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

[Owly]

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.

There came a point where it was mandated that there two guards on each All-NBA team 1956. That's when Martin passes Mikkelsen (both on 2nd team in '55 with Martin getting less votes) in All-NBA representation. As does Jack George. As above, high end guard competition probably less than at forward, no?

[Dr Positivity]

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.

Do you think Pollard is better than him defensively? It seems Mikkelson is known more for defense. And I consider being a flat better scorer than Pollard to be a pretty meaningful advantage. It's not just about efficiency but that he also scores as much while doing it.

By the sounds of it Pollard has the edge in talent but Mikkelson had better motor and was ultra physical. The latter may have helped him catch up in effectiveness.

For speed, jumping, and ball-handling, there’s Pollard’s Lakers coach, John Kundla:

Jim was the most graceful player I had. If there was a full-court press, I’d have them give the ball to Jim, because Jim could get by anybody. He had speed and he could jump. In his first game of pro ball, he came out with a bloody elbow and I said, ‘What happened?’ He said he’d hit it on the backboard. Jeez. When I was in college, I couldn’t even touch the net.

Secondly, though, Pollard was prone to bouts of drifting. Sid Hartman, the man who signed Pollard to the Lakers, lamented that Pollard would lose interest in a fashion similar to a student who’s so far ahead of his class, he gets restless and grumpy. Hartman noted, in particular, that Pollard’s defense suffered from this. When locked-in Jim was a first-class defender. Over the course of a long season, Pollard would also just slough off a little in the monotony unless something perked his interest like a big game or TV cameras.

https://prohoopshistory.wordpress.com/2016/01/22/jim-pollard/amp/

Kundla ordered Vern to just scrap and bruise opposing big men. He was to fight for rebounds, careen on defense, gobble up garbage second-chance points if Mikan or Jim Pollard missed shots, and set bone-chilling picks to free up the quicksilver Martin and sharp-shooter Bob Harrison on offense.

Mikkelsen’s real purpose was all about that rough and tumble play. During his career, Mikkelsen earned four fouls a game which places him in the vanguard for that category. Heck, during the 1957 playoffs, Vern averaged 5.8 fouls a game. For the 1950s, he racked up more personal fouls than any other player, finishing 359 ahead of second-place Dolph Schayes.

Disruption was basically the name of Vern’s game.

The Dennis Rodmans, Charles Oakleys, and other agitators owe Vern a solemn debt for his groundbreaking brawn in the 1950s. It should be noted that Vern did all of this with a gentlemanly air and was a completely affable man off the court. Being nasty didn’t mean he was dirty. He hustled his butt up and down the court on every play. He just happened to knock you upside the head every know and then as he harassed you on defense.

That kind of tireless motor was respected by his contemporaries.

https://prohoopshistory.substack.com/p/vern-mikkelsen

Anyways, next thread please.

[Doctor MJ]

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.

5 out of 7 makes it sound like he was basically there for the whole thing. I'd urge folks to replay this in their mind chronologically.

The Lakers were THE dominant team in the world winning back-to-back championships before Mikkelson was on the team, and Pollard was known as the 2nd star on that team.
Then he joined and they won the title again with him playing a relatively small role and Pollard remained definitively the 2nd star.

We are now halfway through the championships won, and Mikkelson has played almost certainly less than 1/3rd of the amount of minutes Pollard without any of the same kind of accolade love (Pollard had 3 All-League 1st teams, Mikkelson nothing).

Imagine what the media would be like today in this situation. What would have taken in the remaining 3 championships for Mikkelson not just to surpass Pollard in accolade love in a season, but to make up for all that lost ground?

And now imagine we're watching the equivalent of the Last Dance, and Mikkelson has fallen backwards once again leaving Pollard as the biggest star on the team other than Mikan.

How could any observer from that time possibly say Mikkelson was a bigger part of that run?

I just don't see it. I feel like folks are looking at stats and making assumptions about the older player based on a presumption of basketball progress where Pollard would see the game pass him by and Mikkelson would be great in the next generation to come. And that's just not what happened.

Re: Minutes. You've got the same data I've got. What I really need to emphasize is that the gap between their minutes was getting BIGGER with Pollard gaining the larger advantage at an age where Mikkelson would be circling the drain.

I'll also acknowledge that I think '53-54 is important. Simply put, I don't the Lakers should have won that title based on how Mikan was decaying. I see that as something of a miracle, and while MIkan is so good he's still the MVP, it makes me respect Pollard & Martin a ton that they were the guys playing every significant minute allowing the team to squeak by with one more championship. That was the time for Mikan's teammates to step up. 2 of them did...while Mikkelson stepped down.

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.

I mean, no one is trying to use Win Shares to prop up Pollard. I would be 100% fine if we just stopped using them because it's not a good stat.

Re: Mikkelson's main edge is about efficiency. Well not on Defense, but what I'd say in general is that the efficiency is the real thing so I'd suggest focusing on that.

And of course we've been having that conversation. My inclination is to say that if Mikkelson could have up'ed his volume while playing the same role in the same (Mikan-oriented) scheme, it probably would have happened. Blaming the fact it didn't happen on Pollard doesn't seem right to me.

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.

Wait, now you're arguing that if Pollard was taking more shots because that's where the flow of the offense let to, then we should have expected to see a more dramatic effect, and since we didn't, we should ignore that as a possibility in favor of...some alternative that's not stated. It's reasonable to push back on an explanation that's not powerful enough, but pushing back because it's too powerful is a new one to me, and particularly odd given that I'm not seeing an alternative explanation offered.

I think I'd just emphasize that in general whenever an offense seems unable to have an interior guy score as much as his efficiency seems to call for, my experience says that it probably has something to do with the fact that it's not always easy to get him the ball where he needs it. And of course, when you're not even the interior guy the perimeter guys are trying to pass to, hitting a bit of a low ceiling in volume scoring is a fairly mundane thing.

To be clear, all that could be true and Mikkelson might still be the more valuable player, it's just that we know basketball is too complicated to simply say "The most efficient shooters should always be doing the shooting", particularly when we're talking about the secondary interior scorer in comparison to guys on the perimeter.

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.

I would object to using the shot clock demarcation as a reason to knock anyone who retired around that time. I think you've got to try to be more specific about why a given player was being hurt by the shot clock.

Why would a perimeter guy with jump-out-the-gym athleticism be hurt by the absence of a shot clock?
Why would a guy who played more minutes in the first year of the shock clock be the one hurt by the shot clock?

I'll note that Pollard's perimeter partner specifically took a leap forward in stature with the arrival of the shot clock. Why wouldn't we expect something similar for Pollard if he weren't already at retirement age?

On the other hand, bkref doesn't do Per100 pacing for this time period, but let's note that the Lakers' pace when up quite a bit in the last have of Mikkelson's career and his volume stayed about the same, which means that he was actually shooting less in addition to being on less successful teams. Might the shot clock been a problem for him given that he struggled to play big minutes even when the game was slow?

Re: More valuable BAA/NBL or being productive on bad teams in the late '50s.

Let's consider here. In '57-58, the Lakers won 19 games. The second worst team won 33. The gap between those two is 14. 33 + 14 is 47. The best team in the league won 49. So, the gap between the best team in the league and the second worse is only slightly less than the gap between the second worst and the worst. That means that that worst team is playing utterly ineffective basketball.

Being elite against weaker competition isn't as good as being elite against stronger competition, but it is an accomplishment.
Being the lead guy on a team THAT bad? That's not an accomplishment. It's unrealistic to expect that the team could actually get much worse without you. And to be that irrelevant while still in your 20s? That's really not something to crow about in the rare air we're discussing.

To me the real question here is whether there was something about Mikkelson's game that was disproportionately valuable while paired with a superior partner on the interior, and part of my skepticism here is that that generally isn't how it works. You generally don't think "We've got our Superstar 5 who will be our lead on offense and defense from the interior, if only we had another big who isn't as good but whose strengths also involve him being on the interior." While the gravity of Mikan might help Mikkelson get boards and put backs, in terms of building around Mikan, to me your key secondary pieces are probably going to be guys on the perimeter.

[trex_8063]

Just one point I wanted to reply to. Preface by saying I'm not trying to hound you until I've "won" the debate; merely enjoying the exchange of ideas (and in talking about the old guys).

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.

There's some context here that needs to be explored. Prior to '56, the All-NBA team honors could go to literally any position; it was basically those deemed the 5 best players (any position) were 1st Team, then next best 5 were 2nd Team. In EACH of '53, '54, and '55, FOUR of the five recipients of All-NBA 1st Team honors were PF's or C's.
Not sure how relevant this is toward Martin's honors specifically, given there were still always at least 4 guards getting All-NBA in each of those years (they were just all 2nd Teamers except for Cousy). However, it's worth noting that none of them was Slater Martin, except in '55.
In '51-'53 Mikkelsen received 2nd Team honors each year [while Martin received none], neither received in '54, and then both got 2nd Team in '55.

The other thing to note is the inflow/outflow of players at their respective positions during that second half of the decade......

Bob Davies is no longer around in '56, and Andy Phillip is in legit age-related decline by then (33 years old in '56; he would be gone by '59). Guys like Frankie Brian [already in decline] would be gone by '57 and Bobby Wanzer gone by '58.
Dick Garmaker and Tom Gola are really the only ones coming in to fill that talent void at guard initially [and Gola was absent for military service in '57, btw], with Guerin reaching his prime by '58.

Meanwhile at forward, Jim Pollard is just about the only notable competition [to Mikkelsen] to go away----noting here that Schayes, Arizin [had been absent in '53-'54], Gallatin, Yardley [in his prime beginning in '55] are all still around and generally all represent bigger competition than Dick Garmaker, Jack George, or Paul Seymour.
And then added to that fray in '55 is Bob Pettit.
Maurice Stokes [and Kenny Sears, fwiw] appear in '56, Tom Heinsohn in '57, Cliff Hagan into his prime by '58, and Elgin Baylor around by '59.

I think it's safe to say it was frankly a bigger hill to climb to receive honors at forward than it was at guard in those years.

[Doctor MJ]

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.

There came a point where it was mandated that there two guards on each All-NBA team 1956. That's when Martin passes Mikkelsen (both on 2nd team in '55 with Martin getting less votes) in All-NBA representation. As does Jack George. As above, high end guard competition probably less than at forward, no?

I did not know about that mandate. That's interesting and will have to look at that further, but a closer look makes clear that that really isn't why we saw a changing of the guard.

Martin's role started to take on a new flavor in '53-54 and I don't think there's any doubt that going into '54-55 people were looking at him and thinking of him as an All-NBA candidate right from the jump. His scoring went up, he became the clear cut big minute and in-game leader of the team, and he got the nod - a year before the change you mention.

Mikkelson? Just go look at how much lower his primacy is by '55-56. By the previous year it was clear that Martin was more the leader than Mikkelson, but by '55-56, Lovellette was quite clearly the superior front court guy, and he DID get the All-NBA nod in Mikkelson's place.

I can't claim the change you mentioned had no influence on the Martin owning a place on All-NBA from that time onward - seems like something that could easily happen - but the rule change didn't demote Mikkelson, being cleanly surpassed by two guys who were previously beneath him did.

[Owly]

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.

There is a difference if you can tell the signal from the noise in evaluating one (non-superstar at this point) player based on (non)-difference team in playoff performance. I can't.

[Dr Positivity]

Wait, now you're arguing that if Pollard was taking more shots because that's where the flow of the offense let to, then we should have expected to see a more dramatic effect, and since we didn't, we should ignore that as a possibility in favor of...some alternative that's not stated. It's reasonable to push back on an explanation that's not powerful enough, but pushing back because it's too powerful is a new one to me, and particularly odd given that I'm not seeing an alternative explanation offered.

Pollard takes more shots but it's not really by that much. In FGAs per year:

50 - Pollard 17.3, Mikkelson 10.6
51 - Pollard 13.5, Mikkelson 14.0
52 - Pollard 17.8, Mikkelson 13.1
53 - Pollard 14.1, Mikkelson 12.4
54 - Pollard 12.4, Mikkelson 14.7
55 - Pollard 11.9, Mikkelson 14.7

Average: Pollard 14.5, Mikkelson 13.3

It seems a pretty marginal difference, to the point where Mikkelson was higher in FGA 3 of 6 years. Pollard was also higher minutes player.

I don't feel I really need to give Pollard too much credit for taking slightly more shots, but on MUCH less efficiency. During those years here is where Pollard and Mikkelson ranked on their teams in TS%

50 - Pollard 8th, Mikkelson 2nd
51 - Pollard 7th, Mikkelson 2nd
52 - Pollard 7th, Mikkelson 1st
53 - Pollard 9th, Mikkelson 1st
54 - Pollard 7th, Mikkelson 5th
55 - Pollard 7th, Mikkelson 1st

So is it really more valuable to be the more talented, ballhandling perimeter guy if you're taking one of the most shots on your team (usually 2nd or 3rd on the team) despite being 7th-9th most efficient player vs the uglier but effective inside guy? Especially when the latter is barely even scoring at a lower volume. In terms of scoring impact to me this looks pretty obvious in Mikkelson's favor. There is a small volume difference and a massive efficiency difference. If people at the time thought Pollard was a better scorer because he had better ballhandling skills and ability to create his own shot but all it was leading to was throwing up bricks, well I guess things haven't changed all that much in the last 70 years. (Albeit for the record it's unclear if they thought he was the better scorer, their accolades were about the same and it seems like Mikkelson has defense and rebounding and Pollard has passing and handling).

[Doctor MJ]

Just one point I wanted to reply to. Preface by saying I'm not trying to hound you until I've "won" the debate; merely enjoying the exchange of ideas (and in talking about the old guys).

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.

There's some context here that needs to be explored. Prior to '56, the All-NBA team honors could go to literally any position; it was basically those deemed the 5 best players (any position) were 1st Team, then next best 5 were 2nd Team. In EACH of '53, '54, and '55, FOUR of the five recipients of All-NBA 1st Team honors were PF's or C's.
Not sure how relevant this is toward Martin's honors specifically, given there were still always at least 4 guards getting All-NBA in each of those years (they were just all 2nd Teamers except for Cousy). However, it's worth noting that none of them was Slater Martin, except in '55.
In '51-'53 Mikkelsen received 2nd Team honors each year [while Martin received none], neither received in '54, and then both got 2nd Team in '55.

The other thing to note is the inflow/outflow of players at their respective positions during that second half of the decade......

Bob Davies is no longer around in '56, and Andy Phillip is in legit age-related decline by then (33 years old in '56; he would be gone by '59). Guys like Frankie Brian [already in decline] would be gone by '57 and Bobby Wanzer gone by '58.
Dick Garmaker and Tom Gola are really the only ones coming in to fill that talent void at guard initially [and Gola was absent for military service in '57, btw], with Guerin reaching his prime by '58.

Meanwhile at forward, Jim Pollard is just about the only notable competition [to Mikkelsen] to go away----noting here that Schayes, Arizin [had been absent in '53-'54], Gallatin, Yardley [in his prime beginning in '55] are all still around and generally all represent bigger competition than Dick Garmaker, Jack George, or Paul Seymour.
And then added to that fray in '55 is Bob Pettit.
Maurice Stokes [and Kenny Sears, fwiw] appear in '56, Tom Heinsohn in '57, Cliff Hagan into his prime by '58, and Elgin Baylor around by '59.

I think it's safe to say it was frankly a bigger hill to climb to receive honors at forward than it was at guard in those years.

Ah, you're mentioning what I just address but with more specifics. Cool.

On one level, player competition clearly shapes who gets these awards.

On the other, Martin literally took a step forward while Mikkelson literally took a step back. It's easy to imagine a level of competition where Martin doesn't get honors either, but Mikkelson's candidacy just plain got worse regardless of competition.

[Doctor MJ]

Wait, now you're arguing that if Pollard was taking more shots because that's where the flow of the offense let to, then we should have expected to see a more dramatic effect, and since we didn't, we should ignore that as a possibility in favor of...some alternative that's not stated. It's reasonable to push back on an explanation that's not powerful enough, but pushing back because it's too powerful is a new one to me, and particularly odd given that I'm not seeing an alternative explanation offered.

Pollard takes more shots but it's not really by that much. In FGAs per year:

50 - Pollard 17.3, Mikkelson 10.6
51 - Pollard 13.5, Mikkelson 14.0
52 - Pollard 17.8, Mikkelson 13.1
53 - Pollard 14.1, Mikkelson 12.4
54 - Pollard 12.4, Mikkelson 14.7
55 - Pollard 11.9, Mikkelson 14.7

Average: Pollard 14.5, Mikkelson 13.3

It seems a pretty marginal difference, to the point where Mikkelson was higher in FGA 3 of 6 years. Pollard was also higher minutes player.

I don't feel I really need to give Pollard too much credit for taking slightly more shots, but on MUCH less efficiency. During those years here is where Pollard and Mikkelson ranked on their teams in TS%

50 - Pollard 8th, Mikkelson 2nd
51 - Pollard 7th, Mikkelson 2nd
52 - Pollard 7th, Mikkelson 1st
53 - Pollard 9th, Mikkelson 1st
54 - Pollard 7th, Mikkelson 5th
55 - Pollard 7th, Mikkelson 1st

So is it really more valuable to be the more talented, ballhandling perimeter guy if you're taking one of the most shots on your team despite being 7th-9th most efficient player vs the uglier but effective inside guy? Especially when the latter is barely even scoring at a lower volume. In terms of scoring impact to me this looks pretty obvious in Mikkelson's favor. There is a small volume difference and a massive efficiency difference. If people at the time thought Pollard was a better scorer because he had better ballhandling skills and ability to create his own shot but was throwing up bricks doing well, well I guess things haven't changed all that much in the last 70 years.

I think the big disconnect is this:

I'm looking to identify what Pollard's role actually was, you're looking to credit/blame guys based on shooting volume/efficiency.

What I see in Pollard, and to some degree the entirety of Kundla's perimeter, are guys operating like old school "guards" - name chosen to indicate that these guys are not supposed to score themselves, but work to get someone else the ball. If that's what Pollard's mindset is, and he's just taking shots when Plan A isn't working, then Pollard is doing what he's supposed to be doing.

Would it be better if Pollard hit more of whatever shots he shot? Of course.
Does it make sense to compare the efficiency of a guy shooting bail out shots to a guy putting in put backs? No, not at all.
Could the put back guy be more valuable than the perimeter guy? Certainly.

But it was the job of the perimeter guys to feed Mikan, and in general, the basketball world felt like they were doing that well, and it led to great success. There was great success, over a long period of time, and through it all Mikan and Kundla relied upon Pollard to play the role he was told to play, and that would seem to indicate he performed the role well even if much of what he did that was valued didn't get recorded in a stat we have access to today. I think it's important to honor value unless we have a reason to outright reject it, which I don't think we have based on shooting efficiency.

Last note:

With modern basketball strategy, nobody plays like Pollard did back then. That much is a given.

I also see it as something of a given that Pollard doesn't play like he did with the Lakers in other context back then. Before joining the Lakers, Pollard led the AAU in scoring for the prior two seasons. However good (or not) he was in doing this, what we know is that Pollard knew how to be a lead scoring option, but on the Lakers his job was not to do that, so he didn't do that.

(Maybe he should have found other perimeter guys to shoot more instead of himself, but it's not like anyone is saying "Oh, he should have been passing to Harrison." They were getting the ball to the interior as much as they could, and when they didn't, the team looked to Pollard to shoot from wherever.)

I think a lot of folks here see the fact that Pollard played with a sub-optimal strategy as proof he wasn't that valuable out there. I might say I think an opposite is true. In Pollard you had the athleticism to be the lead scoring option - we know this, because we know what smart basketball actually is - and yet he made his bones in the NBA by playing a supporting role well enough that Kundla absolutely swore by Pollard for the entire time the Lakers were relevant. That's telling us that Pollard was good at other stuff, as is the fact that he was later asked to coach the team. This was a smart guy with great physical talent who re-shaped his role to fit in with a greater talent and as a result became the second winningest player of his era with 6 titles (Mikan won 1 in Chicago previously, so 7 total).

To me that is historically salient success.

I find this to be more impressive than a guy who scrapped for rebounds and put backs on a team that already had an alpha interior presence, particularly when we look at the fact that this other guy's role didn't grow in the absence of that presence. Quite frankly in a modern setting, you're probably benching Mikkelson and putting a Stretch 4 out there with Mikan, and it's not like spacing couldn't have been used in the '50s.

But I'll acknowledge that efficiency is a thing, and that every time Mikkelson was getting a rebound and a put back he was achieving more value than Pollard taking one of his Plan B shots. The question is about where else each guy was contributing value, and whether Kundla was a fool to be so certain he needed Pollard out there in a way he didn't with Mikkelson. I find it hard second guessing the coach of a dynasty, and I think everyone should be cautious about doing so, but we do know that we know things that guys like Kundla didn't know, so maybe in the end Pollard got overrated by a foolish coach who didn't understand why he was actually winning.

We'll never know for sure.

[trex_8063]

Just one point I wanted to reply to. Preface by saying I'm not trying to hound you until I've "won" the debate; merely enjoying the exchange of ideas (and in talking about the old guys).

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.

There's some context here that needs to be explored. Prior to '56, the All-NBA team honors could go to literally any position; it was basically those deemed the 5 best players (any position) were 1st Team, then next best 5 were 2nd Team. In EACH of '53, '54, and '55, FOUR of the five recipients of All-NBA 1st Team honors were PF's or C's.
Not sure how relevant this is toward Martin's honors specifically, given there were still always at least 4 guards getting All-NBA in each of those years (they were just all 2nd Teamers except for Cousy). However, it's worth noting that none of them was Slater Martin, except in '55.
In '51-'53 Mikkelsen received 2nd Team honors each year [while Martin received none], neither received in '54, and then both got 2nd Team in '55.

The other thing to note is the inflow/outflow of players at their respective positions during that second half of the decade......

Bob Davies is no longer around in '56, and Andy Phillip is in legit age-related decline by then (33 years old in '56; he would be gone by '59). Guys like Frankie Brian [already in decline] would be gone by '57 and Bobby Wanzer gone by '58.
Dick Garmaker and Tom Gola are really the only ones coming in to fill that talent void at guard initially [and Gola was absent for military service in '57, btw], with Guerin reaching his prime by '58.

Meanwhile at forward, Jim Pollard is just about the only notable competition [to Mikkelsen] to go away----noting here that Schayes, Arizin [had been absent in '53-'54], Gallatin, Yardley [in his prime beginning in '55] are all still around and generally all represent bigger competition than Dick Garmaker, Jack George, or Paul Seymour.
And then added to that fray in '55 is Bob Pettit.
Maurice Stokes [and Kenny Sears, fwiw] appear in '56, Tom Heinsohn in '57, Cliff Hagan into his prime by '58, and Elgin Baylor around by '59.

I think it's safe to say it was frankly a bigger hill to climb to receive honors at forward than it was at guard in those years.

Ah, you're mentioning what I just address but with more specifics. Cool.

On one level, player competition clearly shapes who gets these awards.

On the other, Martin literally took a step forward while Mikkelson literally took a step back. It's easy to imagine a level of competition where Martin doesn't get honors either, but Mikkelson's candidacy just plain got worse regardless of competition.

Otoh, “going largely with contemporary observers” runs counter to your assertion that Martin > Mikkelsen during the title/dynasty years: Mikkelsen got three All-NBA 2nd team honors while Martin got none.

[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.

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).

There is a difference if you can tell the signal from the noise in evaluating one (non-superstar at this point) player based on (non)-difference team in playoff performance. I can't.

You offered "the Lakers get considerably worse on Mikkelsen's departure". I offered my (very brief) thoughts to the contrary.

I agree the Lakers got worse from '59 to '60. ~10 RS wins worse by a modern schedule (I believe some of that gap is closed by similar levels of playoff play). I've stated my belief that Kundla was the larger loss than late career Mikkelsen, if you believe to the contrary say so (or at least acknowledge it). Not acknowledging the Kundla loss initially is ignorant at best and dishonest at worst.

[eminence]

And this thread feels super ready to be called.

Are we doing 5 years or 10 from here on out?

[penbeast0]

Our list now:

Voters: penbeast0, kipper34, Dr Positivity, Doctor MJ, eminence, trex_8063, Dutchball97, worldjbfree

Mikan 8
Johnston 8
Macauley 8
Martin 8
Yardley 8
Davies 7
Wanzer 7
Mikkelson 6

Gallatin 4
Fulks 3
Pollard 3
Risen 2
Stokes 2

If the thread drops off page 1, I will either bump it or call the vote. We take the top 10 votegetters, in case of a tie, I will go back and ask everyone to vote on just the tied players, ranking them in order with just 1st place votes counting, then 2nd if 1st ties again, etc.

It's been 4 pages since we had a vote registered, so let's break the tie and move on. Right now, there are 9 guys including Gallatin with 4 or more votes and a tie between Fulks and Pollard for the 10th spot. 8 votes so first one to 4 votes wins or until we have enough of a lull that I figure the tie is broken.

"Jumpin Joe" Fulks or Jim "The Kangaroo Kid" Pollard

[Dr Positivity]

Our list now:

Voters: penbeast0, kipper34, Dr Positivity, Doctor MJ, eminence, trex_8063, Dutchball97, worldjbfree

Mikan 8
Johnston 8
Macauley 8
Martin 8
Yardley 8
Davies 7
Wanzer 7
Mikkelson 6

Gallatin 4
Fulks 3
Pollard 3
Risen 2
Stokes 2

If the thread drops off page 1, I will either bump it or call the vote. We take the top 10 votegetters, in case of a tie, I will go back and ask everyone to vote on just the tied players, ranking them in order with just 1st place votes counting, then 2nd if 1st ties again, etc.

It's been 4 pages since we had a vote registered, so let's break the tie and move on. Right now, there are 9 guys including Gallatin with 4 or more votes and a tie between Fulks and Pollard for the 10th spot. 8 votes so first one to 4 votes wins or until we have enough of a lull that I figure the tie is broken.

"Jumpin Joe" Fulks or Jim "The Kangaroo Kid" Pollard

Dutchball voted Pollard over Fulks

[Doctor MJ]

Just one point I wanted to reply to. Preface by saying I'm not trying to hound you until I've "won" the debate; merely enjoying the exchange of ideas (and in talking about the old guys).



There's some context here that needs to be explored. Prior to '56, the All-NBA team honors could go to literally any position; it was basically those deemed the 5 best players (any position) were 1st Team, then next best 5 were 2nd Team. In EACH of '53, '54, and '55, FOUR of the five recipients of All-NBA 1st Team honors were PF's or C's.
Not sure how relevant this is toward Martin's honors specifically, given there were still always at least 4 guards getting All-NBA in each of those years (they were just all 2nd Teamers except for Cousy). However, it's worth noting that none of them was Slater Martin, except in '55.
In '51-'53 Mikkelsen received 2nd Team honors each year [while Martin received none], neither received in '54, and then both got 2nd Team in '55.

The other thing to note is the inflow/outflow of players at their respective positions during that second half of the decade......

Bob Davies is no longer around in '56, and Andy Phillip is in legit age-related decline by then (33 years old in '56; he would be gone by '59). Guys like Frankie Brian [already in decline] would be gone by '57 and Bobby Wanzer gone by '58.
Dick Garmaker and Tom Gola are really the only ones coming in to fill that talent void at guard initially [and Gola was absent for military service in '57, btw], with Guerin reaching his prime by '58.

Meanwhile at forward, Jim Pollard is just about the only notable competition [to Mikkelsen] to go away----noting here that Schayes, Arizin [had been absent in '53-'54], Gallatin, Yardley [in his prime beginning in '55] are all still around and generally all represent bigger competition than Dick Garmaker, Jack George, or Paul Seymour.
And then added to that fray in '55 is Bob Pettit.
Maurice Stokes [and Kenny Sears, fwiw] appear in '56, Tom Heinsohn in '57, Cliff Hagan into his prime by '58, and Elgin Baylor around by '59.

I think it's safe to say it was frankly a bigger hill to climb to receive honors at forward than it was at guard in those years.

Ah, you're mentioning what I just address but with more specifics. Cool.

On one level, player competition clearly shapes who gets these awards.

On the other, Martin literally took a step forward while Mikkelson literally took a step back. It's easy to imagine a level of competition where Martin doesn't get honors either, but Mikkelson's candidacy just plain got worse regardless of competition.

Otoh, “going largely with contemporary observers” runs counter to your assertion that Martin > Mikkelsen during the title/dynasty years: Mikkelsen got three All-NBA 2nd team honors while Martin got none.

I was referring to the fact that they stopped giving him awards. It's not me imagining that he disappointed in the back half of his career, it's clear cut that his stature dropped and the arc of his career was one a bang early on and a whimper at the end.

[Doctor MJ]

Runoff Vote: Pollard over Fulks.

[Dutchball97]

Yep Pollard over Fulks.

[Owly]

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).

There is a difference if you can tell the signal from the noise in evaluating one (non-superstar at this point) player based on (non)-difference team in playoff performance. I can't.

You offered "the Lakers get considerably worse on Mikkelsen's departure". I offered my (very brief) thoughts to the contrary.

I agree the Lakers got worse from '59 to '60. ~10 RS wins worse by a modern schedule (I believe some of that gap is closed by similar levels of playoff play). I've stated my belief that Kundla was the larger loss than late career Mikkelsen, if you believe to the contrary say so (or at least acknowledge it). Not acknowledging the Kundla loss initially is ignorant at best and dishonest at worst.

Ignorant is a pretty loaded term.

Same could be said of ignoring Baylor's playoff leap. Except one is looking down roster for top minutes changers and not noting a coaching change (mentally I had Kundla going at the point of relocation, but I missed that, my bad) and then listing it among primary changes and the other is taking an acknowledged noisy tool, one used to advocate for Pollard, in terms of difference in team performance and then multiply the noise of the small sample of the playoffs and implying/believing (presumably not pretending) the output is going to be a reflection of a non-superstar level player, that that will come through the noise.

Kundla ... too widely ignored in terms of (narrative) greats based on accolades. On the other hand don't recall evidence of him as an innovator versus being the guy who coached the team Mikan was on. Not immediately noteworthy elsewhere though I don't know what "par" would be for the Gophers. Anecdotally (probably Pluto's "Tall Tales") replacement was made to sound ... not up to it, hard to verify but the team improved under Pollard, so coaching change likely a factor. Even then, there's still enough room for last-year Mikkelsen to LaRusso dropoff to be there non-smail and last year VM isn't 56-58 VM isn't 50-55 VM.

[worldjbfree]

Also taking Pollard over Fulks to end this portion.

[trex_8063]

I'm semi-indifferent between Fulks and Pollard. I guess I hedge a little toward Pollard (which is a different position than when this thread started). As that seems what others are thinking to, maybe we can move on to the next group?....