RealGM 2023 Top 100 Project - #16 (George Mikan)

[One_and_Done]

From 1974-76 the Spurs won 45, 51 and 50 games, with an SRS of 0.74, 3.89 and 3.82 respectively.

From 1977-79 the Spurs won 44, 52 and 48 games, with an SRS of 0.53, 3.20 and 4.97 respectively.

That’s close to identical. The only difference is when the Spurs played post-merger, they did it without the benefit of their star all-nba guard James Silas. In 1977 Silas was injured and was never the same. From 77-79 he played 22, 37 and 79 games, and was so reduced in terms of his impact in the first 2 years he might as well have been their 10th man. It suggests the Spurs would have been even better in the NBA if they could have brought the healthy team over.

The Nuggers are a similar story. They went from 60 wins in 1976 to 50 in 1977, despite losing 5 time all-star Ralph Simpson. Their SRS only dropped half a point too, suggesting the team really wasn’t much different.

Those were the two teams who remained vaguely the same when they transitioned to the NBA. If the Nets had been allowed to as well, they’d likely have been every bit the contender/title team they were. Unfortunately Erving got dumped into a crappy situation, and when the Sixers finally got religion he got hurt and lost some of his top end value (while still remaining an MVP candidate, and even winning one).

Dr J had the tools and ability to do things a lot of the guys voted in already simply couldn’t do. He’d have dominated guys like Mikan and Oscar so much it wouldn’t have been funny. If he’d played in the NBA all-along, there’d be no debate at all who was better between him, Oscar and West.

[ShaqAttac]

VOTING POST
MIKAN

I wanna vote MIKAN for 2 but imma keep my vote in case i need to use it for bron.

This is also p simple. He was waay better than everyone else in a waay no one else was, was the best on o and d, and won 7 rings.

ik we dont got data, but he won the 2nd most and he was way better than every1 else. Seems like a simple 2 to me.

Hope that was good!

Alt:
DIRK


Nominating

Jokic

[therealbig3]

I think I agree with this being the Dr. J vs Dirk round, given that I think the ABA was comparable to the NBA at the time Dr. J was clearly the best player in the league. I think his dropoff statistically immediately upon transitioning was due to injury. After that, you can see his scoring bump back up, and before Moses joins the team, Dr. J leads the Sixers to multiple Finals and wins an MVP. Then transitions to 2nd option and helps the Sixers win the title in 83 in most impressive fashion. Moses gets a ton of credit, but Dr. J was still one of the best players in the league and had just led the Sixers to 2 Finals and a 7 game ECF in the previous 3 years. I have no doubt he'd have won multiple MVPs, possibly multiple titles, and would have been the consensus 2nd best player of the 70s (if he isn't already) behind Kareem, if he played in the NBA from the start. Unfortunately, the ABA gets docked unfairly, just because it wasn't the NBA, even though I think the top end talent was comparable. There's a strong case for Dr. J to be ranked as an upgrade to West and Oscar honestly, since you could say he was closer to the best player of his generation (Kareem) than they were to theirs (Russell/Wilt). Depends how you view the ABA, and how you view just how much of a gap there was between Dr. J and Kareem at the time. In terms of era translatability, Dr. J proved he was extremely capable of being both a 1st option or a 2nd option for a title winning team. Albeit, this was either pre-3pt line or just after it was implemented. He wasn't really known as an outside shooter, and I don't really know how he would translate to a more perimeter-oriented league. But we saw a guy like Wade have some straight up dominant seasons despite not having much more than a solid midrange jumper in terms of his shooting, but paired with ridiculous quickness and agility and body control, not unlike Dr. J, so I think Dr. J could have done similar if he grew up in a more modern league and still played relatively the same style.

Dirk to me is maybe the most underrated player of his generation. As we discussed in previous threads comparing him to Kobe...impact data throughout the 2000s actually pegs them as similar level players. I think Dirk had some issues earlier in his career when it came to playoff resilience, but much of that was probably due to roster construction and coaching, although I do think adding some strength and a dominant mid-post game made him much harder to guard in the latter half of the decade. The other big knock on Dirk is his defense, as he was obviously not a great defensive player, despite playing PF, which tends to limit the roster you can put around him. But to his credit, I don't think he was the liability that people make him out to be, I actually think he was an intelligent player defensively, with great hands and acted as a decent rim protector and overall deterrent. In his younger days, pretty mobile as well. And probably his biggest strength...his defensive rebounding. He was elite at it, especially in the playoffs, which is extremely important for any team defense, so he was a solid plus there. I think you're getting one of the best offensive anchors of all time and a decent defender for 11 prime years with Dirk. With impact data that confirms basically everything that we saw first hand. It's easier to quantify his impact than Dr. J's, for those with a more modernist viewpoint, so having more confidence in his "goodness" is also easier. Contemporaries of Dirk that were clearly better: Shaq, Duncan, KG, and LeBron. Contemporaries that were more or less just as good with a strong argument to be made for Dirk: Kobe, Wade, Nash, and Paul. Shaq, Duncan, KG, and LeBron were all voted in long ago, Kobe just got voted in a few threads ago, and Wade/Nash/Paul would also be talked about right now if it wasn't for their poor longevity.

Briefly on K. Malone and D-Rob: imo, D-Rob's playoff effectiveness is a perfectly fair concern, given the clear offensive dropoff and just how dominant of a defensive anchor he still was. On top of the poor longevity relatively speaking, we have a dominant RS performer who just may not have had the game to translate into being a reliable anchor for a championship level team come playoff time. Hard for me to take him over guys more proven in that role like Dr. J and Dirk. K. Malone also has similar questions about his playoff resilience (although probably better than D-Rob as an offensive player), and he was never a defensive anchor in the first place (so I don't think his overall defensive impact was honestly much higher than Dr. J's or Dirk's, especially given Dirk's defensive rebounding and size...Dr. J was by all accounts and film study, an excellent defender at the wing position, who could rebound, protect the rim, play the passing lanes, and play strong man defense). His longevity is the best out of any superstar ever outside of LeBron, but I don't think he was as good of a player individually as the other two, who themselves have excellent longevity as superstars and imo, clearly peaked higher, particularly in the playoffs.

As for Mikan, really depends on your criteria and how much value you're placing on his accomplishments and in-era impact. I personally wouldn't rank him in my top 100, but that's just based on how I view things. He's absolutely a reasonable choice here if you're someone that values his in-era contributions highly.

EDIT: stupid me, didn't realize Dr. J wasn't nominated yet. In which case, this would be a Dirk vs K. Malone round as the top 2 contenders imo, and I've explained above why I would take Dirk. Durant being nominated before Dr. J is a bit surprising, honestly.

[One_and_Done]

Except D.Rob is the runaway favourite this round. I'd definitely have had Dr J in the pool already, but we gave those spots to old timers like West and Mikan who he'd clearly have outplayed in either today's league or bygone eras.

[OldSchoolNoBull]

Except D.Rob is the runaway favourite this round. I'd definitely have had Dr J in the pool already, but we gave those spots to old timers like West and Mikan who he'd clearly have outplayed in either today's league or bygone eras.

D-Rob and Mikan are tied 5-5 with preferences at the moment.

[One_and_Done]

I counted about 10 D.Rob votes last round after preferences.

[One_and_Done]

This spot is really a Dirk vs Robinson, heavy weight duel. While many comparisons favor one or the other [David Robinson's Box-Score composites place him firmly in the Top 10, for example], I would instead like to focus more on Playoff Scoring Resiliency.

For Playoff Scoring Resiliency, The Great Ty 4191 along with 70sFan have compiled most of this information.

David Robinson (1990-98):

RS: 37.4 mpg, 11.6 rpg,3.0 apg, 2.9 tov, 25.1 ppg on 52.4% FG, 74.5% FT and 59.1% TS (+5.61% rTS)
Against Bad Defenses (12.90% of playoffs games): 38.8 mpg, 12.7 rpg, 2.5 apg, 3.1 tov, 27.9 ppg on 60.6% FG, 85.1% FT and 67.8% TS (13.96% rTS)
Against Average Defenses (56.54% of playoffs games): 39.4 mpg, 11.6 rpg, 2.8 apg, 3.1 tov, 23.6 ppg on 46.4% FG, 71.8% FT, 53.8% TS (-0.04% rTS)
Against Good Defenses (30.65% of playoffs games): 39.4 mpg, 12.8 rpg, 3.3 apg, 2.4 tov, 21.0 ppg on 45.9% FG, 64.8% FT and 51.7% TS (-1.54% rTS)
Against Elite Defenses (0.00% of playoffs games): --
Against All-Time Great Defenses (0.00% of playoffs games): --

The first thing that comes to mind is Robinson crushed bad defense and struggled against Average and Good Defense. The 2nd thing is he never, ever, faced Elite or ATG defenses. We can assume from this data that he would have struggled mightily, considering his struggled against Average-to-Good defenses.

Dirk Nowitzki (2001-11):

RS: 37.4 mpg, 8.8 rpg, 2.8 apg, 2.0 tov, 24.3 ppg on 47.9% FG, 38.5% 3FG, 88.2% FT and 58.6% TS (+5.43% rTS)
Against Bad Defenses (4.03% of playoffs games): 42.4 mpg, 11.8 rpg, 1.4 apg, 1.2 tov, 26.6 ppg on 45.0% FG, 46.7% 3FG, 85.7% FT and 56.1% TS (+4.53% rTS)
Against Average Defenses (48.39% of playoffs games): 41.7 mpg, 10.4 rpg, 2.7 apg, 2.5 tov, 27.4 ppg on 46.7% FG, 39.1% 3FG, 88.4% FT, 59.4% TS (+6.08% rTS)
Against Good Defenses (19.35% of playoffs games): 40.6 mpg, 9.8 rpg, 2.6 apg, 2.5 tov, 25.8 ppg on 46.8% FG, 45.9% 3FG 94.5% FT and 57.8% TS (+4.38% rTS)
Against Elite Defenses (28.23% of playoffs games): 41.1 mpg, 10.6 rpg, 2.6 apg, 2.0 tov, 23.4 ppg on 45.5% FG, 29.3% 3FG, 88.4% FT and 57.4% TS (+4.41% rTS)
Against All-Time Great Defenses (0.00% of playoffs games): --

What a resilient chart. It literally didn't matter what type of defenses Dirk faced--he fared around +4 rTS% against all defenses--Bad, Average or Elite. To tie this in, I would like to show Dirk's Regular Season, On-Court Ortg over this span.

https://ibb.co/1vDV2zw

What you can see is Dirk's Regression line is perfectly linear--regardless of the defense faced, teammates, coaches, ect. This very well could be the most resilient scorer in NBA history. This has resulted in Great Offenses countless times over an 11-year sample.

I just can't justify a player like Robinson, playing in the 1990s and being less resilient than guys like KG, Hakeem and Ewing, to be ahead of Dirk.

1. Dirk Nowitzki
Nominate: Chris Paul

So your preference is D.Rob?

[penbeast0]

Vote: George Mikan

Yes, his era was weak and he probably wouldn't be Joel Embiid level in today's game. But you can only meet the challenges given to you and he is arguably the most dominant player in the history of the game. Russell type winning (for less years), Wilt/MJ type statistical dominance, Mikan is more deserving than Jerry West, who was nearly as dominant -- for a guard -- as Mikan but in an era where centers were significantly more valuable than anyone else on the floor. He's more deserving than Kobe, who was a terrific player for a long time but never really stood out from his peers to anywhere near the same degree, not as a scorer though he was playoff resilient, not as a playmaker/rebounder/defender. Mikan is the last true dominant player left and while his era was one of racism and relatively low athleticism (much of which is due to playing over boards laid over ice rinks or concrete, in canvas sneakers, with questionable understanding of training techniques), it was still NBA basketball, the best in the world.

Alternative: David Robinson I could have been swayed any of 3 different ways for this but in the end, I think Robinson's defense is top 5, probably top 3 in NBA history, and I don't think that is something that drops off in the playoffs. His playoff drop and his longevity of primacy issues are both real but as a Navy brat growing up, got to give it to the Admiral.

Nomination: Giannis.
Alternate Nomination: Jokic
Not sure these guys deserve this spot in front of guys like Frazier, Erving, or Ewing, but not sure they don't. When in doubt, I will go with the active player knowing that sometimes I don't give them enough credit for what they've done.

[ShaqAttac]

Vote: George Mikan

Yes, his era was weak and he probably wouldn't be Joel Embiid level in today's game. But you can only meet the challenges given to you and he is arguably the most dominant player in the history of the game. Russell type winning (for less years), Wilt/MJ type statistical dominance, Mikan is more deserving than Jerry West, who was nearly as dominant -- for a guard -- as Mikan but in an era where centers were significantly more valuable than anyone else on the floor. He's more deserving than Kobe, who was a terrific player for a long time but never really stood out from his peers to anywhere near the same degree, not as a scorer though he was playoff resilient, not as a playmaker/rebounder/defender. Mikan is the last true dominant player left and while his era was one of racism and relatively low athleticism (much of which is due to playing over boards laid over ice rinks or concrete, in canvas sneakers, with questionable understanding of training techniques), it was still NBA basketball, the best in the world.

Alternative: David Robinson I could have been swayed any of 3 different ways for this but in the end, I think Robinson's defense is top 5, probably top 3 in NBA history, and I don't think that is something that drops off in the playoffs. His playoff drop and his longevity of primacy issues are both real but as a Navy brat growing up, got to give it to the Admiral.

Nomination: Giannis.
Alternate Nomination: Jokic
Not sure these guys deserve this spot in front of guys like Frazier, Erving, or Ewing, but not sure they don't. When in doubt, I will go with the active player knowing that sometimes I don't give them enough credit for what they've done.

what do you mean by statistical dominance? you say russell type winning and wilt/mj type stats but russell prob won with less help than both

[One_and_Done]

Even Russell won in a better league than Mikan though.

[ShaqAttac]

Even Russell won in a better league than Mikan though.

everything i watch pre 2010 looks kind of lame compared to today. drob aint modern in some way the other guys arent.

mikan actually won stuff. drob wasnt doing anything till duncan showed up

fixed to be in sentences and proper grammar sorry

[One_and_Done]

If you don't think 1996 NBA ball looks radically different to 1950 I don't know what to tell you.

[ShaqAttac]

If you don't think 1996 NBA ball looks radically different to 1950 I don't know what to tell you.

well malone played at the same time and led teams to finals. and dirk played later and led a team to a chip.

[One_and_Done]

Yeh, but you didn't vote for them.

[Gibson22]

Voting post:
VOTE: DIRK
Alternate: drob
Nomination: erving
Alternative nomination: moses malone

I'm only considering drob dirk and malone. Clearly as far as offense: dirk (big gap) malone (very small gap) drob. Defense: drob (huge gap) malone (huge gap) dirk. longevity malone, dirk (big gap) drob). Malone is clearly the worst player if we remove longevity, and I fell like drob defensive GOATness trumps the offensive difference, dirk is imho about 10° best offensive player ever, drob was a very good offensive player but not an mvp level one. It's tough, at their best it's clearly drob, but those two both have soo much longevity over him.
I'm taking dirk because I think his trascendent offense made him a more impactful player than karl, I think he has better playoff runs and yeah, I think that if you could pick one you'd pick him, then malone has incredible longevity but dirk isn't that far ahead.

[Doctor MJ]

Except D.Rob is the runaway favourite this round. I'd definitely have had Dr J in the pool already, but we gave those spots to old timers like West and Mikan who he'd clearly have outplayed in either today's league or bygone eras.

I'm honestly confused when you group West with Mikan as "old timers" than trumpet Dr. J.

West & Dr. J were playing pro ball at the same time, so I wonder how you got the impression that it was between them that the big chasm of time existed.

[penbeast0]

Again, there's this idea that anyone that was relevant after the year 1980 is "modern" and anyone before it is "old timer" that I have seen before. There's very little statistical evidence for that being a pivotal year the way 1961 or 2015 might be but it's a theme that I've seen multiple times even if rarely labeled as such.

I think it's based on the love of Bird and Magic; if you were a rival of those two, you must be modern. If you retired too early to play them or were just a roleplayer like McAdoo during their NBA careers, you are not.

[OldSchoolNoBull]

Again, there's this idea that anyone that was relevant after the year 1980 is "modern" and anyone before it is "old timer" that I have seen before. There's very little statistical evidence for that being a pivotal year the way 1961 or 2015 might be but it's a theme that I've seen multiple times even if rarely labeled as such.

I think it's based on the love of Bird and Magic; if you were a rival of those two, you must be modern. If you retired too early to play them or were just a roleplayer like McAdoo during their NBA careers, you are not.

Not that I agree with OaD on this, but I feel like the cutoff in that conversation is more like 1976, aka the merger, aka the end of the league's biggest period of expansion. I think one of the big things that affects perception is that guys from before that may have spent a big chunk of their careers playing in a league with 8 or 9(or 11 or 12 or whatever) teams, where was guys from after played their whole careers in a full 22+ team league. Also the presence of the three point line could affect perception.

[tsherkin]

But one of the first things that pops to me ... Robinson's FT% trends worse towards better defenses in close to perfect steps. Should we not offer a neutralized version if we are trying to suggest the impact of defenses?

Is it appropriate to do that, or is that an indication of mental fortitude failing under pressure to a degree?

[trex_8063]

Transplanting a little conversation from the last thread.....

I want to provide some thoughts [for whatever they may be worth] on George Mikan's era, as it's been one of the most-featured topics in the last thread (maybe this one so far, too, idk).

Spoiler:

Opening disclaimer: I am not supporting George Mikan here. Even were we a dozen places further along I would still likely not be supporting him. Part of that is my lean toward longevity. Part of that is concerns over strength of era.

That said, I had rather hoped we were past the point [on this forum] of having to speak to the "Mikan dominated a bunch of white midgets" type of narratives [myths]. While I don't think anyone used that specific line, there have been one or two that weren't far off that sentiment: referring to everyone in the league as "plumbers", saying that Mikan ONLY dominated because "he was bigger than everyone else", and so on.

"White"......yeah, ok, more or less. The pro leagues of his time were close enough to being entirely white that to argue that one is basically splitting hairs (there were no Black players in the leagues in '50 and earlier; the NBA was about 8% black at the end of Mikan's career).

As to the height thing.....
As has already been pointed out, the average pro player in Mikan's time [at least by '52 and later] was only about 2" shorter than the average NBA player of the 21st century. Is it shorter? Yes. Is it a lot shorter? No.

And we further might speculate that Mikan (and his contemporaries) would be a pinch taller if born ~60-70 years later, most likely as result of generally better perinatal nutrition and not being exposed to as much secondhand smoke at a young age (both known to influence early growth rate). i.e. same genetic pool [of those circa-1950 players], but slightly different result [in average height], based on EXTERNAL influences that would be different in the modern era.

As evidence that there has been SOME change in men's heights:
*An American insurance study performed in 1912 (looking at the heights of male policy-holders between 1885 and 1908 [i.e. turn of the century]) found the average adult male to be 5'8.5" in shoes. I would estimate that most policy-holders surveyed were White, fwiw, though I don't know the demographic details of the study.

*Research for the Society of Actuaries published in 1959 found the average 20-29 yr old male (NOTE: these would be males born in the 1930's) to be 5'9.5" in shoes. A 1965 report by the National Center for Health Statistics more or less concurred (suggests just slightly taller), reporting the average 25-34 yr old male (AGAIN: men born in the 1930s) to be just a hair over 5'9" barefoot.
So roughly two generations later (than the first dataset), men were [on average] about 1" [or slightly more] taller.

Interestingly, from there the average height (barefoot) for young men in the U.S. hasn't really changed here in the present day. Well, that's not true: it DID go up to 5'9.75" in the early 00s, then dwindled back toward where it was in those circa-1960 studies. The trend appears to MOSTLY relate to immigration, however, and the higher proportion of Hispanic (+/- Asian) men, who tend to skew a little shorter.
The average WHITE male in the U.S. has been about 5'10" in the 21st century (with the YOUNGER grown men among them trending even a hair over). [NOTE: this data from the CDC's National Health Statistics Reports, btw]

Mikan was born in 1924: between the first dataset and the second [though closer to the 2nd], in a time where average [mostly white] males were coming to be probably just a little UNDER 5'9". Whereas nowadays they come closer to 5'10".

idk, I look at the above data, and don't necessarily think it would be cherry-picking or intellectually dishonest to suggest that Mikan---if born 60 or so years later---would have been a half-inch or so taller; and his contemporaries might have averaged 6'4.5" or 6'5", too.


None of this is Earth-shattering stuff, but----if disparaging the league/era for being short----it bears considering that heights in general have changed as a result of EXTRINSIC factors......and those same factors would affect Mikan and his peers, too.
And with this in mind, it begins to look like the height difference between then and now is not all that much. And Mikan is legit "center-sized" in either era.

Which is to say he was tall; taller than most players in the league. But he didn't TOWER over them to an unusual degree, as has arguably been implied.
Mikan had the same basic height advantage over his competition [in his own era] as guys like Alex Len, JaVale McGee, Neemias Queta, Evan Mobley, and Nick Richards have over theirs in the modern era.

And where it was stated somewhere that he "was taller than everyone else"........just as that wouldn't be a true statement for the names I listed above, it is not a true statement wrt Mikan. Even as early as '52, in a 10-team league, there were THREE players a little TALLER than George Mikan. And seven of nine opposing teams had at least one guy on their roster who was [at least] within 1" of Mikan. In '54 [in a 9-team league] there were three guys listed as taller, plus a fourth listed as the same height as Mikan that appeared [however briefly, in one case] in the league, and numerous others within 1-2" of him.

And it was [I believe] also said that his prodigious size was the "only" reason he dominated. However, that begs the question: if all it takes to dominate this era is being big, why didn't these other giants dominate? Why didn't a single one of them come even remotely close to Mikan's level of domination?

The gap between Mikan and the CLOSEST of these other 6'10+" bigs of the day [who was actually 1" taller than Mikan] was similar to the gap between........maybe Nikola Jokic and Steven Adams. Pretty big, in other words. And one other 6'10" giant appears to have washed out of that mid-50s league in the shortest span I've ever seen.
And fwiw, just to speak to the race component: there were even Black big men [each 1-2" taller than Mikan, actually] in the NBA toward the end of his career......and neither of them dominated to Mikan's degree (I speak of Ray Felix and Walter Dukes, btw).

How could this be if Mikan only dominated because he was "bigger than everyone else"? The obvious answer, of course, is that George Mikan was more than simply a big guy.

We can still be skeptical of his era without going to such hyperbolic lengths as suggesting his success is entirely explained by his size.


As to the skillsets of the time period: yeah, they appear sort of "embryonic", relatively. However, when people say "so and so [modern player] would dribble circles around them, or so and so would do this, and so and so would do that...."

No, "so and so" WOULDN'T do this and that. "So and so" would actually have skillsets somewhat similar [at least in terms of foundational technique] as everyone else: because THAT'S what he would have been taught, THAT'S the only thing he would have seen tried, THAT was conventional wisdom.
You can "time-machine" a modern player back to 1954, but what's the point of such a thought exercise? To hammer home that the game has evolved? Duh, obviously.
But that modern player wouldn't have that modern skillset that's so dazzling if he was born in 1927. Gimme a break, it's not like he invented all the things he's doing. He had visual role models for his game from the modern era, he had modern coaching/training, modern skills to improvise or improve upon, he had modern competition to temper his development, and so on.

He didn't have the embryonic starting point that the players of the early 50s had.

We [as a species] don't go from inventing the wheel to flying to the moon in one step; not in ANY field of study or practice. People build on what they know, in small increments. Baby steps, not quantum leaps.

Further, some of those "modern skills" don't even translate to that era. For instance, Steph Curry or Chris Paul, transported back [time-machine] are not going to dribble circles around everyone there in the way you might imagine......because they'll get tired of committing 12 "carries" turnovers per half, and soon adopt a style of dribbling that the rules of the time period ACTUALLY PERMIT. But I digress.....

The point I'm driving at here is two-fold:
1) George Mikan [or whoever] is not going to be the same player circa-2020 as he was circa-1950 (if he was born 60-70 years later). He'd have had far different mentoring and visual models, as well as coaching. So his game would look nowhere near as "embryonic".
How good would he be? idk, that's stupendously speculative.
But that he would be a very different player today is once again: like duh, obviously.

2) The whole era translation is not a one-way door. Older players moved forward in time probably mostly get worse in more recent eras (though there may be a few exceptions). However, modern players do NOT always get better going back.
Take Steph Curry as an example. Say he's born 1925......to name a few things: his shot mechanics are now all jacked by what was taught at the time, he can't dribble circles around everyone for reasons already stated, AND there's now no 3pt line to potentiate his value. This is before we even get to things like the quality of the shoes, the floors, the ball being used, etc.
I would say Curry gets notably worse in the league of the 1950s, actually, despite it being generally lesser competition.

It's just not as cut-n-dry as some people make it out to be. As for such and such modern big guy who people "have no doubt would dominate like Mikan" in that time period........HOW DO YOU KNOW?
How do you KNOW they wouldn't be like the Chuck Shares and Don Ottens of that time? That is: pretty good, but not dominating, and regularly having their asses handed to them by George Mikan. And maybe they'd even be worse than that.
It's far from a given to suggest that any 6'11" stiff from today would dominate back then, IF BORN BACK THEN; because we SAW other guys back then who were as big as Mikan…….and none of them approached what he was doing.

Moving forward in time, I won’t try to suggest that Mikan would for sure stay “ahead of the curve” [relative to his peers] in terms of skillset, in the same manner that he did circa-1950. It doesn’t work that way; some people sort of hit their own personal ceiling.

But nor can we just assume his skillset will max out at an infantile level relative to modern players. That’s no more fair [even less, I would say] than assuming any 6’11” guy would dominate back then (when we have SEVERAL examples where they just didn’t).

Fwiw, we’ve seen a number of guys with similar physical tools as George Mikan succeed in the modern era (including one who DOMINATES it: Nikola Jokic). But there are also guys like Jusuf Nurkic, Kevin Love, Jonas Valanciunas, the aforementioned Plumlee’s, Al Horford is only slightly more athletically inclined (though also 1-2” shorter than a modern Mikan would be).
Stephen Adams is even MORE physically limited than Mikan, imo, but has nonetheless had a nice NBA career. Other guys are pretty much no more athletic and a little shorter to boot, yet carved out nice NBA careers in the modern day (e.g. Joe Ingles and Kyle Anderson).

So we cannot pretend that the physical tools he brings to the table are inadequate to be a decent modern NBA player. They very clearly are sufficient.


And again: I say ALL of this as someone who has no intention of supporting George Mikan at this stage.


As to how much bigger the player pool is now......

I agree this is the biggest factor in assessing competitiveness. One thing I'd looked at in the past to gauge this are measures which might be suggestive of the game's popularity. Such as attendance and TV contracts.

Far from a perfect system, obviously. And I think it eventually falls apart in the David Stern era--->because he was so remarkably better about promoting and marketing his product than his predecessors, that afterwards I'm skeptical they provide a remotely accurate means of gauging global popularity/interest (if ever they did in the first place).

Anyway, for whatever it's worth, I'll provide some suggestions of the game's popularity over time.....

Here are eight early franchises, and the change in their average attendance from ‘55 to ‘67:
Nationals (Sixers) - 4,539 [in '56]; 8,224 in '67 (81.2% increase in 11 years)
Hawks - 3,588 in '55; 6,829 in '67 (increase of 90.3% in 12 years)
Celtics - 7,027 in '55; 10,409 in '67 (increase of 48.1% in 12 years)
Pistons - 3,717 in '55; 6,459 in '67 (increase 73.8% in 12 years)
Warriors - 5,878 in '55; 7,727 in '67 (increase of 31.5% in 12 years)
Lakers - 5,388 in '51; 4,494 in '56 (decrease of 16.6% in 5 years; note '56 is a mostly Mikan-less year in which they weren't very good, whereas they were a champion dynasty team in '51).
11,154 in '67 (more than double over either one of '51 or '56: a 148.2% increase from '56 (in just 11 years), 107.0% increase over their championship '51 team)
Knicks - 8,565 in '55; 11,716 in '67 (increase of 36.8%)
Royals - 2,478 in '55; 4,755 in '67 (91.9% increase in 12 years)

So on average, between the mid-50s and ‘67, live attendance increased by 70% for these franchises (the league had expanded a little, too).

While bench and lower tier players did not make a lot in Mikan’s era, the better players made a decent living from basketball. And Mikan himself did VERY well.
The top-paid player in the BAA’s inaugural season [‘47] was Tom King, who received $16,500 (adjusted for inflation, it’s the equivalent of ~$226k today). Joe Fulks made just under half that.
Mikan, in the NBL, was paid $60,000 that year (modern day equiv: ~$822k), plus incentives. So he was doing just fine.
Players actually signed to full-season contracts were making at least $5,000 in ‘47 [equivalent of about $69k today]. Some bench players may have been on more temporary contracts and earned less.

By ‘63, even the scrubs and bench warmers in the NBA made a livable wage (league minimum was the equivalent of ~$70-75k or so per year in inflation-adjusted dollars, iirc [didn’t write the exact figure]). Average player salary was a very decent/comfortable living by this point (comfortably six-figures in inflation-adjusted dollars).
It was before the ‘66 season that Wilt signed his historic $100k contract (that’s the equiv of about $943,500 today).

By ‘71, league minimum was up to $17,500 (the equivalent of $132k today); so NO ONE in the league was making a bad living at that point. The AVERAGE player salary that year was $90k (equiv of ~$690k today). Kareem [then Lew Alcindor] received $250k (equiv of almost $1.9M today).

By ‘96, the league average was up to $2.2M (equiv of nearly $4.3 in today’s dollars). Michael Jordan, for the ‘97 season had a contract worth $31.8M (that’s just over $60M in today’s dollars).

Average player salary today is around $8.8M per year.

Team Salary Caps:
‘47 - $55k (equiv of about $754k today)
‘96 - $23M (equiv of 44.8M today)
‘22 - $112M


TV contract info.....

*The NBA’s first TV contract in 1954 was purchased for $39k (about $443k in today’s dollars). The first nationally televised Finals game wasn’t until 1956.

*ABC paid [in 1964] $650k for TV rights to the NBA (that’s just over $6.4M in today’s dollars). So in a single decade, the value of a TV contract got about 14.5x bigger. ***To be fair, TV [as an institution] got much more popular in that span, and TV ownership much more common. So it’s not exactly fair to look at it by this.

*ABC paid almost $1M in 1968 (equiv of nearly $8.75M today). They then spent $3M for their contract the very next year [1969] (equiv of nearly $25M in today’s dollars). TV viewership of the NBA rose steadily between 1964 and 1970; in fact, one article indicated TV viewership in ‘67 was up 26% from what it had been in ‘66. Nielsen ratings of NBA games increased by >70% from ‘61 to ‘68 (from 4.8 to 8.2).


*In 1974, CBS paid $27M for a 3-year TV contract ($9M per year); that’s roughly $51M per year in today’s dollars (and roughly 115x what a TV contract had cost two decades earlier [though again: TV’s far more common and TV viewership far more popular in general]).

Idk…..take that info for whatever it’s worth. Not sure what to make of it, tbh.

Things have clearly expanded substantially, no question. The league itself is ~3x bigger than it was in Mikan’s time (“diluting” the talent). But yeah, there’s evidence to suggest that the player pool is perhaps 100x bigger. Maybe more.

So it was a much much smaller pond that Mikan was the big fish in.

As much as I appear to be defending Mikan in this post, that IS a valid consideration.
However, if still very very doubtful about Mikan’s ability to translate forward, I offer one last nugget to consider: if we took a big guy who is or would be legitimately good in any modern(ish) NBA setting, and placed him in the league of the early 50s, what would Mikan’s skeptics expect that modern player to do in that environment? Totally dominate those “white plumbers”, right?

So……kinda what George Mikan did, then??

You make some very good points here. First off, I found a graph which indicated that the average male height in the United States actually increased by 2 full inches from 1925 to 1980. So the thing about a guy dominating in large part (not exclusively!) due to their size at 6'10" does seem a lot less egregious at an adjusted height of 7'0" than at the actual number of 6'10". I certainly don't think we need to rank someone lower for the country as a whole having a lower average height. I also liked the way you detailed how much the game increased in popularity from the 40s/50s to the 60s/70s in terms of attendance and money.

However, I would still push back at the idea that if you take a superstar from today that they would only dominate as much as Mikan did back in the day. Here are the stats we have for Jokic and Mikan:

Jokic: 27.7 PER and .247 WS/48 (reg season), 29.0 PER and .236 WS/48 (postseason)
Mikan: 27.1 PER and .249 WS/48 (reg season), 28.5 PER and .254 WS/48 (postseason)

Those numbers look remarkably similar, don't they? Let's try a little thought experiment. Let's imagine that in today's game, you got rid of all the black players first. Then you got rid of all the players who were born overseas except for Jokic. Then you got rid of some of the remaining white players too due to the sport/league being left popular. You're left with all-NBA teams of maybe:

G Tyler Herro
G Kevin Heurter
F Donte DiVincenzo
F Duncan Robinson
C Nikola Jokic

Those are the 5 best players in the entire NBA. Do you really think that Jokic's numbers would look the same as they do now? If the toughest center he ever had to face off with was Mason Plumlee? Or would those numbers maybe get lots lots better? Like I don't have a problem with Mikan eventually getting voted in for dominating the small pool league when he's the only dominant player left. But rewarding someone more for dominating the small league than for dominating the big league the same amount statistically is just bonkers to me.

It's an interesting thought exercise you suggest here, and not without a little merit.

At any rate, I wanted to respond to only a couple of points.......

1) You want to argue Nikola Jokic would be more dominant than George Mikan circa-1950, you're not going to get any pushback from me.
Please note I had said a "big guy who is legitimately good in any modern(ish) setting".......because those were the type of fellows for whom it has been said they could destroy Mikan's era.
I was thinking of guys like Mason Plumlee (since you mentioned him), maybe Steven Adams or Jakob Poeltl. "Good" players; not all-time great players. Jokic is an all-time level talent, has all the size of Mikan combined with court vision, offensive instinct, and bball IQ that appeared unusual for one so young [as these things were apparent to a degree even in his early seasons]. He has that flare in these areas that, to a degree at least, cannot be taught. His fine motor skills [an underappreciated aspect of athleticism] must be phenomenal, too, providing him with the touch to be the greatest close-range shooter EVER (he hit 64.1% of his attempts from 3-10', with it being his MOST frequent shot range).
That type of touch/control is, to a degree, innate: not just a product of his era (obviously, given I don't know of anyone else who's even remotely approached that).

So Jokic is not the "good" player I had in mind.


2) Re: the bolded statement at the bottom.....
Maybe you weren't addressing me, and rather this was aimed at others who adhere strictly to in-era dominance. It was just confusing since it was tucked into the same paragraph that clearly is addressing ME.
So just to be absolutely clear: that statement is pushing back at something I am not saying. Note that in the second line of my post I draw special attention to the fact that I am not voting for Mikan, nor would I do so a dozen threads from now (unless the rest of the nominees were REALLY not to my liking).
And fwiw, I DON'T have him ranked ahead of Jokic anymore.

I agree there should to be an accounting or weighting of era when it comes to looking at Mikan (or ANYONE, for that matter); or at least that's what I do.
It's the degree to which he and his contemporaries are often denegrated [unfairly, imo] that I was speaking to.
But his era WAS weaker, no question, no disagreement. I just don't want to be flippant, or hyperbolic, or......"think about things easily" (e.g. watching 90 seconds of footage from 1954, then concluding "they look silly" [or whatever] without taking the time to honestly explore WHY the game looked so different).