RealGM

When I am doing all time rankings I really have no clue about what to do with the players coming before Russell.
I tend to completely raise my hands and leave the likes of Mikan, Schayes, Sharman and even Cousy and Pettit out, as if the 60s NBA was much closer to modern basketball than to the 50s.
But is this fair? Are we somehow giving a pass to guys who "look" like modern players and we can more easily imagine playing today, while assuming that the ones a few years older couldn't have made it?

Russell's teams won every game 7. If intangibles are real, Russell had them. Russell cerainly looks like he could be a defensive Center of the Camby type today. The era adjustments are so difficult that I can't tell if Russell would be the best player in the NBA today or the 70th best player in the NBA today.

For Mikan the problem is even more difficult. I think Mikan could start today at Center or power forward today. Mikan's shooting percentages were unacceptably low for the modern era. Mikan was the voulme shooting 1st option. 1st options often get poor shooting percentages from forcing up bad shots. Just having a lesser role in the offense might improve his shooting percentages. Watching and copying modern players might help Mikan with his shooting. Those hook shots that Mikan and players of his era shot were diifficult low percentage shots which is why those shots are no longer used. The reasons I think Mikan can play today is that I think he was a good athlete and I think he could rebound in the current league. If he is not a good rebounder in the modern league then maybe he can't play. He has to be a good rebounder because that is the only thing I think he might be above average at.

Maybe there are 5 more guys from Mikan's NBA that could sit on the bench for a modern NBA team. Beyond that I don't think the players from Mikan's era can make modern NBA teams.

SinceGatlingWasARookie wrote:Maybe there are 5 more guys from Mikan's NBA that could sit on the bench for a modern NBA team. Beyond that I don't think the players from Mikan's era can make modern NBA teams.

Ok, but then how many from Russell's era, who entered the league a year after Mikan retired?

Mikan I can understand as he retired before the shotclock was even implemented but the other guys you mentioned played in the 60s as well. In his second to last season, Pettit was 4th in MVP voting ahead of the likes of West, Baylor, Greer, Jones and Lucas. If you're alright with considering the latter group for your rankings, the same should go for the guys who made their debut in the 50s but played into the 60s as well.

Ryoga Hibiki wrote:

SinceGatlingWasARookie wrote:Maybe there are 5 more guys from Mikan's NBA that could sit on the bench for a modern NBA team. Beyond that I don't think the players from Mikan's era can make modern NBA teams.

Ok, but then how many from Russell's era, who entered the league a year after Mikan retired?

I think there might be 30 guys in the 1963 NBA that could play 5 minutes per game or more in the current NBA.
Like Cousy. You can not allow Cousy to shoot at all in the modern NBA becuse his shot was attrocious and I am not sure how slow Cousy might be in the modern NBA or whether he could play defense today. Cousy might not be slow, I just can't tell. He was not slow in his era. Take away Cousy's shot and maybe defenders could overplay his pass but I don't think so. Rondo was able to be effective in years when nobody respected his shot. Cousy's passing was the real deal and would translate to the modern game. Maybe I can't play Cousy more than 5 minutes a game but I can bring him in spurts to help pep up an offense.

I think Hal Greer could play. I think Sam Jones could play. Pettit can play.

Elgin Baylor needs to improve his shot selection but he can play. I see Elgin Baylor as an energizer bunny type coming off the bench.

But you are asking about 1957, the year after. Mikan retired. I think the shot clock came in 1954.

I am going to say that 15 players from the 1957 could Make an NBA team but some the younger ones may have to spend a few years in G-League first.

I think Neil Johnston and Clyde Lovellette could make an NBA team. I think Maurice Stokes could make an NBA team.

Dutchball97 wrote:Mikan I can understand as he retired before the shotclock was even implemented but the other guys you mentioned played in the 60s as well. In his second to last season, Pettit was 4th in MVP voting ahead of the likes of West, Baylor, Greer, Jones and Lucas. If you're alright with considering the latter group for your rankings, the same should go for the guys who made their debut in the 50s but played into the 60s as well.

Came in to say Petit. He and Cousy get underrated.

I don't have an issue with not ranking/listing players from the 50's, assuming it is for a thread that specifically calls for appropriate limitations (greatest players since the 60's, greatest players of the past 50 years, etc.). But it seems disingenuous to omit entire segments of players if it is for an all-time list. For me, I try to look primarily at how well someone did against their peers since they were all competing under the same rules and conditions. Then if there were strength of era considerations, make a guess as to how much to raise or lower that evaluation accordingly. And I try to avoid the science fiction stuff like how player X would have done if they had a time machine, were born on another planet, etc. I have a hard enough time just trying to evaluate how someone did in real life without having to bring science fiction into the analysis.