RealGM 2023 Top 100 Project - #15 (Oscar Robertson)

[70sFan]

Mikan has no longevity. Because they didn't record minutes for some of his seasons it's hard to capture how little longevity he had, but let me take a crack this way. From 2001 to 2005 McGrady took about as many shots as Mikan did over his whole career... and T-Mac only played 74 games a year in that span.

1. That's incorrect, 2001-05 McGrady took less shots than Mikan in his career.

2. That's strange way to make a comparison, you are taking one of the highest volume scorers in the league history at his peak to compare Mikan to.

3. You don't take into account shorter seasons and much slower pace of the early 1950s.

4. Of course you don't include anything that isn't on Mikan's Basketball-Reference page, which is incorrect because the project takes into account seasons from 1947.

5. Mikan's prime is built from 8 seasons, 483 RS games and 88 PS games. In comparison, Giannis in 2017-23 period posted 481 RS games and 73 PS games. So no, Giannis doesn't have a better longevity than Mikan.

[One_and_Done]

I said 'about as many', not 'as many'. It's 8783 vs 8349. Basically a wash, especially when 375 of Mikan's shots come from his irrelevant final season as a role player. Nor is T-Mac 01-05 some kind of crazy outlier. I could have found tonnes of guys who took more FGs in a 5 year stretch.

Giannis does have more longevity because Giannis pre 17 minutes are not irrelevant. Giannis already has 6000 more points than Mikan. He has more accumulated value, and did it in a real league. I can't even imagine what a credible pro-Mikan argument would be.

I don't care that Mikan played less games because of the mickey mouse league he was in. You only get credit for games you actually played. For all we know Mikan would break down if he played more.

[70sFan]

I said 'about as many', not 'as many'. It's 8783 vs 8349. Basically a wash, especially when 375 of Mikan's shots come from his irrelevant final season as a role player. Nor is T-Mac 01-05 some kind of crazy outlier. I could have found tonnes of guys who took more FGs in a 5 year stretch.

You, again, exclude two seasons sample.

Giannis does have more longevity because Giannis pre 17 minutes are not irrelevant. Giannis already has 6000 more points than Mikan. He has more accumulated value, and did it in a real league. I can't even imagine what a credible pro-Mikan argument would be.

1. I don't understand why points scored is a measure of longevity across years. Mikan played in a time which much slower pace, less RS games and shorter postseasons.
2. You again exclude two prime Mikan seasons.
3. Mikan played in a "real league". The league was real and was professional during Mikan's prime. Stop using inappropriate language in serious discussion.

[One_and_Done]

Mikan can't get credit for minutes he never played. Also I don't think much of the league he was in, and nor do most people either.

Giannis has more career value already by far even if we took Mikan's league vaguely seriously.

[70sFan]

Mikan can't get credit for minutes he never played. Also I don't think much of the league he was in, and nor do most people either.

Giannis has more career value already by far even if we took Mikan's league vaguely seriously.

What do you mean? That Mikan didn't play minutes in 1947-51 period, because they weren't tracked? What are you talking about?

Mikan had 8 full years prime at the highest level possible at that time (along with one post prime year). If you go era-relative, then Giannis doesn't have more career value than him.

[One_and_Done]

Even granting him 1947 & 48, he'd still have fewer points than Giannis.

[70sFan]

Even granting him 1947 & 48, he'd still have fewer points than Giannis.

Still waiting for the explanation why you use points as the indicator of longevity, without taking into account massive pace difference (Mikan literally played without shotclock for his whole prime).

Do you think Carmelo has elite longevity?

[One_and_Done]

We don't have minutes available for all Mikan's seasons, so points is a useful proxy. If you want to say Mikan would have scored more with a higher pace you can, but I think it's moot because in a faster paced modern league Mikan would have scored way less because he wouldn't even make it onto the roster.

There is no intelligent way to discuss Mikan without talking about the quality of the league he played in. I would not count any of Mikan's years, because none of the guys playing back then would make it into the league today.

[70sFan]

Yeah, nobody asks you to vote for Mikan. You don't need to remind everyone that Mikan played in the 1950s either. Just accept the fact that other voters have different criteria than you, instead of manipulating in order to make people change your mind.

[One_and_Done]

Pointing out that even Giannis, with weak longevity, has substantially more points than Mikan, is pretty relevant and telling.

People will make their own mind up.

[penbeast0]

Not sure points are a particularly good measure, especially of today's players v. older players when the environment for scorers mean that scoring, particularly for stars, is easier than it has been at any time in NBA history.

[70sFan]

Pointing out that even Giannis, with weak longevity, has substantially more points than Mikan, is pretty relevant and telling.

People will make their own mind up.

Giannis also has more points than Russell, does he have better longevity than him as well?

[One_and_Done]

I mean I'd rank Giannis over Russell so you kinda walked into that one.

[70sFan]

I mean I'd rank Giannis over Russell so you kinda walked into that one.

I know you would, that's obvious. You didn't address the question though.

[One_and_Done]

Russell isn't a scorer, and we have minutes to go off with Russell. With Mikan we're grasping a little in that regard, hence looking at other proxy numbers to equate with minutes in an incomplete way. Of course I'm humouring Mikan by doing that thought experiment as you know, because 0% of his minutes matter IMO.

[Doctor MJ]

Like idk man if we’re knocking some guys like wilt for example, with clashing with coaches and general off the court stuff


Like damn bro I get it didn’t effect the team but her age was legit on a clock that’s nasty

I would say that there's a clear distinction here:

We are not ranking the best people. We're ranking careers in basketball.

If one believes that the only thing really relevant in ranking basketball players is what happens on the court, that's a perfectly reasonable stance.

But a player's off-court behavior can affect a player's career, and when it does, I find it hard to justify ignoring it.

Last note: I think it's reasonable to talk this through a bit further, but please don't make this about Malone's sexual behavior thread after thread.

I think for those who like to think predictively, it's pretty optimistic to think that sort of decision-making doesn't have a decent chance of causing problems in a lockeroom setting.

There's truth in that certainly, but I do think it's important to separate the reprehensible-ness of the action from the actual likely impact on the team.

Athletes committing sexual assault is something of an age-old true, and there's certainly far more instances like this than we're even aware of.

[Doctor MJ]

Re: Mikan longevity. I personally can't imagine knocking him relative to guys who have had great runs in their 30s given that Mikan was still leading his teams to championships at age 29.

As I've said, I'm not advocating for Mikan, and longevity is part of the issue, but this isn't a Bill Walton situation.

EDIT: Dumb mistake on my part. Meant to say that I can't imagine knocking his longevity relative to guys who have NOT had great runs in their 30s - such as current 20-somethings.

[iggymcfrack]

Re: Mikan longevity. I personally can't imagine knocking him relative to guys who have had great runs in their 30s given that Mikan was still leading his teams to championships at age 29.

As I've said, I'm not advocating for Mikan, and longevity is part of the issue, but this isn't a Bill Walton situation.

I mean, he dominated heavily from age 24-26 with the 6 foot key, dominated less at age 27-29 with the 12 foot key, and then couldn't compete at anything close to an elite level at age 31. Why wouldn't we knock him for longevity? Why would he get more of a pass when he's already proven that he couldn't do it in his 30s as opposed to Jokic and Giannis who probably will continue to have great seasons as they get older? This thing where we act like the young guys who are in the heart of their prime should get hammered for "longevity" even though we know they have great seasons in front of them while guys with finished, abbreviated careers get more credit is just bizarre to me. I don't see how Mikan could even get nominated before Jokic gets voted in, but we're doing it in the reverse order for some reason.

[lessthanjake]

My take on the Karl Malone thing:

1. It happened before he was in the NBA and we don’t have any indication it had any effect on his NBA team at all.

2. He was obviously in violation of Louisiana law. Louisiana Revised Statutes 14:80 makes it a crime for someone who is 17 years or older to have sex with someone who is 13-16 years old when the age gap is at least 4 years and the two are not married. That would fit the bill here. And the statute explicitly states that “Lack of knowledge of the juvenile's age shall not be a defense,” so it would be a crime even if he did not know she was underaged (this is what’s called a “strict liability” offense). He is lucky to have not been charged (my guess is that the family did not go to the police), because he was straightforwardly guilty of a serious offense.

3. For me, I’m inclined to *definitely* think worse of Malone as a person as a result of this, but also to think it probably had no effect on his NBA team. So then the question that follows from that is whether this should affect his ranking here. For me, it doesn’t, in part because I don’t think this project is some high-profile thing that would materially aggrandize Malone. Basically, I don’t feel like voting for Malone is rewarding a criminal in any meaningful/concerning way (or that not voting for him would punish him in any meaningful way) since I don’t think Malone or his victim will ever come across this. So, for me (I can certainly understand if others disagree), I don’t see a need to take a moral stand here and don’t think there’s any good reason to think it actually had a tangible basketball effect.

[70sFan]

Re: Mikan longevity. I personally can't imagine knocking him relative to guys who have had great runs in their 30s given that Mikan was still leading his teams to championships at age 29.

As I've said, I'm not advocating for Mikan, and longevity is part of the issue, but this isn't a Bill Walton situation.

I mean, he dominated heavily from age 24-26 with the 6 foot key, dominated less at age 27-29 with the 12 foot key, and then couldn't compete at anything close to an elite level at age 31. Why wouldn't we knock him for longevity? Why would he get more of a pass when he's already proven that he couldn't do it in his 30s as opposed to Jokic and Giannis who probably will continue to have great seasons as they get older? This thing where we act like the young guys who are in the heart of their prime should get hammered for "longevity" even though we know they have great seasons in front of them while guys with finished, abbreviated careers get more credit is just bizarre to me. I don't see how Mikan could even get nominated before Jokic gets voted in, but we're doing it in the reverse order for some reason.

People vote for Mikan, because he still has better longevity than Jokic and because he arguably peaked higher than Jokic. It's that simple, when Jokic adds another 3-4 seasons, he will surpass Mikan by career value.

I seriously don't understand why people have such a problem with that. Don't like Mikan resume and career? Don't vote for him, but stop trying to prove everyone else is wrong.