Mikkelsen get 2nd Team honors, Pollard joins them on the Allstar squad.

Finally '56 onwards - Pollard leaves and the Lakers immediately tank it, they are the worst team in the league until Mikan returns to briefly drag them to mediocrity. Bad but not that bad in '57 and then back to terrible in '58 with Mikkelsen at the helm. Baylor arrives in '59 to bring them back towards the light but it's already too late, the money is gone and they're on their way to LA. Martin goes on to several all-league honors with the Hawks, while Mikkelsen's dry up with the dynasty.

To me there isn't much separation between Pollard/Mikkelsen from '50-'55 (I'd give them the edge on Martin). But I greatly value Pollard's early years over Mikkelsen's late years in this type of vote, Pollard was the #2 on the beginnings of a dynasty, Mikkelsen was somewhere from 1-3 on arguably the worst team in the league over the period. Scoring efficiency being better isn't near enough to close that gap for me.

Slater gets pretty major points for the Hawks run to get back onto the ballot, as he would not make it for me for his Lakers run alone.

Appreciate the analysis, and definitely not looking to claim I know more or as much.

I think the other middle phase I haven't emphasized is the arrival of Lovellette.

Lovellette is a rookie in that last championship season and has a higher PPG/36 & RPG/36 than Mikkelson right from the start, and clearly takes more minutes with time. This probably contributed to Mikkelson playing less than he'd done before (though it must be noted that Mikkelson's numbers were decaying the year before already).

I think part of what's interesting to note here is that this makes sense if we think about it as if the Lakers only had 2 big men spots on the floor, but now had to split time between 3 guys, and if you respect MIkan & Lovellette enough, that might mean little about Mikkelson with regards to Pollard.

I think that '54-55 season without Mikan where the Lakers still looked good is the confusing one. If you only saw that season what you'd think is that the Lovellette/Mikkelson duo was good enough to lead a contender on its own and thus knocking any of these bigs for cutting into each other's time would be silly. But after that year, things fell apart and while Lovellete (who is basically the same age as Mikkelson) adapted, improved his efficiency, and was a part of good things into the '60s, MIkkelson stopped being relevant.

I don't want to claim that Pollard's presence was the reason the Lakers could still be good in the absence of Mikan, but it's worth noting at least. Also worth noting that in the '55 playoffs without Mikan, old man Pollard still played more than Mikkelson (with Martin being the really big minute guy).

Re: Martin 4th in the pecking order during dynasty, helped by Hawks run. Definitely true but Martin's growth was a gradual thing. Through '53 Mikkelson was the more central player. By '54 Martin had surpassed him, and that continued in '55 before Martin went to St. Louis, did great things there and was very much seen as their coach on the floor.

Part of what's interesting about Mikkelson and Martin is that they are seen as of the same generation because they started at the same time, but Martin was closer in age to Mikan and Mikkelson closer to Lovellette, and yet it was Martin who kept getting more and more esteem with time whereas Mikkelson fell away.

[Clyde Frazier]

Not sure how much i'll be able to contribute to this project, but quick tidbit on Schayes which I somehow missed when initially researching him:

Schayes was drafted by both the New York Knicks in the 1948 BAA draft (1st round; 4th pick overall), and by the Tri-Cities Blackhawks in the NBL draft.[10] The Blackhawks traded his rights to the Syracuse Nationals, who then offered him a contract worth $7,500 (worth $79,800 today), 50% more than the Knicks, influencing his decision to go to Syracuse.[9][11] Schayes played one season in the NBL and was named the league's Rookie of the Year.[12] The following season (1949–50), the Nationals moved to the newly formed National Basketball Association as part of the merger between the BAA and NBL.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dolph_Schayes#Professional_career

Wild times similar to NBA/ABA!

[Dr Positivity]

First: I'll just emphasize again. Mikkelson was NOT a star for the first half of that dynasty and when Mikan started seriously fading, Mikkelson faded too forcing the team to get by with Pollard & Martin playing the big minutes. There is no "may" about Pollard being a bigger part of the dynasty. He was a MUCH bigger part of the dynasty. Pollard's analogous to Pippen here, Mikkelson would be most analogous to Rodman if only Rodman had been cleanly surpassed by another teammate by the Last Dance (as Martin cleanly surpassed Mikkelson and was on his way to continued all-star success as Mikkelson faded away).

I think saying he was that much bigger part of the dynasty is a bit strong. Mikkelson was there for 5 of 7 dynasty years and all the NBA titles, it's fair to say the competition in BAA and NBL in late 40s should not be considered as strong as when Mikkelson peaked. It's closer to saying Sam Jones was a bigger part of Celtics dynasty vs Havlicek because he was there longer than Pippen vs Rodman in my opinion. Pippen is there for twice as many titles while being the easily better player than Rodman. I think that's a much bigger gap than 7 years vs 5 and being seemingly around equal as players.

You brought up how Mikkelson is not as productive early and late in the dynasty, however Pollard has seasons like 51 and 53 where he's considered to be not as good as Mikkelson at the time either. Comparing them year by year going by All NBA:

50 - Pollard - 1st team All-NBA season vs early Mikkelson
51 - Mikkelson - 2nd team All-NBA season, Pollard doesn't make one and has a little bit of a down year in raw stats with 11.6ppg. Pollard misses some games.
52 - Tie, they're both in their prime statistically and make 2nd team
53 - Mikkelson 2nd team, Pollard doesn't make one
54 - Pollard, he makes 2nd team and Mikkelson has clear off season

From 50-54 it seems very unclear to me who is more valuable. I am not saying Pollard can't be better, I'm just saying I have no great reason to separate them right now.

Is there a place that has their minutes per game that isn't bball reference? From 52-54 Pollard averages 36.9 to Mikkelson's 34.0, in the playoffs 40.7 to 33.4, which is a difference, but I care more about who was the more valuable player in those minutes.

Re: WS. I've talked about WS and why they are so misleading here. In the absence of other box score stats, rebounding becomes the proxy for allocating credit for team success particularly on defense. Look at MIkkelson's biggest rebounding year. You'll see that he has 1.1 Defensive WS. Look at his peak Defensive WS and you'll see it's 6.6. This freaking stat is giving MIkkelson 6 times as much defensive value when he's playing next to MIkan as what it gave him when the same root stat was even bigger.

We typically have to ask ourselves whether a player is over or underrated based on team success, but I would say Win Shares here are causing a DRASTIC overrating of guys 1) whose job it is to rebound but 2) don't actually seem to be strong defensive players. And all the more so on the Lakers where the team was winning like crazy and had the best defensive anchor in the game.

Did Pollard also not benefit in DWS playing with Mikan though? From 50-54 Pollard averages 4.7 DWS to Mikkelson's 4.9. The much bigger difference is OWS where Pollard averages 0.4 to Mikkelson's 5.1. The main reason Mikkelson's WS is so good it's an efficiency driven stat and he was had strong numbers there.

Also I believe Mikkelson was genuinely considered good at defense, and one of the reasons he fouled so much was his physical intensity. My impression is he has stronger defensive reputation than Pollard.

Re: efficiency difference. As I've said, they don't play the same role. Feels like people are looking at the efficiency and thinking "Aha, MIkkelson should have been shooting more, Pollard less", but they weren't getting their shots the same way. Sure seems like Mikkelson played in a way that let him get some easy looks close to the basket but not simply get the ball passed to him to "make something happen". Pollard & Martin on the other hand almost certainly WERE the guys who were left holding the ball and being forced to make something happen when the defense had the interior guys covered.

If Pollard was a guy that was forced to make stuff happen while Mikkelson cherry picked efficient baskets, you would expect him to have higher volume scoring. However since their volume PPG is pretty similar I can't really give him credit for that.

I do not know what's more valuable between Pollard's secondary playmaking and Mikkelson's efficiency, there isn't really enough information for me to make that call, and accolades at the time seem pretty close. But I have no reason to assume that Pollard's was the more valuable of the two atm.

I also want to be clear because your wording makes it sound like you're essentially crediting Mikkelson with greater longevity but Mikkelson's last All-NBA came at 26 and he's career fell off dramatically to an age 30 exit.

While this is true, because of the uniqueness of the shot clock situation and the league improving, I think there is value in proving yourself later in the 50s.

What do we value more - Having a great impact in the NBL and BAA against weak competition, or being a productive player on weaker teams in the NBA in the late 50s? You could make a strong argument to me the latter is more impressive.

I think the idea that Mikkelson's post Mikan teams HAD to be good for him to be having a real impact is somewhat flawed. I'm skeptical enough of that even when it comes to the super super stars (even KG missed the playoffs a few times), but in the case of Mikkelson, he's more of a 2nd tier star anyways. It's not unreasonable to me that a 2nd all nba type guy can play on a bad team and still be a good player. It's like criticizing Chris Bosh for the Raptors not being better when he was the best guy, sure it means he's not good enough to carry any team to the playoffs, but on the other hand, he's 2nd tier all star Chris Bosh, not Lebron - Yea if you don't put a a good team around him, you might go 30-52, or even 22-60 if things are really bad (record of 58 Lakers over 82). Or to make another comparison, the year before the Lakers got Pau, the Grizzlies went 22-60 (24 W pace with him playing). That's what it means to be a 2nd tier star instead of a Lebron type guy that you can pick almost everyone around him and win 50 games. In this case it's also not like we got to test how far Jim Pollard would be able to carry a Lakers team after they lost Lovellette.

[Owly]

I see the Minneapolis Lakers having 4 stages.

First the '48/'49 Lakers. Mikan is GOATing, Pollard/Shaefer providing support and the Lakers dominate those two seasons. The Royals look their equal during the RS, but the Lakers go a combined 5-1 in the playoffs against them to assert their superiority (Mikan had beaten the Royals 3-1 the season prior with the Gears). Pollard is held in high regard around the league and makes 2x 1st teams.

Then the '50-'54 Lakers. Mikkelsen arrives and displaces Shaefer. The Lakers continue to dominate the league with the Royals/Nationals/Knicks being the challengers. Pollard (1x 1st, 2x 2nd) and Mikkelsen (3x 2nd) both garner significant all league honors. Martin gradually gains prominence over the run.

Third the '55 Lakers. The GOAT has left but the gang is still together, they're a decent team (likely #3 in the league), Lovellette rounds out a fairly balanced roster. Martin/Mikkelsen get 2nd Team honors, Pollard joins them on the Allstar squad.

Finally '56 onwards - Pollard leaves and the Lakers immediately tank it, they are the worst team in the league until Mikan returns to briefly drag them to mediocrity. Bad but not that bad in '57 and then back to terrible in '58 with Mikkelsen at the helm. Baylor arrives in '59 to bring them back towards the light but it's already too late, the money is gone and they're on their way to LA. Martin goes on to several all-league honors with the Hawks, while Mikkelsen's dry up with the dynasty.

To me there isn't much separation between Pollard/Mikkelsen from '50-'55 (I'd give them the edge on Martin). But I greatly value Pollard's early years over Mikkelsen's late years in this type of vote, Pollard was the #2 on the beginnings of a dynasty, Mikkelsen was somewhere from 1-3 on arguably the worst team in the league over the period. Scoring efficiency being better isn't near enough to close that gap for me.

Slater gets pretty major points for the Hawks run to get back onto the ballot, as he would not make it for me for his Lakers run alone.

I would note again that the Lakers get considerably worse on Mikkelsen's departure (LaRusso his replacement). This despite (a) this being a diminished version of Mikkelsen even versus just the prior year and (b) Baylor showing clear improvement.

Mikkelsen's honors drying up "with the dynasty" strikes as wrong and somewhat missing the broader picture in the comp with Martin. Former because Mikkelsen is an all-star through '57 and gets an MVP vote in '58 versus '54 as the close of the dynasty. Re the latter All-NBA got harder once Pettit (Stokes, later Baylor, Hagan) emerged. If the guards of the 60s (Robertson, West) had come out then instead ...
Once voting is with regard ('56 and on) to position even if I think bigs had it easier to put up numbers, pretty clear Pettit, Arizin, Schayes, Stokes, Yardley, Gallatin then Hagan and Baylor (though Vern knocked out of contention before they emerge) is a tougher field than ... '56 Martin doesn't technically have to be better than Jack George, just better than the next best guard after him to make it. Even in '55, Martin's only season in before position lock, he was on less ballots (or got less points or however it was done) than Vern.

Re: "Scoring efficiency being better isn't enough" clanks for me. Sounds like it's a specific thing (or effectively that degree doesn't matter) though this may just be the phrasing (i.e meaning "the gap in their shooting efficiency isn't enough ..").

[Doctor MJ]

To note, defensive win shares for that era is approximately 1/4 minutes, 1/2 rebounds and 1/4 assists (yep, assists).

Yup. It's definitely a stat that you can use for a first pass sort but not to be taken seriously beyond that. We're already looking at minutes, rebounds, and team performance, which means that using Defensive Win Shares is at best double counting. In practice it's much worse than that because we naturally give the stat the credibility it's earned from later eras.

[Doctor MJ]

.

Re: Harry Gallatin
Well, you've convinced me I've maybe been higher on Gallatin than he strictly deserves. That said, I still think he's got a strong case to be one of the 10 included on this ballot. There are several players who are either no-brainers ahead of him OR at least have strong cases over him......but only several [not 9-10], imo.

Guys like McGuire, Risen, and imo Pollard are FAR from locks or having strong cases over him [I would even go so far as to say the case over Gallatin is tenuous for some of them].
Where Pollard is concerned, I have a few thoughts [which you can consider or disregard as you see fit]....
Generally speaking I feel the professional game was evolving so quickly that, in essence, each successive year in the time-period we're scrutinizing here is more competitive than the year that came before. Pollard's pro career started one year earlier than Gallatin's, and ended THREE years earlier than Gallatin's. In a nut-shell [for me], that means I'm looking at his career statistical output and accomplishments with a pinch more salt than I would Gallatin's.
Then I'll also note the longevity: for whatever quality of player you feel each of them represents, Gallatin's career encompasses TWO extra seasons relative to Pollard's. I realize I tend to value longevity more than most, but nonetheless just putting that out there (I do think it's relevant).
Even if I were to concede Pollard was a slightly better player in most of the years their careers overlap, those^^^ factors pull the comparison back in Gallatin's direction.

Maurice Stokes I fairly flatly believe does NOT deserve a spot ahead of Gallatin [I realize he actually is behind Gallatin in the vote, and I don't think you voted for him either; just soap-boxing here]. A vote for Stokes here----over whomever it is of the rest of the field you bump to make room----feels like a sympathy and/or narrative vote. What happened to him was tragic, and I don't mean to sound unsympathetic, but if we're comparing based on what they actually accomplished on the court in their respective careers, there are at least 10-11 guys on the table who did more than Stokes.

Fuiks's case also seems very narrative driven, although let's say I "get it" a little more than for Stokes.

I appreciate you letting me know I at least gave food for thought.

Re: Gallatin lasting 3 years longer.

1. Pollard ended his career after '55 as a vital member of a team that I think we can be fairly certain would have wanted him back (and probably would have been happy to have him comeback mid-season after the team sucked to start the year).

2. Gallatin played 2 more years on the Knicks before they traded him away and he failed to gain traction on the new team. So what you're talking about is Gallatin getting chosen by a team 2 more times after Pollard retired, and since we can be pretty much assured that Pollard could have come back at least one more year, and the team needed help the year after that, I see no indication that Gallatin was "weathering" the tougher era better than Pollard.

3. Pollard was born in 1922, Gallatin in 1927. Despite being half a decade older, Pollard really seems like he was weathering the new era about as well. And what that also means is that as someone thriving past-30, Pollard was a guy who if he was taken down by anything, it was by age. Gallatin didn't make it through his 20s before his team decided they needed to move on.

I understand the thought that things were improving so quickly that we should expect each year to be tougher than the last, but part of what makes guys like Pollard and Slater Martin so impressive is that they played until their 30s and left largely on their own terms despite this. The guys to worry about with this lens are the guys whose statures peaked early and then fell off at a relatively young age.

Like Gallatin or Mikkelson.

I'll add that part of why I think Pollard's case is compelling is that he's a guy who truly was a pioneer AND the evolution of the game isn't what ended his career (as opposed to someone like Fulks). And when I read up on Pollard and here people talking about how much more athletic he was than his contemporaries (I can't claim I can just see that with the grainy footage), it makes sense that he'd be able to keep up.

Re: Vern Mikkelsen
You make some good arguments regarding playoff adjustments (the shifts in their offense), however I'm still somewhat with Owly in that I'm not seeing the open/shut case that Mikkelsen was #4 on that Laker dynasty.

You noted that after Mikan/Pollard/Martin were all gone he continued to "do his thing" and put up similar numbers, but by '58 it was for the worst team in the league. It seems sort of reductive to use this as means to retroactively grade Mikkelsen in earlier years.
I might cite '20 Draymond Green as a comparison. He's basically putting the same numbers as he was in '19, but now without Steph/KD/Thompson, it's for the single-worst team in the league. Based upon that, are we to conclude Draymond was actually only #4 (or perhaps even #4b or #5 to Iggy some years???) in '17-'19? Was he actually only #3 in '15 and '16?

In comparison to Martin, I'll note Martin and a washed up but still effective George Mikan left the Lakers in '57, Martin's role being mostly replaced by a rookie Slick Leonard and the newly acquired Walter Dukes replacing Mikan......leaving Mikkelsen as the only remaining member of the "big 4". They didn't worsen at all [in fact, are probably marginally better] from '56.

And although it's a very crude metric [but any port in a storm], I'll quickly just point out Elgee's WOWYR [which only covers the latter portion of their careers, fwiw]: Martin has a prime WOWYR of +1.8, career value of +1.5. MIkkelsen's are +2.6 and +2.4, respectively.

Re: #4 on that dynasty. To be clear you can make a case for him over Martin (Martin's continued success is what makes him clearly ahead of Mikkelson), I'm really just trying to emphasize that Pollard played a greater role in the run from '47-48 to '53-54. At this point I'm not really sure what else to say. Mikkelson wasn't there for 2 of the titles, was clearly seen as the lesser player in two more of the titles (including the final one), and played less than Pollard even in the other two title years. Map that into literally any sports landscape, Pollard's probably going to be the one seen as the #2 guy on that dynasty.

Red: Reductive to retroactively grade Mikkelson. I would disagree. I think we need to be asking ourselves what he was actually capable of doing and how much it was actually adding value to his team. Remember, this is a guy who joined 2-time defending champions. We should be expecting that winning bias might be a big deal here in how Mikkelson was evaluated.

Re: Analogy to Draymond Green. Green is a super-high BBIQ guy who is weaker at actually scoring. He's super valuable with great scorers, and less valuable without them. Feel free to make a similar case for Mikkelson, but I'm skeptical.

Re: Lakers effective in '57. Well I think the clear place where the team fell off the most was after Lovellette. They were gradually decaying before that - noteworthy in part because they went from a dynasty to not a dynasty but still decent - but when the Lakers traded Lovellette they fell off a cliff.

Lovellette, it's worth noting, proved to be able to scale his scoring into 20+ territory, continued to put up big numbers on Rochester and then St. Louis, would get to the finals with St. Louis twice, and then in his final act would play as a (limited) role player for Boston.

Mikkelson was born only a year before Lovellette but Lovellette would play several years later and would be still be an all-star after Mikkelson was retired.

I think the reality is that back in the early '50s (and in retro-analyses like these), there's been a tendency to "round up" Mikkelson into something like Lovellette, and that's just not what I'm seeing here.

Re: incomplete stat-keeping
Yes, although within the WS formula for this era they were using assists as a proxy for steals [which is a significant portion of DWS]. They used total rebounds as a proxy for DRebs and Blks (which is probably not all that bad a proxy in most instances; probably more accurate than using assists as proxy for steals anyway).
And for whatever short-comings in the stat-keeping, there still were guards in this era who were somewhat consistently putting up PER's in the 17-22 range (Cousy, Davies, Sharman, Wanzer, Braun), and WS/48 >.100 (sometimes by a lot); and soon there would be super-guards [West, Robertson] who would blow all these guys out of the water with the same incomplete stat-keeping.
So when I look at Slater Martin's career 11.6 PER (peaked at 14.1) and .087 WS/48, I'm still a bit skeptical that he could have had SO much defensive and/or intangible value as to so clearly place him in league with some of these other guards, and ahead of many other non-guards who have much more impressive statistical resumes.

Re: not a bad proxy in most instances. Oh, they're using what they got. If they refused to use rebounds in Defensive Win Shares the stat would be undeniably worse. The issue isn't about whether bkref is being reasonable here, but how much weight we're giving these stats. I'm very cautious with them because I know how flawed they are.

Re: skeptical about 11.6 PER value based on defense/intangibles. I'm inclined to look at a guy like Martin and ask: What was he being asked to do? Martin's job on offense was to get the ball to the main scoring threat, both on the Lakers (Mikan, then Lovellette) and on the Hawks (Pettit). That's not a job that's necessarily going to show up in a stat like PER, but that was the plan, that's how Martin carved out a career, and Martin's coaches seemed to love how he did what they told him to do.

I'll also note that when you watch play from that era, you see a lot of guys involved with the passing. Martin was not asked to be the ball dominant floor general in the mold a guy like Cousy would create. That didn't mean he was a bad passer though.

Here's what I'll say though: You might see me appearing to contradict myself in essentially saying "I'm fine accepting that Martin was great because he played big minutes on great teams, but can't give the same cred to Mikkelson". I'll acknowledge my limited knowledge might mean that I'm being too kind to Martin and not kind enough to Mikkelson.

But Martin really was asked to be the brains of the operation, and the operations he was a part of were great. I don't think we have the data to tell us just how valuable he was, so I'm inclined to go with contemporary observers.

Mikkelson, frankly, I'm also going largely with contemporary observers. There came a point where Mikkelson stopped being given All-NBA awards and Martin started to give them. I think those observers had absolutely expected that MIkkelson would march right through the '50s getting those accolades, but things changed and esteem for Mikkelson waned where Martin's esteem waxed.

[eminence]

I would note again that the Lakers get considerably worse on Mikkelsen's departure (LaRusso his replacement). This despite (a) this being a diminished version of Mikkelsen even versus just the prior year and (b) Baylor showing clear improvement.

Mikkelsen's honors drying up "with the dynasty" strikes as wrong and somewhat missing the broader picture in the comp with Martin. Former because Mikkelsen is an all-star through '57 and gets an MVP vote in '58 versus '54 as the close of the dynasty. Re the latter All-NBA got harder once Pettit (Stokes, later Baylor, Hagan) emerged. If the guards of the 60s (Robertson, West) had come out then instead ...
Once voting is with regard ('56 and on) to position even if I think bigs had it easier to put up numbers, pretty clear Pettit, Arizin, Schayes, Stokes, Yardley, Gallatin then Hagan and Baylor (though Vern knocked out of contention before they emerge) is a tougher field than ... '56 Martin doesn't technically have to be better than Jack George, just better than the next best guard after him to make it. Even in '55, Martin's only season in before position lock, he was on less ballots (or got less points or however it was done) than Vern.

Re: "Scoring efficiency being better isn't enough" clanks for me. Sounds like it's a specific thing (or effectively that degree doesn't matter) though this may just be the phrasing (i.e meaning "the gap in their shooting efficiency isn't enough ..").

So, two bits here - the gap appears almost completely to exist between the RS of the '59 and '60 Lakers. The Lakers once again showed up in the playoffs. I have Mikkelsen as the distant 2nd for most important loss between the two seasons (Kundla).

Well, here we appear to have a significant difference in evaluation philosophy. Basketball is played on the court against opponents. And how does one win games? By being better at basketball than their opponents. Hence Dugie being better than his guard opposition was better for his teams than Vern being worse than his forward opposition. That's not to say there's not some grading on the curve for positional strength within era, but the gap in where each placed within the league was significant.

There is no realistic gap in shooting efficiency that will cover the difference in team success of the two for me (Pollard '49/'50 vs Mikkelsen '56 on). And of course the implied bit of my quote - I think Pollard is better at most everything else that happens on a basketball court.