RealGM Top 100 List #23

[ceiling raiser]

My vote in the runoff is for Wade. Was leaning Stockton here, but I have no problem with him being selected.

I really can't look past level of competition. Yes, these are still concerns a decade later into the early 60s (and even in the late 60s and beyond, I still feel the need to look at players on a case-by-case basis), but the facts that:

1) The league wasn't integrated.
2) There was no shot-clock in place.

are both legitimate concerns. Now I do understand that Mikan played the Globies on more than a few occasions, and played quite well (and I believe his teams won more often than not). This was back when the Globetrotters were still a legitimate squad, and didn't focus as much on the clowning around for which they'd later be known. lorak also watched some tape, and said that Mikan looked more mobile than he is reputed to be (and was an underrated passer).

But I'm still not convinced he could play at a star level 10 years after retiring, let alone much later, after that. I really need to see more tape or read more first-hand accounts suggesting otherwise to change my mind. If that does happen, then it's likely Mikan is a guy who should've been voted in many spots ago. It's really a tough balance, and I feel like it's not possible to properly rank him.

[john248]

Voting Wade. Made my points about Mikan on page 5. Wade gives 6 years vs Mikan's 4 while Mikan still has issues in regards to his era. Mikan's offense is overrated though he was a defensive anchor. Competition during his time just wan't quite there.

[DQuinn1575]

Voting Wade. Made my points about Mikan on page 5. Wade gives 6 years vs Mikan's 4 while Mikan still has issues in regards to his era. Mikan's offense is overrated though he was a defensive anchor. Competition during his time just wan't quite there.

He's second in league in scoring with above average ts% and you say is offense is overrated.
Mikan has 5 years, 4 titles.

[colts18]

Vote: Wade

-He played in the toughest era that was fully integrated with blacks and europeans (Parker, Gasol, Ginobili, etc.). Mikan's era was questionable because black kids of that era weren't allowed to play basketball growing up. A good portion of them couldn't play because they were in underfunded segregated schools. How many potential LeBron's from that era were there that couldn't play without the AAU and college infrastructure? They probably chose a more integrated sport like Boxing or Track.

[FJS]

I'm not confortable voting for one of those two so... i don't vote in this run off

[magicmerl]

So assuming that this is a runoff between Wade and Mikan, it's almost like we're comparing eras rather than players.

Because Mikan clearly wouldn't measure up as well if he played in Wade's era, yet Mikan unquestionably was more dominant in his era and had more success than Wade.

How much do we value what they actually achieved vs era portability?

[Doctor MJ]

Runoff Vote: Dwyane Wade

Easy choice for me here. A debate with Mikan means that the one thing Wade has really going against him - longevity - isn't much of a factor. Bottom line with regards to Mikan is that I'm really not sure he's an all-star level talent in the modern league. Back then he was a giant, nowadays he's just normal size for a 5. Even back then his scoring wasn't that great, so I basically take it as a given that he's not doing any star stuff in scoring today. The question then becomes about him being a DPOY level guy on defense, which given his normal size would either mean he'd have to be ultra agile or ultra smart. He wasn't the former, and while he was smart, I haven't seen enough to say he should considered a total outlier in that regard.

Sidenote: Since I"m seeing that Mikan got in the runoff because a few of us held off on voting for Nash, I expect to do so next time. I was delaying because I didn't really want to be out in front annoying people on that one, but it's absurd for my delay to sway what runoff we use.

In terms of swaying my opinion, Nash vs Stockton remains the main thing on my mind. I doubt I'll swing over to Stockton this time, but you never know.

[penbeast0]

...
Both Quotatious and I were asking if we could make this a shot clock only vote now, as it appears we may be stuck in a series of runoffs that Mikan would lose.

viewtopic.php?f=64&t=1328924&start=380

If so, I would switch my vote to Wade, who I have next. Otherwise I will keep voting Mikan, as I believe he is the most deserving player left.

I suggested when we were setting up the project but there was a clear consensus to run it back to the beginning of the NBA (or earlier -- no one responded when I asked if we should move it back 2 more years since B-R.com has those). I don't want to change the rules midstream.

[Doctor MJ]

Just said it in the meta thread but:

I always thought Mikan SHOULD be included in the project, and I hate the notion of taking him out when he's already been a part of how threads turn out.

Look this "spoiler" issue people are concerned about is going to happen with other players too. We can't take Bill Walton out of the project just because we disagree on him. In the end my recommendation is something I don't typically recommend: Tactical voting or advocacy.

If you think a guy deserves to be in now, bring him up and vote for him.
If there are not takers, drop it and either wait for someone else to bring him up, or mention him against in 5 votes

Yes there will still be a time when a guy could be close to a majority and still losing every tiebreak, but that's life. Mikan deserves our consideration.

[penbeast0]

Let's put any additional comments on this in the META thread please.

[tsherkin]

If we're given over to the run-off, I vote Wade.

Based on what?

[DannyNoonan1221]

as much as I would like Mikan to get voted in (DePaul) and to get him off the board to avoid further arguments, AND as much as I really, really, really don't like Wade. My run off vote stays the same as my original vote.

Wade

[RayBan-Sematra]

VOTE : Wade

Don't have a firm enough grasp on Mikan to vote for him.

Sorry but this doesn't qualify as sufficient reasoning for a vote, though it is enough for an abstention

[Owly]

And...For those who vote for Baylor at this point (admittedly, he's not even in my top 30) - why him over Barry?

Not going to vote Baylor yet, but, why wouldn't you?

Similar all in one advanced box score metrics (with Barry having a minutes and therefore total productivity edge). But some of the Barry numbers are in a weak point ABA. Baylor has the better peak with an intial 5 (especially Y2-5) years and consistently excellent playoff productivity during that span (though smsll samples with shorter playoffs and possible competition level issues, 2 series versus Boston in his best 4 years, but 3 against a crummy Detroit Pistons team never above -2 SRS). In short he had 5 seasons as a clear cut top 5 player (with Pettit, Russell, Chamberlain and Robertson as the competition; WS are a tad disconcerting but I think he's being overpunished there for being on an often below par team, though it does give one pause). At the margin we might give him some slight benefit for numbers he would have accrued if not for armed service, and perhaps misfortune with injuries.

For my concerns on Barry see

Spoiler:

I get that this is a "more than '75" post but some of these things ... I'd have quibbles

- 4 times all-ABA 1st team, okay you can only finish ahead of what's there but take a look at the 2nd team forwards he was beating out. And then he didn't collar an MVP in the ABA when it was the distinctly weaker league. Part of that is misfortune with injuries, how much people will let that go I don't know. That top WS/48 season looking at that and PER he's basically even with Hawkins except Hawkins best season he was healthy in the playoffs and took his team to a title (and played much more minutes and had another season of a similar calibre). His third ABA season (2nd highest in minutes played) is just barely on that top 100 in ws/48 (87th) and his fourth season (and only near-full season) isn't on it at all.

I'm not sure that not playing much in that young span helps him unless you're big into what might have beens (in which case Walton, Hawkins, McGrady, Groza, Penny, McGill etc could leap up). And so those TS% crowns don't mean too much in terms of actual impact.

For 40 ppg in the '67 finals, sure but look at his percentages. Admittedly this is different to say Kobe '04 because he was shooting at iirc, a similar efficiency to his teammates (I think perhaps slightly better), but still it's not what you imagine when you think of 40ppg finals.

Regarding the team achievements it might be underselling his teammates. I think Nate Thurmond might have had quite a lot to do with beating "Jabbar and Oscar".

And then in '75 its worth noting that in the playoffs that team won with it's defense, an area where Barry, despite his steals, was not a standout. cf: http://www.basketball-reference.com/pla ... ml#misc::9

'76 might reveal issues too, PER and WS/48 have Phil Smith as a better per minute player as Barry wasn't effectively able to trade usage for efficiency (his ts% actually dropped nearly 2%). Now maybe this is a case like penbeast(?) theorised where a guy with high usage, shooting, and passing is creating an optimal or near optimal offense despite seemingly dubious individual efficiency. Anyhow despite the individual drop-off the Warriors get quite a lot better, and whilst there are certainly other substantial factors (a young team getting better with one more year of development and the addition of rookie Gus Williams) it might suggest that the thing Barry does best (high usage, adequate efficiency) isn't that useful to a good team.
I don't particularly buy into this but Bill Simmons suggested (well stated) that Barry refused to shoot in the 2nd half out of spite.

This isn't an original Simmons idea http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1 ... 16,1929178

Ultimately for me that means a lot hinges on valuing volume scoring and being the superstar (though again, note that they won with D) on a champ. Advanced metrics don't love him (apart from the two first short ABA seasons), defensive reviews aren't particularly special, and intangiables are considered poor too.

TL;DR: His team got better despite him getting worse (and there are possible related concerns about his value with other good offensive players), his fabled '75 carry job in the playoffs was (besides being a fluke) primarily won with defense (not that a star that carries defensive minded players to an average offense isn't valuable), he didn't win an MVP in a weak ABA and when he was dominant he got injured (and fwiw in his most dominant, 35 game, season his team won the title without him, going 4-0, 4-0, 4-1 in the playoffs). Also there's some inangiable concerns.

Anyway, looking at it I'm slightly more hesitant on Baylor, but Barry isn't on my radar.

It's funny, I can see using arguments like this against Barry for almost anyone except Baylor. For Baylor, they just hammer in what Baylor's issues were. I mean, efficiency issues? Pot. Kettle. Black.

Well I don't know if this is the place for this, since neither of us have either of these guys here, but I'll clarify.
1) The Barry stuff is primarily a repost not the within the context of a Baylor-Barry comparison.
2) The Baylor short prime that's the focus of my post has him. Baylor was solid efficiency wise for that span. In '63 he was .519 ts% (17th in the league), nearly 3% over a league norm of 0.492534915; in '62 it's .492 versus 0.492534915, a tie in a year he carried a huge load an was in and out of the army on weekend passes; '61 .498 nearly 3% over a league norm of 0.469366384; '60 .489 over 0.463406677; '59 .488 over 0.457479393. Given his usage I don't think the version of Baylor that's making the largest difference to where he gets ranked was inefficient.

Also to me it's totally wrong to characterize Barry as "getting worse" in '76. That was just smarter strategy. The kind of smart strategy that would have chopped Baylor's scoring in half.

See the spoilered point that that was in reference to

'76 might reveal issues too, PER and WS/48 have Phil Smith as a better per minute player as Barry wasn't effectively able to trade usage for efficiency (his ts% actually dropped nearly 2%). Now maybe this is a case like penbeast(?) theorised where a guy with high usage, shooting, and passing is creating an optimal or near optimal offense despite seemingly dubious individual efficiency.

The issue isn't less volume, it's that rather than gaining a fair bit of efficiency (ideal/what might be expected based on skill curves); or bit of efficiency (still fairly okay especially if we're lucky and it means offense doesn't stagnate and it helps others); but he's taking less shots and shooting worse. I have to characterise that as getting worse. Lower burden, lower efficiency. Unless you were either dreadful efficiency to start with (to the degree that a guy shouldn't be in this top 100 convo, at least not based on O) then taking less shots and shooting 2% worse just isn't a good year. And they didn't get better on O they got better on D. And whilst both were good teams on O the main advantage seems to be on offensive rebounding. It's somewhat moot in terms of Barry's ranking in any case because they're both Barry seasons either way.

So they both have that issue, but when you look closer, you see Barry is far more proven than Baylor in actually leading healthy teams.

While Barry shouldn't have shot so, so much in '75, the Warrior offense was still quite good, and part of the reason for his heavy primacy was that all the other teammates were being platooned. The Warriors had developed a system in place that really on Barry as the coach on the floor, with all the other smaller brains orbiting around him. It wasn't perfect - Barry's no Oscar - but it was damn good, and good lord, there's no evidence at all that you would ever try to use Baylor like that.

In the end on their tombstones what we see then is:

Barry - a scorer who had a tendency to shoot at too high a volume, but could be the coach on the floor for a great offense.

Baylor - a scorer who had a tendency to shoot at too high a volume even when a much better option exists next to him, and his only real track record leading an offense as a superstar was with very poor offenses.

No question who is more accomplished to me, even though I think it's too early for Barry at this point.

It's hard to compare offenses with such a different standard deviation so conclusions, would have to be tenatative. Then to the same comes with crediting individuals with team performance. But, as before Barry's good offenses seems to be built primarily on offensive rebounding. From the limited recall of the bits I've read prime Baylor was well regarded as a playmaker, and I'm not sure there's a reason to think that prime Baylor couldn't be the leader of a very good offense if he'd had offensive rebounding and at the rim finishers. It's the shoot first but with passing ability formula, but Baylor in his prime was more efficient. I don't know maybe I need to look closer at the team level stuff but to me Baylor at his best seems to give you a lot of what Barry does (but as noted more efficiently) and with rebounding.

As before I'm not looking at either right now. To credit Barry with an ability to cause or carry good offenses I'd need more evidence of causation and from a cursory look at his arrival on the Americans and his re-arrival on the Warriors it doesn't look like he's a ticket to a great offense (though he might make a crummy one less crummy), though it's entirely possible Baylor is in the same mould.


For the runoff I'll vote Mikan but per my metathinking post I don't see him getting in, and (partly as a result of the lack of data) the debate gets less productive, and he'll act as a spoiler (why I didn't offer a main vote for him) so I'd happily see him taken off the ballot and the project made for players who were primarily post shot-clock.

The reasons have been covered previously, but to recap, he won 7 titles in 8. Was superb in the playoffs. Was injured the only year his team lost in the playoffs, he made a huge impact (see what his absence did to the Gears, what he did with a Lakers team that was basically an expansion team, and even how when he (first) retired and was certainly past his peak, his replacement with one of the best centers of the 50s led to and SRS fall of almost 2. His metric dominance is at times absurd (in '49 he nearly doubled the next leading contributor in win shares). He was dominant over the most competitive position of his time (Johnston, Foust, Macauley, Groza etc). I could expand if necessary.

Runoff vote: George Mikan

edit: just seen pednbeast's post sorry for meta stuff in the above

[ushvinder88]

I wonder when drexler will be available for voting. 2 trips to the finals as the man, then a ring as a 2nd option. The 2nd best shooting guard of his era. He should be eligible soon.

[Moonbeam]

Edit: missed penbeast's post as well!

[Basketballefan]

I wonder when drexler will be available for voting. 2 trips to the finals as the man, then a ring as a 2nd option. The 2nd best shooting guard of his era. He should be eligible soon.

I have Drexler in the 28-30 range but i have my doubts about him going that high. Nash Mikan Stockton Frazier baylor Barry Hondo and Pippen will all go higher most likely.

[trex_8063]

Just said it in the meta thread but:

I always thought Mikan SHOULD be included in the project, and I hate the notion of taking him out when he's already been a part of how threads turn out.

Look this "spoiler" issue people are concerned about is going to happen with other players too. We can't take Bill Walton out of the project just because we disagree on him. In the end my recommendation is something I don't typically recommend: Tactical voting or advocacy.

If you think a guy deserves to be in now, bring him up and vote for him.
If there are not takers, drop it and either wait for someone else to bring him up, or mention him against in 5 votes

Yes there will still be a time when a guy could be close to a majority and still losing every tiebreak, but that's life. Mikan deserves our consideration.

Agree. I would be kinda sad/disappointed if Mikan were taken out. I haven't given him my support yet, and voted against him in the last run-off, too.......but it's not for lack of consideration. There just happen to be still ~5-7 more guys I'd vote in ahead of him were it up to me. He'll be getting my vote soon enough, though (and may well get my run-off vote for a position earlier than I'd voluntarily place him, depending on who he's up against).

Obv I don't know, but I suspect there are several other posters in the same boat as me. Mikan's time will come, and I suspect maybe sooner rather than later, tbh.

[trex_8063]

quote="RayBan-Sematra"--->VOTE : Wade

Don't have a firm enough grasp on Mikan to vote for him.

Sorry but this doesn't qualify as sufficient reasoning for a vote, though it is enough for an abstention

[/quote]

fwiw, he already laid out some reasons (post #94) why he was leaning Wade (just never made his vote official).

[Notanoob]

I'm going to cast my run off vote for Dwyane Wade. I simply struggle to vote for Mikan due to the era that he played in and basically having no footage of him to watch. I will certainly consider putting him in soon, but I feel like Wade had simply too high of a peak, and particularly excellent performances in the playoffs (against my Pistons in particular), to select a player I have hardly watched ahead of him.