RealGM 2017 Top 100 List: #18

[trex_8063]

For me the longevity is a major part of why I don't think he should get top 20. If Kareem or Russell retired after 6 years, would they even make top 20 over Robinson/Barkley/Moses? So when adding in the obvious competition deduction, it seems easy to me that Mikan shouldn't get in here

Mikan had 8 good seasons. 47-54. Was the best in basketball every year and his team won the title in 7 of 8 with the lone exception coming while we had a broken leg in 1951.

If Russell played 1958-65 and everything turned out the same, I think he is still top 5. He'd have 7 rings and 5 MVPs. God enough for me to keep him 2-4.

If Kareem played from 70-77, despite only one title I think he's still top six with 5 MVPs.

Ask yourself as a fan or GM would you rather have the consensus best player in the league for 8 years and a 10-12 year prime as a top 5-10 player who was arguably the best or one of the best for a 3-5 year period?

Are we counting the NBL?

Quoted from OP of sign-up/voter panel thread:

This top 100 list is to comprise the greatest in all of BAA/NBA/ABA history (EDIT: where Mikan is concerned, you may also consider NBL as far back as '47). I am not going to stipulate a specific criteria that we all must follow. Everyone is free to be guided by their own values as to their ranking. However, the one thing I do ask [given this is to be an ALL-TIME list] is that you consider ALL players from all eras of BAA/NBA/ABA history.

[JoeMalburg]

I can support that I guess, much like including ABA. It makes Mikan's case better but concerns about the competition level must be even worse

Concerns?

I agree that it's a much smaller talent pool and that talent was spread over far too many teams until the NBA condensed down to eight in 1954. I just don't understand why holding that against a player is the most common approach. It raises a series of questions:

What could the player have done differently?

Had the player been born in a different era, is it not possible they too would improve from advancements in coaching/strategy/skill/style/equipment/training etc. and been an even greater player?

If we use this approach aren't we essentially rendering pointless everything we do in evaluating players now because the advancements in 2-3 generations time will be as significant as those over the past 2-3 generations?

If we took a player from modernity and placed them in the 1940's NBA wouldn't they too struggle for a time to adjust stylistically?

Wouldn't players in the 1950's and 60's have benefited from the higher salaries players today make?

Wouldn't they be able to take more time off, stay in better shape, travel better, buy better equipment etc? And wouldn't all that make their careers longer?

And wouldn't it be impossible for the guys in the 70's and beyond to make the money they did without those guys in the 50's and 60's and what they did?

Why do we never punish players whose careers have only continued because of modern medicine, or reward those like Earl Monroe and Gus Johnson who would have unquestionably been greater if they could have had 2015 Dr. James Andrews or the equivalent specialist operate?

Are we giving Kobe Bryant a boost in the all-time ranking because doctors today are better than they were when Elgin Baylor played?

These are my concerns Dude.

[Lou Fan]

I think we have discussed Mikan enough for this thread. I get the impression that he doesn't have enough supporters at this point to win a majority and we should discuss other contenders such as Chuck, Admiral, Wade, and Moses. We should come back to Mikan when he picks up more steam.

[Senior]

I looked at the early seasons and wanted to post some context. There's something to be said about ascendant organizations, fighting to reach stability...

So Mikan was a rookie in 1947 and part of the Chicago Gears; he held out for 19 games but played the rest of the season and the playoffs when they went 8-3 en route to the title. The Gears were exactly 17-17 the year before, and prorating that record for the first 19 games has them at 10-9, which means they went something like 16-9 with Mikan since they ended at 26-18. The Gears tried to start their own league which folded after 8 games. Mikan went to the Lakers.

With the 48 Lakers, they went 43-17 (expected W-L 51-9!!) and won the title. Entire roster was different from the Gears except Mikan. Did the same thing in 49. If we had impact stats, Mikan would probably look otherworldly.

To be honest, I'm not sure there's a real way to refute the pre-shot clock thing or the competition thing. It's almost impossible for me to even imagine the game without a shot-clock...and we know that teams slowed the game down to absurd levels to prevent Mikan from killing them. We also know that only a few players from the 50s (Cousy, Pettit, Sharman, Schayes) saw success in the 60s with superior talent...the peers that Mikan dominated so thoroughly generally couldn't cut it in the 60s. What does that leave us?

I think we have discussed Mikan enough for this thread. I get the impression that he doesn't have enough supporters at this point to win a majority and we should discuss other contenders such as Chuck, Admiral, Wade, and Moses. We should come back to Mikan when he picks up more steam.

I disagree completely - not so much on Mikan itself, but I'm interested in seeing how posters evaluate dominance in-era vs level of competition. Mikan is in a very unusual position in that his career encompasses the extremes of both sides - his era's competition was comparatively the worst in history and the game wasn't even remotely the same but he dominated his era to a degree that Russell/MJ did. That's why you have guys like penbeast, wojo, and Joe pushing him and no one else really taking him seriously as a candidate at this point - the difference in criteria and the reasoning behind them is drastically different and personally compelling for me.

[Doctor MJ]

Vote Robinson
Alt Barkley

Next few weeks I'll be traveling and so won't be as involved unfortunately. I'll give basic reasons but won't really be able to have good two way discussions.

Robinson is my clear cut pick. I said something before about all the guys clearly better than him already being in. Beast responded with Mikan.

Love beast and love that he's championing Mikan but I just don't see him on this level.

The big issue is offense. He's talked about as a 2 way star but he was inefficient even by his contemporary standards playing an offensive role that to me has proven largely ineffective even if your efficiency is solid. It takes someone really, really special to volume score from the interior effectively in the modern NBA context and Mikan ain't up to that level.

His defense was good but I just don't see him as a serious competitor to Robinson there. It takes a freak to match Robinson and I see Mikan as more of a normal person who happens to large and still in decent shape agility wise.

I'm giving my alt to Barkley so he's my vote in waiting, but I have not made up my mind. Looking forward to reading more thoughts from others.


Sent from my iPhone using RealGM Forums

[eminence]

.

I'm not sure why you're saying Mikan was inefficient by contemporary standards... Don't have NBL numbers on hand, but in BAA/NBA he was certainly efficient as a scorer by contemporary standards.

'49 - 3rd in the league in TS%, +10.8 rTS%
'50 - 4th, +7.7%
'51 - 5th, +8.1%

While leading the league in scoring all 3 years.

Not as good in later seasons (post leg injury), but still solid:

'52 - +2.1
'53 - +3.5%
'54 - +2.4%

2nd, 2nd, and then 4th in PPG.

[Dr Positivity]

I can support that I guess, much like including ABA. It makes Mikan's case better but concerns about the competition level must be even worse

Concerns?

I agree that it's a much smaller talent pool and that talent was spread over far too many teams until the NBA condensed down to eight in 1954. I just don't understand why holding that against a player is the most common approach. It raises a series of questions:

What could the player have done differently?

He could have dominated even more. I know that seems unfair but that's my take on rating Mikan vs the competition he had. Mikan's towering over his competition may be GOAT but if it is it's not by a huge margin over the impact of players like peak Jordan, Kareem, Russell vs their eras. He was definitely mortal offensively and not the best offensive player in the league for the last half of his prime with players like Cousy, Arizin before going to war, Johnston surpassing him. For me to rate Mikan on the level of those players I would have needed the gap between him and everything else to be more of a joke/alien level than it was, to dominate on a "What if Kareem or Wilt played in the late 40s and early 50s" level mockery

[mdonnelly1989]

I would like to see somebody knowledgeable enough to focus more on Moses and his impact. I believe he's underrated offensively but I also see that he's terribly inconsistent on defense. I also think his 1977 and 1978 seasons doesn't get enough credit. He has quite long prime.

VOTE: #1. Moses Malone

Moses Malone was a part of one of the greatest teams of all time, and may have at that time been more of a focal point of that team then Dr. J was. Also I heard Malone completely dominated Kareem in their head to head matchup.

VOTE #2. Admiral


One of the top 15 peaks of all time, better then Moses at their peak, but also needed the GOAT PF of all time and Coach Pop to get a ring.

What's your reasoning for these guys over Barkley? Not that i disagree, but just curious.

I had recently done a post asking if Barkley was a ball stopper. Most agreed that he was. I feel like he was a great talent a LOCK Top 4 PF of all time and for being 6'6 and grabbing 10 - 15+ rebounds a night and 20-25 ppg, I just like these guys overall resumes a bit more. In terms of peak/prime/impact and career accomplishments.

[Outside]

Sorry I missed the last thread. Will have time later tonight to put a post together.

Sent from my SM-G900V using RealGM mobile app

[2klegend]

With Dirk taken at #17, it is now between D-Rob vs Barkley. It's the battle of defense vs offense.

Highlight for D-Rob
-GOAT level floor raiser
-GOAT level defender
-Top 10 7-years sketch statistical dominant, especially in the regular season
-MVP, DPOY, 5x all NBA 1st, 2 titles

These resume are enough to put him in the top 15. In comparison with Barkley, D-Rob is closer to being the GOAT defender than it is Barkley to being closer to offensive GOAT.

1st Vote: D-Rob
2nd Vote: Barkley

[trex_8063]

Although I'm not lending him my support (by way of votes) any time soon, I wanted to present one other plug for Mikan in response to a common rhetoric: that he only dominated because he was 6'10" in a game of relative midgets at the time.

The average player height in the early 50's (when they typically listed height WITHOUT shoes) was 6'4" (rounded off to nearest inch). Average player today (when they typically list IN SHOES height, and tend to embellish that) is listed as 6'7". So the height of the average NBA player was only ~2" shorter than it is today.

Further, I want to spot-light a few individuals of similar size.....

Noble Jorgensen - 6'9", 228 lbs, was basically just a solid (mostly bench) role player.
Kleggie Hermen - 6'9", 225 lbs; ditto.
Mark Workman - 6'9", 215 lbs. Scrub, washed out of the league in less than two seasons before the shotclock.
Arnie Risen - 6'9", 200 lbs. Very good player for the time, one of the early HOF'ers, but hardly the degree of dominance that Mikan displayed.
Chuck Share - 6'11", 235 lbs. Very good role player, gave excellent per minute value in a limited minute role (and did well the first few seasons AFTER the shotclock). Obviously never came close to Mikan's level of dominance, despite being 1" taller.
Don Otten - 6'10", 240 lbs. Good, but not great player, same size as Mikan.
Herb Scherer - 6'9", 212 lbs. Total scrub who played a grand total of 32 games before washing out of the league in 1952.


Multiple other 6'8" (or even 6'9") guys could mention, and none of them had the degree of dominance that Mikan had. Clearly there was something he had which made him great, beyond just being 6'10".

[JoeMalburg]

Although I'm not lending him my support (by way of votes) any time soon, I wanted to present one other plug for Mikan in response to a common rhetoric: that he only dominated because he was 6'10" in a game of relative midgets at the time.

The average player height in the early 50's (when they typically listed height WITHOUT shoes) was 6'4" (rounded off to nearest inch). Average player today (when they typically list IN SHOES height, and tend to embellish that) is listed as 6'7". So the height of the average NBA player was only ~2" shorter than it is today.

Further, I want to spot-light a few individuals of similar size.....

Noble Jorgensen - 6'9", 228 lbs, was basically just a solid (mostly bench) role player.
Kleggie Hermen - 6'9", 225 lbs; ditto.
Mark Workman - 6'9", 215 lbs. Scrub, washed out of the league in less than two seasons before the shotclock.
Arnie Risen - 6'9", 200 lbs. Very good player for the time, one of the early HOF'ers, but hardly the degree of dominance that Mikan displayed.
Chuck Share - 6'11", 235 lbs. Very good role player, gave excellent per minute value in a limited minute role (and did well the first few seasons AFTER the shotclock). Obviously never came close to Mikan's level of dominance, despite being 1" taller.
Don Otten - 6'10", 240 lbs. Good, but not great player, same size as Mikan.
Herb Scherer - 6'9", 212 lbs. Total scrub who played a grand total of 32 games before washing out of the league in 1952.


Multiple other 6'8" (or even 6'9") guys could mention, and none of them had the degree of dominance that Mikan had. Clearly there was something he had which made him great, beyond just being 6'10".

Who wins in a seven game series with no shot clock...

Mikans 54 Lakers or Pettit's 58 Hawks?

[JoeMalburg]

I can support that I guess, much like including ABA. It makes Mikan's case better but concerns about the competition level must be even worse

Concerns?

I agree that it's a much smaller talent pool and that talent was spread over far too many teams until the NBA condensed down to eight in 1954. I just don't understand why holding that against a player is the most common approach. It raises a series of questions:

What could the player have done differently?

He could have dominated even more. I know that seems unfair but that's my take on rating Mikan vs the competition he had. Mikan's towering over his competition may be GOAT but if it is it's not by a huge margin over the impact of players like peak Jordan, Kareem, Russell vs their eras. He was definitely mortal offensively and not the best offensive player in the league for the last half of his prime with players like Cousy, Arizin before going to war, Johnston surpassing him. For me to rate Mikan on the level of those players I would have needed the gap between him and everything else to be more of a joke/alien level than it was, to dominate on a "What if Kareem or Wilt played in the late 40s and early 50s" level mockery

How about the other questions?

Do those resonate with you at all or are they easily dismissed?

[Dr Positivity]

Concerns?

I agree that it's a much smaller talent pool and that talent was spread over far too many teams until the NBA condensed down to eight in 1954. I just don't understand why holding that against a player is the most common approach. It raises a series of questions:

What could the player have done differently?

He could have dominated even more. I know that seems unfair but that's my take on rating Mikan vs the competition he had. Mikan's towering over his competition may be GOAT but if it is it's not by a huge margin over the impact of players like peak Jordan, Kareem, Russell vs their eras. He was definitely mortal offensively and not the best offensive player in the league for the last half of his prime with players like Cousy, Arizin before going to war, Johnston surpassing him. For me to rate Mikan on the level of those players I would have needed the gap between him and everything else to be more of a joke/alien level than it was, to dominate on a "What if Kareem or Wilt played in the late 40s and early 50s" level mockery

How about the other questions?

Do those resonate with you at all or are they easily dismissed?

I'm in favor of judging players accomplishment for the era they played in. The rest is too big a guessing game. However it is also fair to call one player's era as having less competition than later ones.

[JoeMalburg]

He could have dominated even more. I know that seems unfair but that's my take on rating Mikan vs the competition he had. Mikan's towering over his competition may be GOAT but if it is it's not by a huge margin over the impact of players like peak Jordan, Kareem, Russell vs their eras. He was definitely mortal offensively and not the best offensive player in the league for the last half of his prime with players like Cousy, Arizin before going to war, Johnston surpassing him. For me to rate Mikan on the level of those players I would have needed the gap between him and everything else to be more of a joke/alien level than it was, to dominate on a "What if Kareem or Wilt played in the late 40s and early 50s" level mockery

How about the other questions?

Do those resonate with you at all or are they easily dismissed?

I'm in favor of judging players accomplishment for the era they played in. The rest is too big a guessing game. However it is also fair to call one player's era as having less competition than later ones.

You seem like a very fair and thoughtful person. So I'm not calling into question the merits of your judgment. But I am asking specifically to any of those questions resonate with you?

I agree that it's fair to judge and era based on the relative talent, but I'm not sure how I can justify punishing a player for being the best among the players he had to compete with.

Again, not saying my way is right, but simply asking you, a relative stranger whose opinion I respect, what they specifically think of the questions I posed.

[Dr Positivity]

How about the other questions?

Do those resonate with you at all or are they easily dismissed?

I'm in favor of judging players accomplishment for the era they played in. The rest is too big a guessing game. However it is also fair to call one player's era as having less competition than later ones.

You seem like a very fair and thoughtful person. So I'm not calling into question the merits of your judgment. But I am asking specifically to any of those questions resonate with you?

I agree that it's fair to judge and era based on the relative talent, but I'm not sure how I can justify punishing a player for being the best among the players he had to compete with.

Again, not saying my way is right, but simply asking you, a relative stranger whose opinion I respect, what they specifically think of the questions I posed.

I agree with you that improvements in medicine/training, technology, travel etc. make a massive difference in the career of modern players compared to past ones and a player like Kobe had an advantage over someone's career affected by health like Baylor for this reason. However the competition is upgraded as well which in turn levels the playing field. 2017 players have a lot of advantages to improve their game but so do their opponents or competition for best player in the league. In general it is a good idea to rate players vs the era they played in since it's all they could control and you don't have to guess like "BIll Russell would play like _________ in 2016" without taking into account all the context that could potentially change his game along the way

That doesn't necessarily mean though that Mikan dominating late 40s/early 50s should be as valued as dominating every other era. There is a middle ground between trying to judge players vs their era, but also understanding why Mikan should be deducted for playing against white guys

[trex_8063]

David Robinson, to me, is arguably the 2nd greatest defensive center/player of all-time. Add to that, he's a damn capable offensive player. He couldn't maintain production on a consistent basis in the playoffs, though that was when having asked of him a role he wasn't really suited to (that is: being a 27-30 ppg first option scorer). That said, he did an OK job of being just that during the rs; let's not overlook, for example that this is a guy that once won a scoring title.

He was absolutely one of the most dominant rs players ever to lace up. Looking at his 3-year peak----we do [courtesy of colts18] have RAPM (NPI, rs only) of '94-'96---we see that his statistical dominance absolutely correlates to huge impact (as if looking at the '89 and '97 Spurs, and WOWY records wasn't proof enough):
*In '94 he has the league-leading rs RAPM by a handy margin at +7.31 (2nd place is +5.44). This is over peak-level Hakeem Olajuwon, too (+5.10).
**In '95 he again has league-leading rs RAPM by a handy margin at +7.42, over 2nd place Shaquille O'Neal (+5.80).
***In '96 he has the 2nd-best rs RAPM (at +5.89) behind only a prime Michael Jordan (+6.67), and is +0.63 to the 3rd-best (peak Penny Hardaway).
^^^^Considering the names involved, this is no small achievement, imo.

His post-injury/prime RAPM's later in his career show he was important pretty much to the end of his career, too.
Had some stuff regarding the '95 series against Houston, but meh.....

Anyway, he's solidly my pick here. Not sure on my 2nd pick, but it's largely between Moses and Charles. I need to get that sorted out before the next thread.

1st vote: David Robinson
2nd vote: Moses Malone or Charles Barkley (don't think it will matter what my 2nd pick is)

[trex_8063]

It doesn't matter so much for this thread, but for the next one I'm going to need to decide on a hierarchy between Charles Barkley and Moses Malone.

This is one I've flip-flopped on for years, I never land on an order that feels final to me. It fairly literally feels like a coin-flip. So here is one where I am truly looking for some guidance or inspiration. Can anyone provide an argument for one over the other that will more solidly convince me of an appropriate relation between these two?

[JordansBulls]

1st Vote: Moses Malone (we are talking about a guy dominated head to head vs Kareem,

Spoiler:

http://www.basketball-reference.com/play-index/h2h_finder.cgi?request=1&player_id1_hint=Moses+Malone&player_id1_select=Moses+Malone&player_id1=malonmo01&idx=players&player_id2_hint=Kareem+Abdul-Jabbar&player_id2_select=Kareem+Abdul-Jabbar&player_id2=abdulka01&idx=players

He won 3 league MVP's (including back to back in a league with Kareem, Magic, Bird, Dr J), 1 Finals MVP and was an all time dominant rebounder.

2nd Vote: Dwyane Wade

[penbeast0]

It doesn't matter so much for this thread, but for the next one I'm going to need to decide on a hierarchy between Charles Barkley and Moses Malone.

This is one I've flip-flopped on for years, I never land on an order that feels final to me. It fairly literally feels like a coin-flip. So here is one where I am truly looking for some guidance or inspiration. Can anyone provide an argument for one over the other that will more solidly convince me of an appropriate relation between these two?

You have the talent to be a marginal playoff team for the duration of their careers with some slender F/C defensive specialists, wings who can shoot from outside, and a playmaking PG. Which of these guys wins you the most titles if you have them for their career?

Barkley will give you better numbers but his defense is frequently bad and his antics a distraction; Malone will give you more effort and defense but poor passing out of the post. I agree it's close. I tend to go Moses because when he was at his peak, he was better than anything Barkley ever did but Barkley gives you more years of good playoffs.