RealGM Top 100 List #23

[Owly]

No because he didn't dominate basketball games.

He invented the sport. I'm sure he dominated every game he played, until people learned the rules maybe. But hey "you can't blame him for weak competition", and at one point (while he was writing the rules) he was SO much better than everyone on earth at basketball that his era dominance should only rightly place him ahead of Mikan.

He didn't play he was a teacher. He told people the rules.

I don't know how on earth your conclusion follows from points (that's assuming they're valid; and the second is vastly overstated). They suggest separating Mikan into a pioneers category, that doesn't make him bad.

I don't completely understand you here. My first point is obviously true, there is hardly any footage of George Mikan even compared to someone like Wilt who people still say they don't have enough footage to fully evaluate.

My second point is hardly "vastly overstated" since the addition of the shot clock is the single most important rule change in basketball history and it happens to coincide exactly with George Mikan's steep decline at the geriatric age of 30. You want to argue the shot clock is irrelevant? Be my guest.

Regarding Mikan footage I wasn't arguing with that though "almost no footage" probably depends on whom you're comparing to. It's easier to find footage of him than say (all-star) Steve Mix, it's harder than finding footage of even average players today. So it's depends on the scale, but yeah he certainly has less than we'd like.

But to the points I'm actually debating. On strand 2

Hardly played the same sport as every other guy on the Top 100 list

If we're generous and assume you're talking about the present list (rather than the 2011 full 100 featuring Schayes and Arizin) thus far you think the game Mikan played is hardly the same sport as Bob Pettit played. Explain the vast differences between the '54 and '55 seasons. How rosters turned entirely over to show the vast difference in skills required for this new game which was "hardly ... the same sport". How the skills that made the games top players like Schayes, Gallatin, Foust, Johnston etc were suddenly irrelevent in the new basketball.

And to why it doesn't follow - it's pretty simple. Not having enough footage doesn't make Mikan bad (or "not good" if you prefer) at basketball; it has nothing to do with his basketball ability. If we didn't have enough evidence to compare him fairly as I said, it might warrant a separate category. But the numbers we have at team and individual level plus contemporary opinion and accolades are more than enough to tell us Mikan is a legend of the game. As to why point two doesn't lead to your conclusion, basketball being different doesn't make Mikan bad at basketball. Again if you are of the of the opinion the present game is its apex and you are judging by time machine standards, I'd say those arguments aren't to my taste but okay. But to pretend there wasn't a game called basketball that has a clear and obvious continuity with the modern game that Mikan played and was the best at doesn't make sense. Mikan not happening to play the modern game (not having the chance to do so, and contributing substantially to it's evolution and it's early commercial viability, as already documented) does not lead to the conclusion that Mikan could have no argument other than "Rings".

I guess Naismith would also neatly fit into the "pioneers category" if it is to be used. But that "doesn't make him bad".

If such a list wasn't player only then absolutely. But there's no case for him as a good player because he didn't play. Which is why your case that Mikan and Naismith are somehow analagous is bizzare.

His argument has been outlined at length and whilst I can respect those with era concerns, pretending you can't see the case is absurd.

It appears my era concerns are larger than most around here. I think it's only natural for the sport to evolve and the players to get better. Just in Mikan's case there are a lot more than 100 guys that have come since and been better than him.

If your case is a time machine - modern rules/game is evolving case you can easily make that case without disparagaing legends of the game.

Heck just check the case just given for Wade

I think that Wade peaked higher than mikan did in general.

Wade is one of the last two way superstars on this board.

He has put up huge stats in playoff games in his 06/09/10/11 runs

The reasons for voting Mikan aren't some revolutionary new thing, they're the same sort of reasoning everyone is offering for any other candidate, in this case: a high peak (cf: '49 Win Shares); two way impact; huge in the playoffs.

Honestly I would like a bit more substance in my analysis than that, regardless of what everyone else is offering. The high peak in this case is in actuality almost certainly a far lower peak than

-Elton Brand
-Rasheed Wallace
-Jack Sikma

Just to name a few guys who won't be nominated on this list for another 60 spots or so but played more impactful two way games than Mikan did for at least as long. Disagree? Tell me why.

Well firstly the case above isn't the full reasoning that has been presented earlier in the thread and previous threads.

As for your assertion that Sikma etc were more impactful is laughable. Mikan led an expansion team (the Lakers had no player continuity from the Detroit Gems) to a title (indeed to 6 in 7 years), he led a Gears team that was sub-.500 without him to a title and he once posted a win shares total nearly double that of the next best player. To claim any of the players named was more impactful than that is laughable.

[Sports Realist]

Definitely curious how a wade vs. nash runoff would've turned out. Oh well.

Like I said earlier, Nash would be WAY too early...

I just hope people give Baylor/Pippen/Havlicek/Thomas some consideration... I still would like to see how Wade's career pans out... If he has some more top years left, somehow, I'd definitely feel more secure about placing him here or even higher.. Otherwise, right now, I'd probably have to put the guys just mentioned above him. Stockton/Drexler are close.

[Owly]

The rule change likely had more to do with it to be sure. But let's not act like medicine hasn't come a long way in treating athletes so they can go back and compete. Just setting a broken bone is hardly what's done today. Modern medicine is one of the biggest advantages modern players have.

For ligament/tendon damage, for draining fluid, for broken bones in mobility areas, sure. For pedestrian fractures and single-bone fractures in the lower leg, it's not really a ton different. Yeah, some of the materials they use are less likely to cause infection, the drug treatments for such are in a similar state, but really, you break your leg, it will suck for a while and then you'll get on with it. He broke his bone BEFORE the series and was still sufficiently mobile with the plate in place to play the series at what was considered a reasonably high level at the time. That's all about stabilizing the bone in position, which they did. Orthopedics have certainly advanced in the interim period, but we're talking about finesse stuff for like plateau fractures or joint-related stuff, and then for handling soft-tissue problems.

He didn't break it badly enough that he couldn't play. That says most of what need be said on the topic. And again, we've been resetting and stabilizing broken bones since at LEAST the Middle Ages, it's not rocket science. We don't even know which bone he broke. I also must point out that it is most frequently described as a fracture, which isn't necessarily the same thing as a full-through break. The league delayed the series a day upon appeal from the Lakers. We also don't know what bone it was, since reports/accounts vary on whether it was his leg or his ankle. We know it didn't seem to bother him as far as scoring, more so for running, jumping (and specifically by his own account, rebounding).

So it's really hard to say. Obviously, it hurt him in series, but you'd have to REALLY rip on 50s doctors for not being any good at all for him to have such lingering effects that he suffered so obvious a drop-off in time with a major rules change that made it no longer possible for him to play the whole offensive possession directly beneath the hoop as he usually did.

Meantime, other major indicators of his ability to exert his will on the court like rebounding stayed the same. Games played stayed similar. He even got close to 40% again with a 39.9% in 52-53, but we see his volume and efficiency in general decline from that point forward, and it seems really poor focus to shift the blame from a major rule change that fundamentally affected the way he had to play the game and to a bone injury that isn't really described as a grotesquely crippling thing or atypical in any major fashion.

I don't know much about the medical stuff so I'll just ask at this point
1) Is it possible playing through the broken leg, with anaesthetic, was a factor in the deterioration of his kneecap, to the degree it needed replacing after his playing career?

2) Regardless of the above isn't the mere fact that his kneecap needed replacing an indication of the reasons for his fall in productivity (and which whilst clear, perhaps shouldn't be overstated he's still leading the league in PER etc) and other situations around it (he broadly managed to at least maintain his per minute productivity after that point arguably improving, but mpg clearly trending down thereafter) suggest a multi-causal phenomenon (rule change, perhaps the league getting marginally better, injuries) rather than mono-causal, rules change he's worse and that is due to those rules (I doubt that there is the information anywhere on Mikan's knees for us to know for sure their role in). I'm just not sure there's enough there for a strong conclusion. In any case I believe Mikan is the last guy left who was so dominant the changed rules to limit him, which in itself, isn't nothing.

Less of a medical question, but isn't

He didn't break it badly enough that he couldn't play. That says most of what need be said on the topic.

holding Mikan's toughness against him.

[Clyde Frazier]

Definitely curious how a wade vs. nash runoff would've turned out. Oh well.

Like I said earlier, Nash would be WAY too early...

I just hope people give Baylor/Pippen/Havlicek/Thomas some consideration... I still would like to see how Wade's career pans out... If he has some more top years left, somehow, I'd definitely feel more secure about placing him here or even higher.. Otherwise, right now, I'd probably have to put the guys just mentioned above him. Stockton/Drexler are close.

I'm actually strongly considering havlicek for #24. He really had a great career that spanned across 2 decades and he was such a versatile player who could also score with volume. Maybe someone could chime in on their thoughts about his weak efficiency? I'll have to look into it further and come to a final decision.

[Owly]

Definitely curious how a wade vs. nash runoff would've turned out. Oh well.

Like I said earlier, Nash would be WAY too early...

I just hope people give Baylor/Pippen/Havlicek/Thomas some consideration... I still would like to see how Wade's career pans out... If he has some more top years left, somehow, I'd definitely feel more secure about placing him here or even higher.. Otherwise, right now, I'd probably have to put the guys just mentioned above him. Stockton/Drexler are close.

I'm actually strongly considering havlicek for #24. He really had a great career that spanned across 2 decades and he was such a versatile player who could also score with volume. Maybe someone could chime in on their thoughts about his weak efficiency? I'll have to look into it further and come to a final decision.

My opinion is it was a systemic choice of hoisting quick shots which (if it was rationally informed) was based on (but even if not may plausibly have led to): avoiding turnovers, exhausting opponents with a quick pace (with resulting gains, I think, expected to be primarily defensive) and allowing opportunities for offensive rebounds before the defense gets set.

Theres some evidential basis for these thoughts (e.g. Heinsohn talking about playing offensive pressure basketball) but some is just a best guess as to why Boston's offense declined so in the Russell era, and in this instance why Havlicek's fg% bounced up when Russell retired.

[Basketballefan]

Definitely curious how a wade vs. nash runoff would've turned out. Oh well.

Like I said earlier, Nash would be WAY too early...

I just hope people give Baylor/Pippen/Havlicek/Thomas some consideration... I still would like to see how Wade's career pans out... If he has some more top years left, somehow, I'd definitely feel more secure about placing him here or even higher.. Otherwise, right now, I'd probably have to put the guys just mentioned above him. Stockton/Drexler are close.

I hope you are not serious about Thomas over Wade. I see no argument whatsoever.

[B_Creamy]

Uh Naismith essentially never played basketball. He was never a dominant player at any point. The problem with exaggerating to make your point is you need to have at least passing familiarity with the guy you choose to use.

Could you source such a claim as "Naismith essentially NEVER played basketball". Unlikely. But yes I'm exaggerating to get across this one point, neither Naismith nor Mikan would make it to the NBA today. Do you disagree?

[Texas Chuck]

Uh Naismith essentially never played basketball. He was never a dominant player at any point. The problem with exaggerating to make your point is you need to have at least passing familiarity with the guy you choose to use.

Could you source such a claim as "Naismith essentially NEVER played basketball". Unlikely. But yes I'm exaggerating to get across this one point, neither Naismith nor Mikan would make it to the NBA today. Do you disagree?

Sometimes you should just concede a point. He was never a basketball player. He was a physical education instructor who created the game for his students. He did coach some, and ref some, but he was never a player and certainly never a dominant one. Considering you are the only person attempting to make this claim about him you should "source it".

I think there is a decent chance Mikan could make an NBA team today. He was big and he was skilled, something that will always be in demand. Obviously he would play differently because he would have grown up with far superior coaching and training.

But beyond that I don't care. Time travel analysis isn't something that remotely interests me.

[ShaqAttack3234]

Wade. The guy won a title with an ECF and Finals that were legendary and performances worthy of being mentioned with the greats, was right in contention for another in 2011 in virtually a 1.A/1.B type situation as the leading scorer in the playoffs, won a title as a very good 2nd option, about as good as you'll see short of say '01 and '02 Kobe or '86 McHale, and may have won another in his 2nd year in 2005 when he was playing like arguably the best player in the playoffs before his injury late in the ECF. And none of those were even his best season! That would be 2009 when he had one of the best two-way and all around seasons I've seen from a guard or wing. His energy level was off the charts, he was all over the place as a help defender, and he was a scoring machine with his slashing and elite ability off the dribble as well as a jumper that was money from mid-range and decent from 3.

Generally, prime Wade's mid-range jumper was decent, though it could come and go, however, due to being one of the best slashers, great at splitting traps and a hell of a finisher, he was a dominant offensive player, especially since he was a very good playmaker, and he was generally a good help defender who could be elite at that end.

With Mikan, it's tough because of the pre-shot clock era, his short career and when he did play with the shot clock he did virtually nothing. Plus, I'm not convinced of defense from centers in the pre-Russell era.

[Sports Realist]

Definitely curious how a wade vs. nash runoff would've turned out. Oh well.

Like I said earlier, Nash would be WAY too early...

I just hope people give Baylor/Pippen/Havlicek/Thomas some consideration... I still would like to see how Wade's career pans out... If he has some more top years left, somehow, I'd definitely feel more secure about placing him here or even higher.. Otherwise, right now, I'd probably have to put the guys just mentioned above him. Stockton/Drexler are close.

I hope you are not serious about Thomas over Wade. I see no argument whatsoever.

Thought about that one for a second.. But he's ranked right there with the others usually, and deservedly so.

No time right now, but perhaps could go into closer detail later on.

[Sports Realist]

Wade. The guy won a title with an ECF and Finals that were legendary and performances worthy of being mentioned with the greats, was right in contention for another in 2011 in virtually a 1.A/1.B type situation as the leading scorer in the playoffs, won a title as a very good 2nd option, about as good as you'll see short of say '01 and '02 Kobe or '86 McHale, and may have won another in his 2nd year in 2005 when he was playing like arguably the best player in the playoffs before his injury late in the ECF. And none of those were even his best season! That would be 2009 when he had one of the best two-way and all around seasons I've seen from a guard or wing. His energy level was off the charts, he was all over the place as a help defender, and he was a scoring machine with his slashing and elite ability off the dribble as well as a jumper that was money from mid-range and decent from 3.

Generally, prime Wade's mid-range jumper was decent, though it could come and go, however, due to being one of the best slashers, great at splitting traps and a hell of a finisher, he was a dominant offensive player, especially since he was a very good playmaker, and he was generally a good help defender who could be elite at that end.

With Mikan, it's tough because of the pre-shot clock era, his short career and when he did play with the shot clock he did virtually nothing. Plus, I'm not convinced of defense from centers in the pre-Russell era.

2012? Besides a 3-game span that's bull, tbh... Unless you're not counting various runs because you see them as 1A/1B.

Also, I really don't see why '02 Kobe is always mentioned in the same breath as '01 Kobe... 01 Kobe was the GOAT 2nd option, while I see '02 Kobe's overall impact/value/contributions as not far different of '00 Kobe.

Btw, good to see you more often on here (As I'm browing myself through some nice threads) since you kind of abandoned ISH... Which I can't blame you for. HUGE trollfest. **** posters everywhere, and Jeff sucks as admin tbh. He could clean the place up but he doesn't.

[john248]

Looks like Wade here. I like the Mikan talk. Makes me wonder when he will get in.

[Moonbeam]

Meantime, other major indicators of his ability to exert his will on the court like rebounding stayed the same. Games played stayed similar. He even got close to 40% again with a 39.9% in 52-53, but we see his volume and efficiency in general decline from that point forward, and it seems really poor focus to shift the blame from a major rule change that fundamentally affected the way he had to play the game and to a bone injury that isn't really described as a grotesquely crippling thing or atypical in any major fashion.

Sorry, I wasn't meaning to totally attribute Mikan's decline to an injury - I was just curious as to whether the injury could have played a factor.

[RayBan-Sematra]

Probably gonna vote for Wade here.
Before the project I had him mentally slotted in my Top 20.
Not sure if I even wanted him to fall this low but upon review may be that I overrated his career.

Anyway Wade is an awesome player.
Started in 04 where he had an impressive (arguably All-Star level) showing in the playoffs.
Then he exploded in 05 and if not for unfortunate injuries to both him and O'neal he would have had a strong chance at a Championship.
Then he had 06 where he roasted everyone in the playoffs and had an epic Finals performance.
Then there is 09 where he may have had the best regular-season ever for a SG not named Jordan.
Then there is 2010 where he had another very good regular-season followed by a legendary playoff series VS Boston who were effective that year at nerfing both LBJ & Kobe (but they couldn't contain Wade).
2011 is another solid year. His numbers were down due to co-existing with Lebron but he was still a beast. May have won FMVP that year if Lebron had performed slightly better.
Then there is 2012. Solid All-Star level year. Comparable to a 2002 Kobe.

So while Wade lacks longevitiy he still had a couple of really high Super-Star level years (06, 09, 10, 11) to go with 2-3 other All-Star level years (04, 05, 12).

Really a shame that he lost 2007-2008 to injuries.

Here is my post from page 5.
Basically my reasoning for why Wade is deserving of this spot.

VOTE : Wade

[penbeast0]

Looks like DWYANE WADE has this one

[Doctor MJ]

Definitely curious how a wade vs. nash runoff would've turned out. Oh well.

Like I said earlier, Nash would be WAY too early...

Still waiting on you explaining why that would be.

[tsherkin]

I don't know much about the medical stuff so I'll just ask at this point
1) Is it possible playing through the broken leg, with anaesthetic, was a factor in the deterioration of his kneecap, to the degree it needed replacing after his playing career?

I doubt it. His diabetes, if it was manifesting that early, maybe. The bone injury, stabilized, probably wasn't killing his knee cap too badly. If anything, it would have caused major wear on his ligaments, but not so much on his patella.

2) Regardless of the above isn't the mere fact that his kneecap needed replacing an indication of the reasons for his fall in productivity (and which whilst clear, perhaps shouldn't be overstated he's still leading the league in PER etc)

Not really. There were too many other areas of success involved where he was able to maintain. He was able to rebound at a top level, but scoring? He was pretty bad by modern standards finishing from as close as he was shooting to begin with, so the 3-5% drop he experienced once they started timing possessions and forcing him twice as far from the rim as he was to begin with shouldn't really be that much of a surprise.

I mean, I'm sure it wasn't great for him, but a broken leg is an injury from which you expect a full recovery, and that's not something that 60 years should really have changed that much... even playing through it. Again, he had trouble rebounding in the Royals series, he had trouble running, staying on the court, etc, etc. He did not exhibit those same issues in the following seasons.

Now, I can believe in the notion that the sundry injuries he'd accrued over his career and the weaker equipment, training, funding and medicine all contributed to his longevity being terrible compared to a modern player.

I do not opine that he would be an especially good player in the modern NBA, though.

In any case I believe Mikan is the last guy left who was so dominant the changed rules to limit him, which in itself, isn't nothing.

Given the protoform nature of the league, I don't really agree there. I think that the game was so close to its basic invention that there were inevitably going to be a lot of changes from basic tactical and physical differences. He was so, so early into the game and with such weak competition that it's really hard to make effective analysis of his value. I mean, I suppose i shouldn't dismiss it so casually, but I think it's fundamentally apparent that he's not one of the 100 best players in NBA history (or even arguably in the league today, for that matter), so we have to really ramp up our weighting of his in-era results in that proto-form, smaller league with less legitimate tactical understanding of the sport and significant rules differences, which I'm not willing to do.

Less of a medical question, but isn't

He didn't break it badly enough that he couldn't play. That says most of what need be said on the topic.

holding Mikan's toughness against him.

Not really. If he properly broke the hell out of it, he'd be physically incapable of supporting weight on the leg, so he wouldn't be able to play regardless of toughness, which was my point.

[Sports Realist]

Definitely curious how a wade vs. nash runoff would've turned out. Oh well.

Like I said earlier, Nash would be WAY too early...

Still waiting on you explaining why that would be.

Nash is one of my favorite players, I actually thought top 30 is already fairly high for him... And I just checked quite a lot of rankings, it is... He's usually in the 40's.

His defense is kind of a negative, on offense he's one of the deadliest shooters and best playmakers ever.


I actually praised him here earlier:

"One of the best offensive playmakers/PG's ever, and during his MVP winning / peak years, had some of the best seasons of any PG ever. A member of the elite 50/40/90 club, certifying himself as one of the greatest shooters ever. Nash also had tremendous impact on a Phoenix Suns team, leading to his MVP's..
Nash would fit on most teams, he's an easy character, unselfish, a great leader and teammate, stuff you want to be, players you want to be surrounded with..."

But I still consider scoring the most important aspect of basketball... An alpha scoring type is the biggest think to look for in your leader, and the trademark of a franchise player. That's the guys I want leading my team, and that I think, ultimately, will give me the best change of winning... Which is why I have other, more dominant scorers above him. Bigger forces, or insane all-around perimeter players such as Pippen, Stockton, Havlicek... Who Nash doesn't have much of an argument over, realistically.

And the most important thing, Nash hasn't been relevant nearly as long as he would need to be to finish in the 20's... He was ELITE for a good 4-5 years... 2005-2008, 2010.

[Quotatious]

But I still consider scoring the most important aspect of basketball... An alpha scoring type is the biggest think to look for in your leader, and the trademark of a franchise player. That's the guys I want leading my team, and that I think, ultimately, will give me the best change of winning... Which is why I have other, more dominant scorers above him.

Well, to be fair, Magic Johnson also wasn't exactly an alpha scoring type, and personally, I'd rather look at Nash this way - he didn't score a ton (although in his peak seasons he came really close to Magic's prime scoring numbers), but his passing combined with his hyperefficient scoring (same as Johnson's) made him an extremely potent offensive force. I'm not making a direct comparison between Magic and Nash (Johnson is much better, I don't question that), but actually Nash could be an excellent scorer when he needed to be. He was just more of a pure point guard, like John Stockton was, as well.
As a Mavericks fan, I'm sure you remember how great Nash's scoring was in the 2005 Western conference semifinals - he averaged over 30 ppg and scored 48, 34 and 39 points in the last three games of that series.

[Doctor MJ]

Nash is one of my favorite players, I actually thought top 30 is already fairly high for him... And I just checked quite a lot of rankings, it is... He's usually in the 40's.

His defense is kind of a negative, on offense he's one of the deadliest shooters and best playmakers ever.


I actually praised him here earlier:

"One of the best offensive playmakers/PG's ever, and during his MVP winning / peak years, had some of the best seasons of any PG ever. A member of the elite 50/40/90 club, certifying himself as one of the greatest shooters ever. Nash also had tremendous impact on a Phoenix Suns team, leading to his MVP's..
Nash would fit on most teams, he's an easy character, unselfish, a great leader and teammate, stuff you want to be, players you want to be surrounded with..."

But I still consider scoring the most important aspect of basketball... An alpha scoring type is the biggest think to look for in your leader, and the trademark of a franchise player. That's the guys I want leading my team, and that I think, ultimately, will give me the best change of winning... Which is why I have other, more dominant scorers above him. Bigger forces, or insane all-around perimeter players such as Pippen, Stockton, Havlicek... Who Nash doesn't have much of an argument over, realistically.

And the most important thing, Nash hasn't been relevant nearly as long as he would need to be to finish in the 20's... He was ELITE for a good 4-5 years... 2005-2008, 2010.

Thank you for responding.

First thing I see is you saying Nash is typically in the '40s. It should be noted that he was ranked 24th on our last list. If other people list him lower, well, that just says something about different people thinking differently.

Regarding your philosophy of scoring's paramount importance, I'm glad you basically speak of it as such. You're certainly entitled to your own option and it should be based on how you see the game not on how others see it.

Now though, you've expressed confusion at how others come to their conclusions so it's worth understanding how one might come to a different conclusion:

The biggest thing to understand is that when a player scores a basket he's not creating something out of nothing. Each team gets the same number of possessions. Most of those possessions will yield shots. Many of those shots go in. Take the world's best 30 PPG scorer and remove him, the team will not get anywhere near 30 points worse. All scorers work by using opportunities that are essentially there, and thus there is a cost to that opportunity.

So from the start, this is why an inefficient scorer isn't helping his team much with his scoring. There have absolutely been times in NBA history where a guy is seen as an elite star but in reality he isn't having any net positive impact at all because of his waste.

Considering it from a perspective of optimization, we start to be able to see what situations would lead to a particular type of player being most valuable.

If a scorer is enough more talented than his opponents and teammates, the best thing to do will be to feed that scorer again and again.

This is really extreme though if we talk literally rather hyperbolically, because if the defense knows exactly what you're going to do, and what you're going to do is pass it to your star for her to score it, a smart defense will basically be able to go 5 on 1 against the star, and in any league worth anything, that's enough to stop the scorer much of the time.

Even more insidious: It's possible to pass enough that teams don't overwhelm you and kill your efficiency, and yet still get in your team's way. This is the story of Wilt Chamberlain, who I bring up in part because I saw you bring him up. Wilt Chamberlain only rose to true offensive efficacy when he stopped volume scoring. Why? Because volume scoring Wilt meant the defense could cause turnovers as the team tried to get him the ball, as he got the ball before he could shoot, and as he passed it back out in times where he was stymied, plus the passivity of his teammates led them to be less effective when they actually got a chance to make a move.

(And yeah, if you don't believe me when I talk about Wilt's efficacy, I can go into more detail, but the bottom line is that the offenses on the Wilt Warriors were typically below average. Most think of Wilt as just tearing apart a helpless opponent, but in reality they did fine.)

So yeah, balance is the name of the game, and the question is simply whether it's very important or the most important thing. And that really depends on team context.

If you're on a team where there aren't other scoring threats - or more realistically, guys who are focused on other roles like rebounding - well then you're relying on a guy who can carry the team with some imbalance.

If you've got a team that's largely full of guys who can hit a shot, then the most important job is the guy who can choose who has the best shot and get the ball to him (super bonus points if you pull a Nash and you manipulate the defense to get him open while he does nothing more than stand in place).

You're probably thinking the latter is unrealistic, but I would submit to you that the most important paradigm shift of the past decade or two is the realization that it's not hard to hit a 3 if you're open. Almost any perimeter player good enough to make the NBA can hit it at high percentage with a bit of practice. With this realization, volume scoring has become less valuable while passing has become more important.

Last with all of this you're probably thinking, "Yeah but sometimes you just need a guy who can recognize when he owns the other team and explode, and sometimes you need a guy to just create something by himself." And you'd be right, but your mistake would be in assuming that you can tell whether a guy can do this based on his PPG. Nash was excellent at both these things.

Regarding longevity, know that Nash had huge impact from '05 to '12, and he was an all-NBA level player in the years before that. That doesn't make his longevity perfect, but it makes it actually pretty good.