RealGM

So in the lead up to the Top 100 project that I expect is coming up after the playoffs, I'm going to go through analyze players first by era.

Back in 2020, penbeast ran a project where we picked a Hall of Fame based on when a guy stopped playing beginning with a class of 1960, then 1965, 1970, and so forth. I'm going to go in the same direction.

I figure early on there may not be much interest in this because most of these guys won't get serious consideration for Top 100, but in some ways, that just makes it more potentially novel for those who haven't spent a lot of time thinking about guys from the deeper past.

Here is the [url=original 1960 thread]original 1960 thread[/url].

And here's a spreadsheet that includes a bunch of breakdowns of the guys consider with "Inductees" being the guys who actually made it in in any given class.

In this first post, I'm just going to list the players who received votes by birth year followed by alphabetic, along with the absolute basics of each, as well as 3 other guys who strike me as significant as I look back on things presently:

Bob Davies (1920) "the Harrisburg Houdini", 6'1" point guard known for playmaking, 2 titles with Rochester Royals
Joe Fulks (1921) "Jumpin' Joe", 6'5" power forward, scorer, 1 title with Philadelphia Warriors
Bobby Wanzer (1921) "Hooks", 6'0" shooting guard, scorer, 1 title with Rochester Royals
Nat Clifton (1922) "Sweetwater", 6'6" power forward, dominant scorer early, become playmaker & defender, NBA career primarily with New York Knicks
Jim Pollard (1922) "the Kangaroo Kid", 6'4" small forward, superstar talent & insane jumper, 6 titles with Minneapolis Lakers
George Mikan (1924) "Mr. Basketball", 6'10" center, the first true big man, 7 total pro titles with Chicago Gears & lakers
Arnie Risen (1924) "Big Slim", 6'9" center, longer rather than stronger but still quality on both sides of the ball, 2 titles with Royals and Boston Celtics
Slater Martin (1925) "Dugie", 5'10" point guard, known for defense, 5 titles with Lakers and St. Louis Hawks
Alex Groza (1926) "the Beak", 6'7" center, big scorer, only two years in the pros before the gambling scandal
Harry Gallatin (1927) "The Horse", 6'6" power forward, known for scoring & rebounding, arguably the first star New York Knick.
Ed Macauley (1928) "Easy Ed", 6'8" center, big scorer, 1 title with St. Louis Hawks
Vern Mikkelsen (1928) "the Great Dane", 6'7" power forward, known for scoring & rebounding, 4 titles with Minneapolis Lakers
Paul Seymour (1928), "Mr. Shutdown", 6'1" shooting guard, known for defense and playmaking, 1 title with Syracuse Nationals
George Yardley (1928) "Bird", 6'5" small forward, big scorer, retired at 31 to start an engineering company that's still around
Neil Johnston (1929) "Gabby", 6'8" center, hook shot artist and rebounder, 1 title with Philadelphia Warriors
Maurice Stokes (1933) "the Cat", 6'7" power forward, known for rebounding, playmaking & defense, career cut tragically short

In the next post, I'll be giving my thoughts ranking these guys based on their pro achievement.

If only Stokes didn't get hurt. Imagine the battles he could have had with Russell and Wilt.

Since we did this in 2020, I've had my eyes and ears more open to some of these guys I didn't know well. The ones who contemporaries seem to rate more highly than I did are Wanzer and to a less extent Davies. Maybe Pollard too, I always rated Mikkelson higher but some of the stuff I've read raves about Pollard. And maybe I had Slater Martin a bit high. Really hard to say with the little information and tape that we have.

Doctor MJ wrote:Nat Clifton (1922) "Sweetwater", 6'6" power forward, dominant scorer early, become playmaker & defender, NBA career primarily with New York Knicks

Random but for anyone interested, there's a biographical film about him titled "Sweetwater" releasing this weekend.

Okay, here's my ranked list of these guys at this moment along with details of my thoughts.

A few definitions below:

1. All-League refers to either NBA/BAA/NBL accolades for players who didn't just play in the NBA.
2. Series Wins - estimated number of playoff series won as a big minute player
3. By Star-Prime I'm looking to identify how long the player in question was seen as a star-lavel guy. Why do this rather than use All-Star? Because it didn't exist before a certain point. Other awards like MVP have similar issues for players of this era.
4. POY/OPOY/DPOY relates to my own personal Retro POY analysis. Feel free to ignore.


1. George Mikan (1924) "Mr. Basketball", 6'10" center, the first true big man, 7 total pro titles with Chicago Gears & Lakers


Origin: Illinois
College: DePaul
Series Wins: 23
All-League 1st Team: 8 times
Star-Prime: 8 seasons
POY wins: 8, POY shares: 8.0
OPOY wins: 3, OPOY shares: 3.8
DPOY wins: 6, DPOY shares: 6.2


The obvious top player from the era so maybe not a ton to be gleaned from going into further detail, but some observations:

- Mikan appears to have been the best offensive player in pro basketball basically from the time he turned pro. Eventually others arrive in the league to top him, but he remains elite until the rule change of 1951 that widened the key from 6 to 12 feet specifically to stop him. From that point onward, while Mikan likely remained the best rebounder in the world, it seems that the rule change did have the desired effect.

- Mikan almost certainly would have been an even more impactful defender from the jump if not for the banning of goaltending. As it was, it seems like it took Mikan some time to re-optimize his defensive play. He had a recurring issue of foul trouble that was often the Achilles heel for his teams win the lost.

- So far as I can tell, Mikan's defensive dominance in the NBA was less about shotblocking and more about rebounding. Certainly the shotblocking threat was there to a degree, but in a league with such weak shooting percentage, rebounding was arguably king.

2. Bob Davies (1920) "the Harrisburg Houdini", 6'1" point guard known for playmaking, 2 titles with Rochester Royals

Origin: Pennsylvania
College: Seton Hall
Series Wins: 12
All-League 1st Team: 5 times
All-League 2nd Team: 2 times
Star-Prime Seasons: 9 seasons
POY shares: 2.2
OPOY wins: 1, OPOY shares: 3.0

- I would consider Davies the 2nd greatest player from this era of pro leagues, but he has a disadvantage in that his pro career was delayed by World War II. Nevertheless, he would continue as the lead playmaker for good offenses through his final year as a 35 year old. And prior to that, he was the face of the great offensive dynasty (Rochester Royals) of this period ahead of Mikan's Lakers

- The Royals are a fascinating story because they were created out of nothing from top players in the military leagues of the war, and they proceeded to win a title in their first year before Mikan arrived on the scene. The style of the Royals was based on Davies, who was known for pushing the pace and improvising with great passes. This read & react scheme would later inspired one of Davies' teammates (Red Holzman) when he coached the Knicks to titles, and from there the lineage goes to Phil Jackson and Steve Kerr.

- Despite the fact that the Royals were the best offense ahead of Mikan's Lakers, the Lakers were close and I don't think there's any doubt that everyone was more concerned with stopping Mikan than they were at stopping Davies or anyone else.

3. Arnie Risen (1924) "Big Slim", 6'9" center, longer rather than stronger but still quality on both sides of the ball, 2 titles with Royals and Boston Celtics

Origin: Kentucky
College: Ohio State
Series Wins: 6
All-League 2nd Team: 2 times
Star-Prime: 10 seasons
POY shares: 1.5
OPOY shares: 0.4
DPOY shares: 0.2

- First thing I should note is that Risen wasn't given as much respect by NBA folks as some of the other guys listed below, and he didn't even get inducted into our 2020 project's Hall until the next class.

- A key anchoring point for me is that in the 1951 playoffs, Risen really seems to me to have been the MVP of the Royals' championship run. This probably doesn't happen without Mikan's injury issues, but the question isn't whether Risen was better than Mikan, but just whether Risen deserves to be ahead of other guys.

- In the Rochester Royal hierarchy, Bob Davies is clearly "the guy" over Risen and I'm happy to stick with that. One of the things Davies has an advantage though is that he was there from the beginning, whereas Risen got brought in later. And the thing is, it's not like Risen wasn't doing anything before that. He was the star of the Indianapolis Kautskys who gave Mikan's Chicago Gears their toughest scare in the 1947 NBL playoffs and also won the World Professional Basketball Tournament.

- I'm impressed by Risen's ability to fit in with the Royals and help allow them to not miss a beat after losing the guy I think was the best overall player on the Royals in the early years (Al Cervi, great offensive player, legendary on defense).

- I also think it's worth shouting out Risen's role on the early Bill Russell Celtics. Risen took it upon himself to mentor Russell and Russell was quite grateful for this given all the other white folks who stood in his way. I'd also note that Risen was a major player on the Celtics as the team waited for Russell to join the team, and I think likely part of the reason why the Celtic defense was as good as it was at that time.

4. Jim Pollard (1922) "the Kangaroo Kid", 6'4" small forward, superstar talent & insane jumper, 6 titles with Minneapolis Lakers

Origin: California
College: Stanford
Series Wins: 22
All-League 1st Team: 3 times
All-League 2nd Team: 2 times
Star-Prime: 8 seasons
POY shares: 0.9

- Pollard was seen as "the other superstar talent" on the Lakers. He was certainly respected above Risen, maybe Davies too. But the stats, particularly his efficiency, makes this hard to swallow, so this is worth getting more into.

- Pollard was a superstar at Stanford, military & west coast leagues before joining the Lakers. Despite standing only 6'4", he was such a good jumper that he was known for goaltending for moving to a league where this was illegal. With that limited height it of course took time for him to get up that high, but basically he made any kind of jump shooting from range impossible as a defender, while also being an absolute stud on offense.

- When the Lakers acquired Pollard, this was seen as the acquisition of the year in the NBL and in the first few games of that season he led the Lakers just like he was expected to...and then the Lakers also managed to get George Mikan, and Pollard was expected to find a new role. Early on this actually led to the team getting worse despite Mikan's big numbers, but eventually they found equilibrium using among other things an early version of the pick & roll, and the Mikan-Pollard dynasty was on.

- Nevertheless, Pollard was seen as frustrating because he only seemed to be playing up to his potential at particular times after that, and I think there's good reason to see this a fundamental limitation of what he was allowed to do on a team with Mikan. Pollard was the Plan B, and so long as Plan A was working, he drifted a bit.

- I do hold this again Pollard to a degree - else I wouldn't have Risen above him - but being the #2 man on an epic dynasty is still no small thing.

5. Slater Martin (1925) "Dugie", 5'10" point guard, known for defense, 5 titles with Lakers and St. Louis Hawks

Origin: Texas
College: Texas
Series Wins: 16
All-NBA 2nd Team: 5 times
Star-Prime: 7 seasons
POY shares: 0.3
DPOY shares: 2.4

- Martin seems like the classic guy who just couldn't hack it among modern talent. 5'10" and not a well-respected scorer. Do we really think he could be a star today just with playmaking and defense? Unlikely.

- And yet he was just one of the Lakers Big 4 of the era (along with Mikan, Pollard & Mikkelsen), he kept playing a bigger part as other guys faded and then went on to the Hawks and won a title with them as one of their 3 main guys despite being 6-7 years older than their two mains (Bob Pettit & Cliff Hagan)

- Martin feels to me like a guy with a storybook career who actually has an argument over Pollard & Risen for being even higher on this list.

6. Paul Seymour (1928), "Mr. Shutdown", 6'1" shooting guard, known for defense and playmaking, 1 title with Syracuse Nationals

Origin: Ohio
College: Toledo
Series Wins: 9
All-NBA 2nd Team: 2 times
Star-Prime: 3 seasons
POY wins: 1, POY shares: 1.7
DPOY wins: 2, DPOY shares: 2.0

- Seymour is the first player on this list who didn't get a single vote (not even from me) back when we did the 2020 project.

- Note that he was only named all-star 3 seasons, and never made All-NBA 1st team, was not seen as the star of his team and almost certainly never would have earned any MVP shares to speak of. So this is me being pretty weird putting him as high up on the list as I am, and as you can see by my POY & DPOY shares, I'm tempted to put him even higher. In the end, it just seems far fetched to say he had a greater career than rival Slater Martin, even if I do think Seymour peaked higher.

- The first thing to understand is that Seymour was seen as an absolute defensive stud, who was tough as nails and would keep teammates larger than himself from getting roughed up. Seymour is one of several guards in these early times with reputations for exceptional defense, and while it's reasonable to be skeptical about that, let's look at some facts.

- In the two years where Seymour got named All-NBA 2nd team (with Bob Cousy being the only guard on 1st team incidentally), his Nats have the best defense in the league by bkref's estimate DRtg.

- In each of those two years there were only 2 all-stars on the Nats, Seymour and the team's star Dolph Schayes.

- Schayes was known as the defensive weak link of the team. He focused on offense, the other guy's focused on defense, with Seymour seen as both a) the best individual defender, and b) the coach on the floor (he would go on to be player-coach).

- In both years Seymour led the team in minutes in both the regular and post-season.

- In the first year ('53-54), the Nats would lose a tough 7-game series against the Lakers with Seymour seeming to be able to stand up to Mikan and the Lakers much better than Schayes (who was an undersized big)

- In the second year ('54-55), the Nats would win the title by a single point in game 7 with Schayes once again having a really rough time, but with Seymour and others managing to pick up the slack.

- This to say that when I look at the peaks Syracuse Nationals of the '50s - and the Nats have the best winning percentage of any team that lasted the decade - I think Seymour was the MVP of the team at the time, not Schayes, and that's a pretty big deal.

- I should acknowledge that I've long been something of a Schayes skeptic, so take that how you will. I'm not saying Seymour had a greater overall playing career than Schayes, and I'll flat out say that now that I'm using my 2023 lens that's focused on scaled achievement rather than the "time machine", that's going to make Schayes come out stronger on my Top 100 list. (I still think Paul Arizin was considerably better then and would scale better still to later eras, but just based on the body of work, Schayes longevity of success is too much to overcome.)

7. Vern Mikkelsen (1928) "the Great Dane", 6'7" power forward, known for scoring & rebounding, 4 titles with Minneapolis Lakers

Origin: Minnesota
College: Hamline
Series Wins: 18
All-NBA 2nd Team: 4 times
Star-Prime: 8 seasons
POY shares: 0.3

- Joined the Lakers the same time as Martin and early on was clearly the more valuable of the two. You can argue he was more valuable than Pollard as well based on his efficiency.

- Mikkelsen was a tough rebounder and particularly in those early years I'd say the Mikan/Mikkelsen combo just murdered the competition on the interior and led to opportunities for high efficiency relative to league norms.

- He does seem to fade at a pretty young age though, and I definitely see him in the end as only 4th among the Lakers listed. That also makes it really questionable whether he should be above other guys below, but he's not here just because I wanted more Lakers. It was these 4 guys who made the team what it was.

8. Bobby Wanzer (1921) "Hooks", 6'0" shooting guard, scorer, 1 title with Rochester Royals

Origin: New York
College: Seton Hall
Series Wins: 6
All-NBA 2nd Team: 3 times
Star-Prime: 8 seasons

- Wanzer's the 3rd and final Rochester Royals I'll be listing here. Wanzer followed Bob Davies from Seton Hall to Rochester and gradually Davies handed over leadership of the club with Wanzer eventually become the coach of the team.

- Athletically and as a scorer Wanzer certainly seems like the next-gen upgrade to Davies, and there is a mysterious MVP award that people quote Wanzer as getting in the years before the NBA added the official MVP, but it seems clear that as a floor general, Wanzer was not the kind of wizard Davies was.

- When we did the 2020 HOF project, I should say that Wanzer got considerably more respect than Risen, so I don't want to make it out like he was a clear-cut worse player. But Risen was a superstar before Wanzer got to the pros, seemed to play the bigger role in their championship together, and ended his career with the aforementioned catharsis of mentoring Russell. Between the two, I'd have to side with Risen.

- Something I will note is that I was surprised when I went through all the seasons and didn't end up selecting Wanzer for any POY slots like I did with Davies & Risen. I think he was worthy of making a list like that, but the fact he didn't definitely caused him to slide down my list.

9. Ed Macauley (1928) "Easy Ed", 6'8" center, big scorer, 1 title with St. Louis Hawks

Origin: Missouri
College: Saint Louis
Series Wins: 4
All-NBA 1st Team: 3 times
All-NBA 2nd Team: 1 time
Star-Prime: 8 seasons
POY shares: 0.9
OPOY wins: 1, OPOY shares: 2.0


- I'm torn at this point about where to go next, but I think with Macauley it has to be recognized that he was seen as a HUGE offensive star from college through the pros, and when Cousy was floor general-ing the Celtics to actual elite rORtgs, Macauley was the best scorer on that team.

- Macauley's legacy was clearly damaged by the fact that the Celtics traded him and then became the mega-dynasty around Russell that they did, but of course, the question isn't whether Macauley was better than Russell.

- His career fell off quicker than would be ideal, but he did win a title on his new team...though worth noting that that new team was the Hawks, and that he played considerably less of a role in the title than the several-years-older Martin.

10. Neil Johnston (1929) "Gabby", 6'8" center, hook shot artist and rebounder, 1 title with Philadelphia Warriors

Origin: Ohio
College: Ohio State
Series Wins: 2
All-NBA 1st Team: 4 times
All-NBA 2nd Team: 1 time
POY shares: 0.7
OPOY shares: 0.8
Star-Prime: 6 seasons

- Johnston is a guy who I might be underrating badly. Prime scoring numbers are incredible, but his impact is really hard to identify, and he fades out quickly. Now, there's a knee injury involved there so it's possible that's just bad luck, but we're also talking about a center who was becoming undersized quickly and whose pivot hook shot doesn't seem likely to scale to the future NBA.

- Still, Johnston was the #2 star on a championship team that had (by some estimates) the best offense of the decade. That cements him at least up to a certain point.

11. Harry Gallatin (1927) "The Horse", 6'6" power forward, known for scoring & rebounding, arguably the first star New York Knick.

Origin: Illinois
College: Truman State
Series Wins: 8
All-NBA 1st Team: 1 time
All-NBA 2nd Team: 1 time
Star-Prime: 8 seasons

- So, Gallatin seems to me to have been at the perfect place to be seen as a bigger star than he was then, and also for our 2020 project. He was a New York Knick, and being in that market helps. He played at a time where there was about 3 all-star slots per team, which helped him get named over and over again. So you had some guys who were just a bit older and couldn't be expected to last as long, and in one particular case you had a guy his age who continued being an excellent player after 1960, and so wasn't entirely on our radar when we did the voting.

- This isn't to say that Gallatin wasn't a great player - he was clearly a strong rebounder with a nice shooting touch. But everyone I've talked about so far is a guy who I think had a good case to have been a Top 5 player at some point, and I don't really see Gallatin as that level of player.

12. Nat Clifton (1922) "Sweetwater", 6'6" power forward, dominant scorer early, become playmaker & defender, NBA career primarily with New York Knicks

Origin: Illinois
College: XULA
Series Wins: 6
Star-Prime: 9 seasons
POY shares: 1.0
OPOY shares: 0.6
DPOY shares: 0.8

- Very hard to know how to slot Clifton in and so I'm not really looking to make a strident case for him to be higher. I put him as having a star-prime of 9 seasons because of his '56-57 all-star nod, and the fact that in his pre-NBA days he was arguably the 2nd best player in the pros behind Mikan, but it has to be noted that the Knicks really never let Clifton play as star, and yeah, I think race had everything to do with that. Clifton was probably the best Black scorer in the world until Elgin Baylor came around, but in those times the guys who became Black stars didn't get there by White players passing them the ball.

- All this to say, Clifton is a clear example of someone whose career achievement is lowered based on context, and even putting him this high on my list might be being too generous.

- But I think Clifton was a hell of a talent. He was mentor to Connie Hawkins in his later years when he returned to the Globetrotters, and I think that a lot of what Hawk did, Clifton could have done as well. I don't believe Clifton was ever as explosive as Hawk, and couldn't have been as good on offense, but he was stronger, tougher, and a better defender.

13. George Yardley (1928) "Bird", 6'5" small forward, big scorer, retired at 31 to start an engineering company that's still around

Origin: California
College: Stanford
Series Wins: 4
All-NBA 1st Team: 1 time
All-NBA 2nd Team: 1 time
Star-Prime: 6 seasons
POY shares: 0.1
OPOY shares: 0.2

- Yardley's a guy whose career to me stops just short of being indelible. Yardley was a jump-shooting volume scorer for whom the game just seemed to come easy to. He seemed like someone who was going to be able to hang in the '60s despite the influx of new talent but instead left to strike it rich in engineer. What can ya do?

14. Alex Groza (1926) "the Beak", 6'7" center, big scorer, only two years in the pros before the gambling scandal

Origin: Ohio
College: Kentucky
Series Wins: 1
All-NBA 1st Team: 2 times
Star-Prime: 2 seasons
POY shares: 1.4
OPOY wins: 2, OPOY shares: 2.0

- Only played two seasons because being banned due to the point-shaving scandal of 1950. For the reasons alone it would make sense not even to mention Groza in many projects, but I think that at least his existence needs to be acknowledged here.

- Groza was the star of a champion Kentucky team which provided the backbone (along with Bob Kurland) of the 1948 Olympic team. They would then turn pro and start their own NBA team (that they owned!), the Indianapolis Olympians, who were an excellent team with an offense that might have been the best in the NBA (in contention with Royals & Lakers). Along the way Groza put up exceptional numbers leading the league in TS Add both years over Mikan or anyone else.

- I'll note that in 1950 when the AP voted on the best basketball players of the Half-Century, Groza placed 5th, with Mikan being the only active player above him. Obviously he didn't have a longevity-based argument, but people saw that Groza was an extreme talent, and the data I see backs that up.

- Had Groza played a full career, he may well have been the NBA Player of the Decade for the '50s depending on how much you care about being there the whole decade and how long he would have lasted. As an undersized center, I don't think he was ever destined for Mikan/Russell levels of dominance overall, but he seems to have been someone with an excellent shooter's touch with high motor and quick decision making. He began his NBA career more impressively than Macauley, Bob Cousy, or Dolph Schayes, and I think it likely he would have ended it more impressively too.

- A last note on the pointshaving scandal. While the NCAA & NBA ended up banning players who had never actually shaved points - and later the NBA lost a lawsuit against Connie Hawkins for it - Groza wasn't an innocent victim. They did the crime and suffered the consequences. However at least for me, I have a tough time getting too outraged about all of this. Note that this was a college basketball thing brought on by the fact that college basketball rode New York betting culture to a massive increase in popularity but the players didn't get any of it, and nor were they expecting to make a bunch of money as pros. This was a recipe for precisely this sort of corruption from the players, and the colleges should have known better.

15. Joe Fulks (1921) "Jumpin' Joe", 6'5" power forward, scorer, 1 title with Philadelphia Warriors

Origin: Kentucky
College: Murray State
Series Wins: 4
All-League 1st Team: 3 times
All-League 2nd Team: 1 time
Star-Prime: 6 seasons
POY shares: 0.2

- The first scoring champ in BAA/NBA history, and he then led the Philadelphia Warriors to win the first championship of the league. I would consider him as having the best season of anyone in that league that year, and that's something I take quite seriously, particularly when I'm trying to do an analysis with criteria that doesn't specifically ask how the player would do when "time machined" to drastically new eras. But a couple things must be kept in mind:

- The BAA was much weaker in that first year than the already-established NBL.
- Fulks' relative shooting efficiency went from extremely positive to neutral after the first year, and then went very negative soon after. None of this was because he stopped being able to shoot like he had before, it's just that everyone else got much, much better quickly and he did not.
- This to say that I think Fulks was extremely fortunate to have been in the right place at the right time to gain historical notice. He still got it, but to be honest, there's others I haven't included on this list that were born around the same time who grew with the league in a way Fulks wasn't able to, and I'd probably put them ahead of Fulks too.

16. Maurice Stokes (1933) "the Cat", 6'7" power forward, known for rebounding, playmaking & defense, career cut tragically short

Origin: Pennsylvania
College: Saint Francis
Series Wins: 0
All-NBA 2nd Team: 3 times
Star-Prime: 3 seasons
DPOY wins: 1, DPOY shares: 2.2

- Stokes had his career cut short with a horrific injury, and so he's a bit like Groza except he played 3 years instead of 2, and what happened wasn't remotely his fault.

- Stokes was a scary force out there and he seems like someone who possibly could have led a dynasty between his physical talent, playmaking, and defense.

- What holds him back from more than a mention for me is the fact that his teams just weren't successful, and while I don't doubt his defensive impact, there's reason to question his value on offense. We'll never truly know - maybe his overall impact was massive enough to be an MVP candidate and he was just unlucky in team context - but the truth is that if you weren't looking to study Stokes, there's not a lot of reason why you'd feel a need to look at what was going on on the Royals in those year.

- A historical note. Stokes was the first Black player in the NBA to be embraced by his franchise as a star. What the Knicks didn't do for Clifton, the Royals did do for Stokes. I think some of it was it being a few years into the future, but I also think that Stokes had a level of athleticism Clifton never did, to the point that seeing him made existing players re-think what was possible in a human body.

jalengreen wrote:

Doctor MJ wrote:Nat Clifton (1922) "Sweetwater", 6'6" power forward, dominant scorer early, become playmaker & defender, NBA career primarily with New York Knicks

Random but for anyone interested, there's a biographical film about him titled "Sweetwater" releasing this weekend.

I actually only just found out about it when I was making my post and looking for an image. I'm excited!

Great work, love to see this board (even if it’s not through formal ranking) show love to the man who brought winning to the Laker franchise first in George Mikan.

Doctor MJ wrote:...

Nice idea. Guess it won't matter because almost nobody backs the 40s-to-50s guys (mostly era discounting, some just find it too hard to comp fairly, I think).

As ever for this era info is very fuzzy so not hard and fast statements (and granting a large margin for plausible range, there's a lot that is missing that is/could be guessed) but some - sometimes perhaps familiar - thoughts

Not sure on Wanzer less important to the title. Very little to go on but assuming one means playoffs Wanzer: ... has as many total win shares; has considerably more OWS (i.e. the stuff we have some stats for - DWS is using fga to guess minutes, fouls for defensive rebounds and blocks, assists for steals); is playing from a position where it's harder to accumulate stats (Mikan, Groza, Macauley ... soon Johnston, Lovellette, Foust, Share, Houbregs ... [could go to Eddie Miller for peak PER, Noble Jorgensen for WS/48 or look closer at raw WS totals of 40s guys]. Wanzer also more broadly consistently highly rated.

Feerick versus Fulks I'll boost for Feerick being as good, probably better in Y1. Certainly WS has it that way though it's tilted toward efficiency. Capitols did better too. Whilst they crash to the 2nd SRS stags in the odd playoff format, his WS playoff production against tougher average opponents isn't that much worse at a glance (could be wrong, I'm spitballing and don't have minutes).

Groza (with Beard) doesn't have massive signs of impact. Crude tools, but SRS goes from -2 to +0.08 after they are banned and Grabowski arrives, with a leap in their defense. Haven't checked other roster changes lately. Between that and why he's gone (not even requiring touching morality of it - just imagining he's really good ... you tend to think "if I were GM ..." no? ... well you've got you're centerpiece Olympic hero ... and now you don't) ... personally I wouldn't be inclined that way.

Yardley ... lacking indelibility perhaps punishes him for things outside of him. Certainly his playoff productivity held up pretty well and '56 especially he combines a finals run with productivity ... that said the same could be said for Foust who on my skimming appears to be absent

I'd grant some of the concerns for Johnston but then ... he's below Macauley. And Macauley had Cousy and Sharman .. who doesn't get noted and curving for position may be a threat for best Celtics scorer (don't know would have to look at league norms; depends on the year, Sharman took a couple of years to get going and Macauley was a huge value add by scoring stats). Someone probably wasn't a legit star given Boston's team results (or forwards were that weak, I suppose, even then though...). Maybe it's the dynasty halo on the others. But Cousy actually did well in early career playoffs whilst ... from a high starting point, Macauley is quite the dropper. I think I'm more cynical on Ed.

I'm not seeing what you see in Clifton as a major league pro, though that doesn't mean it isn't there. Pollard probably a similar story to a lesser degree.

"He would go on to be player-coach" at that time wasn't the endorsement it would be today or more recently. I think I'd read that as ... "the owner was cheap and he was willing/coerced to do it" at first glance, until I knew more.

I think game 7 ... of one series isn't something I'd weight. Schayes holds up well in the playoffs (overall and that year) especially in his prime and Seymour as (team) MVP over him seems at first glance quite a leap.

I think I might end up with a different list, but it's clear that you've put in the time and effort to research this (whilst I'm merely skimming and reacting) so thanks for providing thoughtful and thought-provoking reading.

While it's hard to know with 1950s player that seems crazy low for Johnston to me, would also have Wanzer higher and Mikkelson even with Pollard at worst.

I got an autographed basketball from Harry Gallatin because he went into my sisters work all time. He didn't know that he was one of the legends on the early 2000s NBA live games.

Owly wrote:Nice idea. Guess it won't matter because almost nobody backs the 40s-to-50s guys (mostly era discounting, some just find it too hard to comp fairly, I think).

This is true from the perspective of who will get love in the Top 100 project, but I think it might actually be more worthwhile because knowledge going back this far isn't as developed as for later players.

Owly wrote:As ever for this era info is very fuzzy so not hard and fast statements (and granting a large margin for plausible range, there's a lot that is missing that is/could be guessed) but some - sometimes perhaps familiar - thoughts

Yup, and even if I sound hard & fast, the reality is that there's much we don't know. But I think it's more useful to do our best than to punt.

Owly wrote:Not sure on Wanzer less important to the title. Very little to go on but assuming one means playoffs Wanzer: ... has as many total win shares; has considerably more OWS (i.e. the stuff we have some stats for - DWS is using fga to guess minutes, fouls for defensive rebounds and blocks, assists for steals); is playing from a position where it's harder to accumulate stats (Mikan, Groza, Macauley ... soon Johnston, Lovellette, Foust, Share, Houbregs ... [could go to Eddie Miller for peak PER, Noble Jorgensen for WS/48 or look closer at raw WS totals of 40s guys]. Wanzer also more broadly consistently highly rated.

Good thoughts. Continuing on this:

1. What we can say definitively is that Risen was the lead scorer and main rebounder in the 1951 Royals playoff run to the chip.

2. Wanzer was the 3rd leading scorer, and the second leading guard scorer behind Davies.

3. Wanzer was also the 3rd leading assister, with Davies leading the way followed by power forward Jack Coleman.

So then if we're looking at box score, it's the efficiency with which the Wanzer shot. I think efficiency is extremely important and can be a way wherein a tertiary player ends up having more impact than those with higher primacy, however:

1. I'm always cautious about elevating guys who are not the main focus of the defense ahead of guys who are the main focus.

2. I'm extra cautious with efficiency based arguments when we don't even have all that data. We don't, for example, have the FGA's for Risen in the Laker series.

3. Something we do know is that in the game where the Royals eliminated the Lakers is that Risen scored 26 points to Wanzer's 9, while dominated Mikan and company on the boards and drawing enough fouls that both of the Lakers big-tough-rebounders (Mikan & Mikkelsen) fouled out.

4. That series as the caveat that Mikan was injured - doesn't change who the Royals MVP was, but does change how impressive what Risen did was - but when we go to the finals, we see something similar. Game 7 has Risen being the leading scorer, the leading rebounder, drawing a ton of free throws, and gets the opponents two Knick toughs (Clifton & Connie Simmons) fouled out.

Now as I say all of this, Wanzer displays a major trend of efficiency, efficiency at greater volume, and particularly high efficiency in the playoffs.

I think Wanzer is a clear candidate as someone who should have been featured more than he was, and he may well have been the best basketball player on those Royals teams if given enough primacy.

But something I alluded to before is that I don't see evidence of Wanzer as a floor general the way Davies was. He may have had that potential and just didn't show it because a) Davies was on the roster until Wanzer's final 2 years when he was 34 & 35 and was acting as player-coach. But I'm cautious about championing Wanzer with too much confidence when the biggest successes that the Royals had were built around other guys (Davies & Al Cervi early on, and Davies & Risen later).

I'd still absolutely listen to Wanzer vs various guys on here to be clear, but I don't think I'll be elevating him above his Royal teammates.

Owly wrote:Feerick versus Fulks I'll boost for Feerick being as good, probably better in Y1. Certainly WS has it that way though it's tilted toward efficiency. Capitols did better too. Whilst they crash to the 2nd SRS stags in the odd playoff format, his WS playoff production against tougher average opponents isn't that much worse at a glance (could be wrong, I'm spitballing and don't have minutes).

I think it's great you mention Bob Feerick. He was the clear cut MVP in my mind in that first BAA season, but possibly because of an injury he went out with a whimper in the playoffs and unfortunately never really showed out in the rest of his playoff seasons.

Let me also note that Feerick played one season in the NBL before he came to the BAA. On that team he was a 3rd banana in scoring behind Bob Carpenter and Leroy Edwards (and I would consider Edwards even at that advanced age to be the top defensive center in the league).

This to say that while I do think Feerick probably scaled to a stronger league better than Fulks, it's important to remember that there was a stronger league in '46-47, it was the league that Feerick had came from, and in that league he wasn't really able to show himself as a star.

In terms of where I'd rank Fulks vs Feerick based on career success, it's a challenge, but it matters to me that chip for Fulks given that I didn't see similar playoff success from Feerick.

Owly wrote:Groza (with Beard) doesn't have massive signs of impact. Crude tools, but SRS goes from -2 to +0.08 after they are banned and Grabowski arrives, with a leap in their defense. Haven't checked other roster changes lately. Between that and why he's gone (not even requiring touching morality of it - just imagining he's really good ... you tend to think "if I were GM ..." no? ... well you've got you're centerpiece Olympic hero ... and now you don't) ... personally I wouldn't be inclined that way.

Wow, great point. I don't recall noticing this before, and I think it's a great example of why it's important to keep in mind the fact that coming at this future-looking-back is just as important as starting from the start when doing historical analysis where we have the benefit of hindsight.

I would start off by saying that the Olympians first season was a very impressive one, and all the more noteworthy given that it represents college kids just moving on up to the pros. Something I've noted in both football and basketball is that there's still evidence in the '40s that the pros weren't necessarily better than the college stars, but team-wise, pro-teams vs specific college teams, that ship seemed like it had already sailed.

Hence, for the "Kentucky Wildcats" to come in as the "Indianapolis Olympians" and win their division with a team TS% ahead of everyone but the established-elite Rochester Royals seems very impressive to me. And when you see this and you see that their ultra-hyped offensive star (Groza) led the league in TS Add by a ton (he had 377.4, #2 was Mikan at 294.5, Ed Macauley was third at 167.3), hard for me to see him as anything other than living up to the hype.

Further, this was the high point for the Olympians, so we're not talking about them reaching a new peak after Groza, only that the team took a step back after their first year, and then took a small step forward the year after sans the banned.

So can we identify what happened between their first and second year, and then from second to third?

Well, one thing that's clear is that between the first and second season, a bunch of franchises folded, including most of the teams in the same division as the Olympians. The Olympians as a result ended up in the same division as the Lakers, Royals & Pistons, each of which had better records the previous year than the Olympians, and that pecking order remained the same the following year. So what we might be seeing here isn't so much that the Olympians got worse so much as they just played a tougher schedule and didn't handle it as well. (That doesn't necessarily bode well for a pro-Groza argument to be clear.)

Now, Groza's individual numbers still look great, but something we see it that the team's estimated ORtg is 8th in the league. The previous year bkref has no official ORtg for so it makes it hard to compare, but the team's TS% is also 8th that year after being 2nd the previous. So what's going on there?

If we look at the team's big scorers from year-to-year based on TS Add, this is what we get:

'49-50:
Groza +377.4
Beard +25.7
Jones +64.9
Hale +50.7
Waither +12.1
Team Total: +386.9

'50-51:
Groza +321.0
Beard +19.0
Jones +15.2
Waither -50.1
(Hale) -30.2
Team Total: -106.0

Note that I put Hale in parentheses because he stops being a big part of the team. He starts off the year significant, and then gets relegate and then disappears altogether never to play in the NBA again. (Note that Hale was older than the other players - not from Kentucky - and while a great player in his prime is better known today as the father-in-law of Rick Barry and grandfather to Rick's gaggle of NBA sons.)

But I'll say that it's a bit much to attribute such a massive TS Add fall off to the the loss of Hale, and so that raises a question of whether there was a kind of figuring out of the Olympian offense by the second year that "let Groza get his" while covering the other guys. I'll place to that side for the moment.

Before we leave the 2nd year of the Olympians, I think we have to note what happened in the playoffs. The Olympians lost to the Lakers in a tightly contested series where Groza completely lit the Lakers up. While Mikan's injury in the playoffs may have played a role there (sources are vague about win he actually broke it with most saying it was before the Rochester series), this wasn't the first time Groza had done this. While there were other scoring center's of Mikan's day that seem to dissolve against Mikan, Groza wasn't one of them.

All of this makes me think of Groza as at least a Doncic-like figure in the sense that everyone was scared to play against him on the big stage.

Moving on to the next year, here's the TS Add again:

'51-52
Graboski +26.1 (new)
Barnhorst -38.7 (-72.9 the previous year)
Waither 70.8 (-50.1 the previous year as noted)
Lavoy 32.4 (-53.7 the previous year)
Jones -81.9 (+15.2 the previous year)
Team Total: -118.0 (-106 the previous year)

Not a lot really stands out there. There's no outlier like Groza and there's no reason I can see to say that the team's offense was literally as good or better than before, but the drop off is not dramatic.

I think we have to consider that perhaps the Groza-first offense was experiencing some Dantley-style diminishing returns to team offensive efficiency as the league got better and more used to it, and I'll have to think about whether I'd want to move Groza down my POY & OPOY lists for that second year (I still think he's safe in that first year).

Over on defense, at least relatively, the Olympians took a step forward in '51-52. Here my thoughts would turn to Graboski as the new center in place of the offense-oriented Groza, and the change of coaching. The old "coaches" were kids from Kentucky. The new coach, Herb Schaeffer, doesn't have a long coaching career in the NBA to speak to, but something we can point out is that before he coached the Olympians, Schaeffer was a player on the Lakers and was known for coaching everyone on the foster, including the actual coach John Kundla who had no previous experience with pro basketball. Schaeffer was the old vet who win he yelled at Mikan, Mikan listened. My guess is that Schaeffer had a lot to do with the fact that the Olympians didn't fall off a cliff after losing the foundation.

Alright, I think I'll leave it at that, but I appreciate being pushed to go into more detail here.

Owly wrote:Yardley ... lacking indelibility perhaps punishes him for things outside of him. Certainly his playoff productivity held up pretty well and '56 especially he combines a finals run with productivity ... that said the same could be said for Foust who on my skimming appears to be absent

Re: Yardley good playoff runs and productivity. Yup I'd say so. There's definitely a part of him that wants to put him ahead of, say, Galatin, but Gallatin's Knicks had more playoff runs than Yardley's Pistons and I wouldn't say he was glaringly worse statistically.

Re: Foust absent. He didn't retire in time. He'll be in the next thread.

Owly wrote:I'd grant some of the concerns for Johnston but then ... he's below Macauley. And Macauley had Cousy and Sharman .. who doesn't get noted and curving for position may be a threat for best Celtics scorer (don't know would have to look at league norms; depends on the year, Sharman took a couple of years to get going and Macauley was a huge value add by scoring stats). Someone probably wasn't a legit star given Boston's team results (or forwards were that weak, I suppose, even then though...). Maybe it's the dynasty halo on the others. But Cousy actually did well in early career playoffs whilst ... from a high starting point, Macauley is quite the dropper. I think I'm more cynical on Ed.

I'm going to hold off on discussing Johnston because he's focused on in another response.

Re: Macauley playoff dropper. The thing that's tough here is that Cousy controlled the ball and really seemed to have no problem just calling his own number when the defense got tough. I'll concede though that this is certainly worth serious consideration. Possibly I should consider both Gallatin & Yardley ahead of him.

Owly wrote:I'm not seeing what you see in Clifton as a major league pro, though that doesn't mean it isn't there. Pollard probably a similar story to a lesser degree.

Understandable. I'm coming from what I know about him prior to his time in the NBA.

In the final World Pro Basketball tournament in 1948, there were two players who were seen as the clear cut to best players: George Mikan and Sweetwater Clifton. Their teams - the Lakers and the New York Rens - played in the finals having both defeated other major pro teams to get there. The Lakers won 75-71 with Mikan outscoring Clifton 40-24. There was no doubt that Mikan was seen as the best player, but Clifton at the time was seen as a terrifying force in his own right.

The Globetrotters would acquire Clifton as part of their battles against the Lakers, and would have some early success before the Lakers seemed to figure them out, then the Knicks signed Clifton.

While Clifton never put up big numbers on the Knicks, the Knicks would make the finals in his first 3 seasons on the team, and by the 3rd of those runs Clifton was the lead minutes guy on the team as well as the guy seen as being the best defender on the roster (from what I can tell) with the Knicks having the best DRtg in the league other than the Lakers. It's worth noting that Clifton was 30 at the time, and so it makes sense that he'd gradually decay from there.

Still, when I look at the whole thing, what I see is a guy who showed he could score big numbers against white pros before he joined the NBA, and then became arguably the best player on an NBA Finalist through his defense, rebounding & playmaking for others. When I then factor in the phenomenon of NBA teams being reluctant to actually let Black players be stars at the time, I think there's very good reason to think that Clifton had the potential to be something even more than he was.

I'll note that I put him behind Gallatin on my list. I went back and forth on that. I think that Clifton literally had higher highs than Gallatin despite his career being held back by matters beyond his control...but they were teammates for a number of years, and in general Gallatin wasn't just seen as the bigger star, he was actually scoring efficiently while Clifton wasn't.

Re: Pollard. I'll refrain from getting into him more right now but I'm happy to discuss specific points further.

Owly wrote:"He would go on to be player-coach" at that time wasn't the endorsement it would be today or more recently. I think I'd read that as ... "the owner was cheap and he was willing/coerced to do it" at first glance, until I knew more.

I think game 7 ... of one series isn't something I'd weight. Schayes holds up well in the playoffs (overall and that year) especially in his prime and Seymour as (team) MVP over him seems at first glance quite a leap.

I wouldn't agree with the characterization that player-coaches were about being cheap back then. In this era the coaching ranks were largely populated by former players and the only guys who were seen as really established were particular college coaches who wouldn't deign to go to the pros.

Prior to Seymour as coach, Al Cervi was the coach. Cervi had been imho the best overall player on the Royals during the mid-40s, and then went and became a player-coach for the Nationals before just becoming a coach, and coaching the Nationals to great success they had in the '50s built around defense.

Cervi was known as the best perimeter defender of his day and instill this toughness in his rosters. And the guy who he gradually handed the reins to more and more as the new version of himself was Seymour.

Further, in my year-by-year analysis, I have both of these guys (Cervi & Seymour) in my Top 3 COYs in 4 different seasons.

Re: Schayes holds up well in the playoffs. I understand why you say that given the cume stats, but I think we need to be careful there.

In the '53-54 playoffs where Schayes posts a career best playoff PER of 29.6, he scores only 9.3 PPG in the finals. That finals was a tight 7 game series. Had Schayes been putting up numbers that fit with a 29.6 PER that may well have made the difference, instead he did nothing close to that, and Seymour had to be the team's top scorer (in addition to floor general and top defender).

Owly wrote:I think I might end up with a different list, but it's clear that you've put in the time and effort to research this (whilst I'm merely skimming and reacting) so thanks for providing thoughtful and thought-provoking reading.

I'd expect your list to be different from mine Owly and wouldn't have it any other way. Thanks for your kind words!

Dr Positivity wrote:While it's hard to know with 1950s player that seems crazy low for Johnston to me, would also have Wanzer higher and Mikkelson even with Pollard at worst.

Okay so with Johnston there's a ton of uncertainty as to what his numbers mean from an impact perspective.

In '52-53 Johnston gets to take the reins for the Warriors with Arizin off on military duty, and he leads the league in TS Add. Sounds great...but the team offenses fell off a cliff from 3rd in ORtg to dead last. (Defense was also awful, but was awful before.)

Something I always bring up is that I'm cautious about giving too much credit for a player's "unstoppability" particularly when opponents are beating the player's team handily, and particularly particularly when the team ORtg isn't even good. This is part of why I take seriously the concerns pertaining to Groza that Owly brought up...

but with Groza the issue isn't why his team's offense was the absolute worst in the league the way it was with Johnston.

The offense would get better than that in subsequent years, but it wouldn't do anything great until Arizin came back.

Now, I do feel like Johnston deserves credit for being one of two volume scorers on a very effective team offense like the Warriors then became for a couple years, winning a chip along the way. If you can do your thing on a team that works, it's not something that inherently breaks the team functionality.

But then we get into the playoff issues. Johnston plays in the playoffs in 3 years of his star-prime. This was a guy who was known for his ultra-efficient volume scoring getting a TS% above 50 in every year of that prime, oftentimes much above that threshold. But in the playoffs, he's never above 50.

In my long post I said that I estimate him to have 2 playoff victories with big minutes. Both of those came in the same year when the Warriors won the title. Let's look at how he and Arizin look in the RS & PS that year as scorers.

Regular Season:
Arizin 24.2 PPG, 52.6 TS%, TS Add 226.8
Johnston 22.1 PPG, 55.5 TS%, TS Add 270.9

Post-Season:
Arizin 28.9 PPG, 53.0 TS%
Johnston 20.3 PPG, 48.5 TS%

And if we just look at the Finals:
Arizin 27.6 PPG
Johnston 13.6 PPG

Again, this is the only post-season where Johnston is playing big minutes on a team that wins series, and this is what it looks like.

Combine that with the fact that clearly when he does put up big numbers it doesn't lead to huge signs of impact in the regular season, and I think there's good reason to be skeptical of him.

In fact, those Finals were against the Pistons, and I don't think there's any doubt that George Yardley looked like the better player relative to Johnston, and this despite the fact that Yardley - who I knocked for retiring young despite still having gas in the take - was older (27) than Johnston (26).

So yeah, I think there's definitely an argument to be made that Johnston should be even lower.

I certainly understand ranking him higher and I'm not saying you're crazy to think so, but there are concerns in the data that I don't think we should ignore.

Re: Mikkelsen even with Pollard. This was definitely a common thought when we did the 2020 project so you're far from alone.

I think I'll put it this way: It's entirely possible that Mikkelsen's peak value was higher than Pollard, but Pollard was the #2 guy there when they were winning titles before Mikkelsen, and when they are winning their very last title in 1954, despite Pollard being the old man of the team (the only man in his 30s, 6 years older than Mikkelsen), Pollard's the big minute guy particularly in the playoffs.

Now, Martin is playing nearly as many minutes as Pollard so I don't want to overstate how much it was just Pollard.

And of course, while Mikan played much less than Pollard or Martin, I don't think anyone doubts that when he played, he was the most valuable Laker on the court.

But why is it that Mikkelsen isn't even playing 30 MPG when Pollard & Martin are playing north of 40?
And why is it that Mikkelsen never breaks 34 MPG in the playoffs again after '51-52 when he's a mere 23 years old?

Foul trouble is certainly part of the equation, but two issues with that:
1. If it's just about foul trouble, why was he able to do his thing as a 23 year old but not after?
2. Even if it is just foul trouble, those missed minutes matter.

One might want to argue that they don't matter that much because the Lakers keep on winning, but of course, then they stopped winning so much and MIkkelsen's minutes didn't go back up again.

In the end, I tend to see a guy who was an utterly tenacious rebounder when he had youthful explosion, and this helped him achieve the shooting efficiency that Mikan's other teammates didn't have, but who wasn't really able to expand his game to become one of the veteran pace setters like Pollard & Martin did and thus started dropping from his peak at a young age as he lost the gifts of youth.

Thanks for doing this. Many of the players from this era are forgotten and deserve recognition.

Guys like Jim Pollard, Paul Seymour, and Bobby Wanzer were very highly regarded for their time. It seems like with each passing decade since their retirement they have faded more and more into obscurity.

I've even seen mentions that he was the best player on those Lakers teams following Mikan's injuries:

Max Winter, Co-Owner of the Minneapolis Lakers:

Mar 26, 1954: "Jim is the greatest basketball player that ever lived. The greatest, get that! George Mikan? Sure Mikan is a sensational player, but he's a Babe Ruth. Pollard is a Ty Cobb. There's a difference. Let me put it this way: when basketball players on our circuit go against Pollard for the first time they drop around to the dressing room after a game and ask for his autograph. He's a player's player. I repeat, the greatest of all time."

Bob Cousy:

Apr 14, 1955: "[Jim Pollard]'s the greatest basketball player who ever lived."

Not to say he was better than Mikan, of course. But he was one of the best defenders in the league and a key piece to the Lakers' championships. Pollard was the best athlete in the league and had he played in the shot clock era it could certainly be said he would have fared better with the faster pace. I could personally see Pollard as high as #2 right behind Mikan.

Seymour's career was derailed from injuries but he was an important part of the Nationals' playoff runs. One of the best perimeter defenders of the 50s and could have been an even better player overall if he was a more aggressive scorer.

Wanzer was a great shooter and good defender that really stepped up in the playoffs. Starting from the '52 season I definitely think he has an argument as the best player on that team as Davies got older.

As far as Macauley goes, I don't agree with anyone saying he is a playoff "dropper" but any poor performances were usually a result of injury. I think he had a few down playoff runs because of him playing through various ailments. Once he hurt his shooting hand in the '54 season he couldn't ever really return to form. I also don't really believe he was aggressive enough to take more shots like Cousy and eventually Sharman did. His Per 36 shooting numbers are middle of the pack. Whether this is because of his overall psyche or stamina to handle a higher load I'm not sure, but there is a reason Macauley never averages over 15 shots in the RS and eclipses that mark only twice in the PS. A good portion of his shots were coming off passes from mainly Cousy and occasionally Sharman.

For Schayes: Keep in mind Schayes played through a broken wrist and had a cast on his hand in the '54 Finals, which can be attributed to how he performed. Schayes was also a player that fought through injuries, like many others of the era. I would also dispute the notion that he was anything less than a solid defender. Fantastic rebounder and good help defender overall. The Nationals from top to bottom were all quality defenders.

ZeppelinPage wrote:For Schayes: Keep in mind Schayes played through a broken wrist and had a cast on his hand in the '54 Finals, which can be attributed to how he performed. Schayes was also a player that fought through injuries, like many others of the era. I would also dispute the notion that he was anything less than a solid defender. Fantastic rebounder and good help defender overall. The Nationals from top to bottom were all quality defenders.

Great additions in general, and the point about Schayes' injury is important. As I've said, this isn't just a one time thing where there are disappearances of Schayes at important points, but it's entirely possible that each time it happened he was injured.

I do feel obligated to speak a bit to Schayes role within his teams.

Two quotes from Schayes on "defensive forwards"

Legends Profile: Dolph Schayes

Dolph Schayes wrote:The coaching was done by the old pros. They taught a tough game. You had a shooting guard and a defensive guard, a shooting forward and a defensive forward. The defensive guys weren’t dirty, but they were tough.

Earl Lloyd: Basketball pioneer

Dolph Schayes wrote:He was our lynchpin, that's what Earl (Lloyd) was. He was a great friend and our teammate. But he was our lynchpin. Without him, we never would have won the title.

Earl was the defensive forward who always played against the other team's offensive forward. That was a thankless task, but he did a great job and he did it every night.

Just on a basic level, in building around Schayes, you weren't building to make use of his defensive talent. You were building to make use of his offensive talent by adding great defenders who could double as enforcers.

And this wasn't a new thing, that's how it was in college too, and why his college coach said this:

Al Cervi: Passing of legendary 'tough guy' coach of Syracuse Nationals

After Dolph Schayes graduated in 1948 from New York University, someone asked his college coach, Howard Cann, how Schayes would do in pro basketball. Schayes never forgot the response. Cann said his star player wasn't tough enough, that Schayes was liable to get eaten alive.

None of this means that Schayes didn't do everything he could to toughen up, or that he didn't play through pain, or that he didn't try hard on defense.

But the Nats were a team that won with defense and all of their core players were known for being extremely good defenders except Schayes.

Here's another quote from Schayes that I think illustrates Seymour's role - as captain, floor general, and most venerated defender -in all this pretty well:

The Rainmaker

One of the most memorable fights happened when Loscutoff lowballed me and I broke my wrist and smashed my face. One of the Celtics said, “He got what he deserved,” which started a huge brawl. My teammate Paul Seymour smashed this guy and wouldn’t let him go; the police had to get him off by grabbing him by his nostrils and yanking.

Because of Schayes' offensive talent, his teammates looked to act with ready violence on his behalf, and not just the frontcourt players like Lloyd. Seymour was 7 inches shorter than Schayes, but that didn't stop him from entering into the fray like a berserker.

Doctor MJ wrote:....

if im allowed in 100 votin, i might vote mikan 2

Doctor MJ wrote:Great additions in general, and the point about Schayes' injury is important. As I've said, this isn't just a one time thing where there are disappearances of Schayes at important points, but it's entirely possible that each time it happened he was injured.

I know he was dealing with injuries in the 1955 Finals as well--a thigh and thumb injury:

That's the only explanation I have for why he played 21 minutes in game 7.

As far as his later career goes, he did have some issues with pre-game anxiety that could lead to headaches, but for the most part he seemed to perform well in the playoffs. For instance, he was a significant force in the close 1959 series against the Celtics even with an injured left foot.

You could definitely criticize Schayes for his availability but playing through injuries was more common back then and was an unfortunate consequence of the era.

Doctor MJ wrote:But the Nats were a team that won with defense and all of their core players were known for being extremely good defenders except Schayes.

Yeah, I would agree with that. I just don't want anyone getting the wrong idea about Schayes' defense. The Basketball Rating Handbook gives Schayes a '9' for defense, which I'll admit does seem quite generous. But prime Schayes was a good overall defender that had the luxury of being on a stacked defensive team with a defensively-minded coach--which made his job easier. His teammates, especially Seymour and Lloyd, were certainly among the best defenders in the league though.

Doctor MJ wrote:6. Paul Seymour (1928), "Mr. Shutdown", 6'1" shooting guard, known for defense and playmaking, 1 title with Syracuse Nationals

Origin: Ohio
College: Toledo
Series Wins: 9
All-NBA 2nd Team: 2 times
Star-Prime: 3 seasons
POY wins: 1, POY shares: 1.7
DPOY wins: 2, DPOY shares: 2.0

- Seymour is the first player on this list who didn't get a single vote (not even from me) back when we did the 2020 project.

- Note that he was only named all-star 3 seasons, and never made All-NBA 1st team, was not seen as the star of his team and almost certainly never would have earned any MVP shares to speak of. So this is me being pretty weird putting him as high up on the list as I am, and as you can see by my POY & DPOY shares, I'm tempted to put him even higher. In the end, it just seems far fetched to say he had a greater career than rival Slater Martin, even if I do think Seymour peaked higher.

- The first thing to understand is that Seymour was seen as an absolute defensive stud, who was tough as nails and would keep teammates larger than himself from getting roughed up. Seymour is one of several guards in these early times with reputations for exceptional defense, and while it's reasonable to be skeptical about that, let's look at some facts.

- In the two years where Seymour got named All-NBA 2nd team (with Bob Cousy being the only guard on 1st team incidentally), his Nats have the best defense in the league by bkref's estimate DRtg.

- In each of those two years there were only 2 all-stars on the Nats, Seymour and the team's star Dolph Schayes.

- Schayes was known as the defensive weak link of the team. He focused on offense, the other guy's focused on defense, with Seymour seen as both a) the best individual defender, and b) the coach on the floor (he would go on to be player-coach).

- In both years Seymour led the team in minutes in both the regular and post-season.

- In the first year ('53-54), the Nats would lose a tough 7-game series against the Lakers with Seymour seeming to be able to stand up to Mikan and the Lakers much better than Schayes (who was an undersized big)

- In the second year ('54-55), the Nats would win the title by a single point in game 7 with Schayes once again having a really rough time, but with Seymour and others managing to pick up the slack.

- This to say that when I look at the peaks Syracuse Nationals of the '50s - and the Nats have the best winning percentage of any team that lasted the decade - I think Seymour was the MVP of the team at the time, not Schayes, and that's a pretty big deal.

- I should acknowledge that I've long been something of a Schayes skeptic, so take that how you will. I'm not saying Seymour had a greater overall playing career than Schayes, and I'll flat out say that now that I'm using my 2023 lens that's focused on scaled achievement rather than the "time machine", that's going to make Schayes come out stronger on my Top 100 list. (I still think Paul Arizin was considerably better then and would scale better still to later eras, but just based on the body of work, Schayes longevity of success is too much to overcome.)

Firstly, this was a fantastic overall post, and lovely to see someone take the time to lay out some thinking on so many old era players.

That said (and not wanting to fully derail), but I was wondering if we could look closer at this one placement. As a starting point, how much do we actually know about Seymour's defense? Where did you find the nickname "Mr. Shutdown", for example? I tried a number of google searches and couldn't find any reference to it. It seems it wasn't a well-known or oft-used nickname, at any rate.

But otherwise, my one notable observation about the above is that it seems to be more about Dolph Schayes than Paul Seymour. Specifically it's more about tearing Schayes down.

It feels a bit like a red flag to me---that dressing one guy down a lot to prop up another is necessary to make the case.

And I further wonder if all the criticism [levelled at Schayes] is fully warranted.....

"Schayes was known as the [singular] defensive weak link on the team"
Where do we have this as confirmed? I wouldn't necessarily suggest he was a defensive anchor, by any means; but when we're labelling him the single-worst defensive player in their rotation ("the weak link"), I feel that needs substantiating.

Admittedly, per Schayes own statements teams would typically floor one "offensive forward" and one "defensive forward"......and it does seem a given that he was the "offensive forward". But even so, does that single him out as the [single] weakest defensive link?
Do you have contemporary accounts of bad defense? Do you have some game scouting to that effect? Other?

I vaguely recall one contemporary account complimenting his defense, though I cannot seem to find it (though I did find accounts referring to him as "physical/tough/aggressive" or similar). Nor am I finding any overt criticisms of his defense, btw. He was mentored by Al Cervi, fwiw (Cervi was known for defense, right?). And in the one game with Schayes [older] and Red Kerr that I logged, I was less impressed with Kerr defensively, fwiw.

Additionally, you'd just said the following in George Mikan's blurb:

Doctor MJ wrote:in a league with such weak shooting percentage, rebounding was arguably king

.....crediting his rebounding as the principle driving force of his defensive dominance (probably comfortably the most dominant defensive player of his era, I think you'd agree).

From '52 to '56, Mikan averaged [based on estimated pace from bbref] between 16.6-22.3 reb/100 each year (overall average around 19 or just a pinch over).
In the same years, Schayes averaged between 15.7-19.3 reb/100 (overall average of about 17.0).

Behind, but not monstrously behind, in other words. He did that while averaging marginally HIGHER mpg than Mikan through that span----substantially less in '52 (a year that he comfortably edged Mikan in rebs/100, however), basically equal in '53, and then more than Mikan in '54 and '56----and slightly fewer fouls/game.

So again: how weak a link defensively was Dolph Schayes, really?


I also took at least slight issue with the implication that the Nats won in '55 almost in spite of Dolph Schayes.
Yeah, he had a poor game 7.......but if we're going to tunnel-vision on to one game, it might be worth pointing out that they perhaps wouldn't have even had a game 7 if Dolph doesn't go for 28 pts @ +11.7% rTS with 12 reb and 5 ast in Game 6 [which they won by just 5].
Maybe they wouldn't have won Game 2 [a 3-pt victory] except for Schayes 24 pts and 15 reb.

Maybe they wouldn't have suffered a 7-pt loss in Game 3 [and perhaps thus wouldn't have needed a Game 7 in the first place] if Paul Seymour hadn't stunk it up for just 10 pts on -13.8% rTS (and only 4 assists). Schayes, by comparison, had 21 pts on +16.8% rTS, btw.

Or we could also look at the Nats' 7-pt loss in Game 4.......the one where Schayes had 28 pts @ +12.4% rTS, while Seymour had 5 pts @ -25.4% rTS.


Anyway.....
Point being it just felt like that blurb leaned REALLY HARD on tearing into Schayes (often in unfair or [potentially] poorly substantiated ways) as a means of propping Seymour up.
Not saying Seymour wasn't a substantial player. But his merits should probably be made to stand on their own more.

trex_8063 wrote:Firstly, this was a fantastic overall post, and lovely to see someone take the time to lay out some thinking on so many old era players.

That said (and not wanting to fully derail), but I was wondering if we could look closer at this one placement. As a starting point, how much do we actually know about Seymour's defense? Where did you find the nickname "Mr. Shutdown", for example? I tried a number of google searches and couldn't find any reference to it. It seems it wasn't a well-known or oft-used nickname, at any rate.

But otherwise, my one notable observation about the above is that it seems to be more about Dolph Schayes than Paul Seymour. Specifically it's more about tearing Schayes down.

It feels a bit like a red flag to me---that dressing one guy down a lot to prop up another is necessary to make the case.

And I further wonder if all the criticism [levelled at Schayes] is fully warranted.....

"Schayes was known as the [singular] defensive weak link on the team"
Where do we have this as confirmed? I wouldn't necessarily suggest he was a defensive anchor, by any means; but when we're labelling him the single-worst defensive player in their rotation ("the weak link"), I feel that needs substantiating.

Hey trex, so first off thanks for the kind words on my post.

Let's start off here because I think that gives the layout of the starting five, as well as the coach, in a nutshell:

The 1955 Finals: When the Dust Settled

The Nationals had chased the George Mikan-led Lakers for years. They came close, but failed to dethrone King George in the 1950 and 1954 title series. Mikan retired Sept. 24, 1954 after winning three consecutive titles, opening the door for the Nats. But Syracuse had to overcome a rather daunting limitation they had a hard time scoring.

Dolph Schayes was the team's only consistent shooter, a 6-8 power forward who could sink 25-foot set shots and scoot to layups. He had a marvelous understanding of the game's secrets and its rhythms. Schayes has often been described as the Larry Bird of Syracuse. Some pioneers would argue that it would be more proper to call Bird the Dolph Schayes of Boston.

The rest of the Nats' starter, center John Kerr, forward Red Rocha and guards George King and Paul Seymour, specialized in defense. The Nats finished next-to-last in the NBA in shooting percentage, but they embraced coach Al Cervi's frantic defensive style.

I'd note that they don't say anything bad about Schayes as a defender, they simply say that the entire rest of the starting lineup focused on defense while also noting the role of the coach.

I would say that we can debate just from that exactly what the most likely truth is about Schayes' level of defense, but clearly it's making a statement that it was the other 4 guys who were primarily focused on defense.

I don't really want to double down on statements I've made when I'm feeling chippy that would perhaps imply he didn't try at all on defense. What I think we know is that a) Schayes was the offensive star of his team, b) Schayes was surrounded by guys who focused on defense, and c) his teammates in both college and the pros acted as enforcers ready to do violence against the opponent if they beat up the offensive star.

Now before I get into Seymour specifically, let me just frame things the way I'm coming at things:

While I understand that Schayes was the big star of the Nats, when I go through an analyze historical teams year by year I'm looking to see how the great teams stood out, and then looking to see which players on the team were the drivers of that competitive advantage.

I realize that the MVP of a team can be an offensive player on a team that wins with defense, or vice versa, but at the very least, the best defensive player on a team that wins with defense is accomplishing something legit, and is more than just a way to knock some other guy down.

When that player in this case (Seymour) is also:

a) the team captain
b) the future coach
c) the lead minute player
d) the lead assister
e) the team's 2nd/3rd leading scorer

I think it's all the more clear cut that this guy may well be the team's MVP.

And so even if you end up still convinced that Schayes was the team's MVP, I hope you can see why this shouldn't be a team that's anything like Schayes and a bunch of scrubs.

Now, you specifically asked for where I got the quote from, and I believe this was the source:

The Woodward Alumni Hall of Fame Association

"He was the youngest player ever to start in the National Basketball League (now the NBA) and played for the Syracuse Nats in the 1940's, 50's and 60's. Paul Seymour exemplified the spirit of the Syracuse Nats because of his hustle, his scrappiness, his tenacity and his all-around basketball ability.... Seymour was the guy the coach called on to cover the opposing teams' superstars. He was 'Mr. Shutdown' against the likes of Bob Cousy and Bill Sharman, Jim Pollard and Carl Braun."

That was the way an anniversary booklet of the Syracuse team characterized Paul Seymour

One other point that's important:

There were 6 30+ MPG guys in that chip-winning playoff run. The other guy was Earl Lloyd who I've already given a quote from where Schayes talked about him as the defensive forward. He was actually one of the Top 5 minutes guys on the team that year over Kerr.

And in that final Game 7 that won the Nats their chip by a single point, there were 5 guys who played more than 30 minutes, and Schayes - who played only 21 minutes - was not among them.

Now injuries are a thing and if that's why he played so little and so poorly, it makes sense. But I also think it's important to remember that the way guys like Mikan, Arizin & Pettit put up big performances to get the title is part of their legend, and that's not how Schayes got his title.

trex_8063 wrote:Admittedly, per Schayes own statements teams would typically floor one "offensive forward" and one "defensive forward"......and it does seem a given that he was the "offensive forward". But even so, does that single him out as the [single] weakest defensive link?
Do you have contemporary accounts of bad defense? Do you have some game scouting to that effect? Other?

I vaguely recall one contemporary account complimenting his defense, though I cannot seem to find it (though I did find accounts referring to him as "physical/tough/aggressive" or similar). Nor am I finding any overt criticisms of his defense, btw. He was mentored by Al Cervi, fwiw (Cervi was known for defense, right?). And in the one game with Schayes [older] and Red Kerr that I logged, I was less impressed with Kerr defensively, fwiw.

Additionally, you'd just said the following in George Mikan's blurb:

Doctor MJ wrote:in a league with such weak shooting percentage, rebounding was arguably king

.....crediting his rebounding as the principle driving force of his defensive dominance (probably comfortably the most dominant defensive player of his era, I think you'd agree).

From '52 to '56, Mikan averaged [based on estimated pace from bbref] between 16.6-22.3 reb/100 each year (overall average around 19 or just a pinch over).
In the same years, Schayes averaged between 15.7-19.3 reb/100 (overall average of about 17.0).

Behind, but not monstrously behind, in other words. He did that while averaging marginally HIGHER mpg than Mikan through that span----substantially less in '52 (a year that he comfortably edged Mikan in rebs/100, however), basically equal in '53, and then more than Mikan in '54 and '56----and slightly fewer fouls/game.

So again: how weak a link defensively was Dolph Schayes, really?

I think Schayes' rebounding was clearly a big part of his calling card and yes, the fact that Mikan seemed to have rebounding be a big part of his defensive success does seem to indicate that other rebounders may have had a greater effect in that time frame than we would think now, so perhaps with his rebounding that made him a more valuable defensive player than people realized.

I will note that I recall Schayes saying that he never boxed out, but rather relied upon his instincts (and I'm sure agility, etc) to get the rebounds. While this probably says something about his athleticism and BBIQ which could have added generally to his defensive impact, I'm cautious about drawing that conclusion.

trex_8063 wrote:I also took at least slight issue with the implication that the Nats won in '55 almost in spite of Dolph Schayes.
Yeah, he had a poor game 7.......but if we're going to tunnel-vision on to one game, it might be worth pointing out that they perhaps wouldn't have even had a game 7 if Dolph doesn't go for 28 pts @ +11.7% rTS with 12 reb and 5 ast in Game 6 [which they won by just 5].
Maybe they wouldn't have won Game 2 [a 3-pt victory] except for Schayes 24 pts and 15 reb.

Maybe they wouldn't have suffered a 7-pt loss in Game 3 [and perhaps thus wouldn't have needed a Game 7 in the first place] if Paul Seymour hadn't stunk it up for just 10 pts on -13.8% rTS (and only 4 assists). Schayes, by comparison, had 21 pts on +16.8% rTS, btw.

Or we could also look at the Nats' 7-pt loss in Game 4.......the one where Schayes had 28 pts @ +12.4% rTS, while Seymour had 5 pts @ -25.4% rTS.

Anyway.....
Point being it just felt like that blurb leaned REALLY HARD on tearing into Schayes (often in unfair or [potentially] poorly substantiated ways) as a means of propping Seymour up.
Not saying Seymour wasn't a substantial player. But his merits should probably be made to stand on their own more.

I may be coming from a place where I was expecting to see an epic crescendo for Schayes on the biggest stage, and when I didn't see it, my disappointment slanted the sentiment of my speech unfairly.

But I must say, the idea that I'm "propping Seymour up" and "his merits should probably be made to stand on their own more" is frustrating. I'm clearly telling you stuff about Seymour that you a) never knew, and b) couldn't find on your own, and your response is a) to focus on another player (Schayes) and b) to act as if I should have given you even more.

I understand if what I give isn't enough for you to massively change your own assessment, but you evaluating my research techniques and finding them faulty when you have access to everything I do and haven't found these things yourself is just strange to me.

But look, you began the post very positive, and I know you did that because you want me to know that you're not just looking to tear down what I say. And I can acknowledge that sometimes my tone is problematic and it causes people to act downright rude to me in a way that you aren't being, so I thank you for that and the fact we can both share interest in the deeper history of the beautiful orange ball.

Cheers!

With a disclaimer that I don't know that much outside of the box score stuff, Davies still seems crazy high to me. Had a PER under 10 for 3 of the 4 playoffs where that stat was available and when it wasn't, we have him getting knocked out by the Lakers in 1949 averaging 6 PPG against them and by the Pistons in 1950 averaging 7.5 PPG on 23.5% from the field. He's really only got the 1950 run and the 1951 run that are impressive. I don't see how you can rank him ahead of legends like Mikkelsen and Macauley who were consistently superstars over a good stretch of years.

Wasn't sure whether to post this one whether it's worthwhile, how it's taken, whether it's pedantry on something that isn't intended to be there ...

Doctor MJ wrote:One other point that's important:

There were 6 30+ MPG guys in that chip-winning playoff run. The other guy was Earl Lloyd who I've already given a quote from where Schayes talked about him as the defensive forward. He was actually one of the Top 5 minutes guys on the team that year over Kerr.

And in that final Game 7 that won the Nats their chip by a single point, there were 5 guys who played more than 30 minutes, and Schayes - who played only 21 minutes - was not among them.

Now injuries are a thing and if that's why he played so little and so poorly, it makes sense. But I also think it's important to remember that the way guys like Mikan, Arizin & Pettit put up big performances to get the title is part of their legend, and that's not how Schayes got his title.

Personally I wouldn't say teams "get the title" in a single game.

Which would loop us back to my comments regarding those playoffs as a whole and his prime playoff trends generally (or Trex's at a game level) and to an extent (also alluded to at a game level by Trex) Seymour's production (the worst aspect of which being -0.2 OWS) which the limited aggregations seem to say(/guess, depending on inputs ... WS overall will use team data to get a better average read on D, but even now is flawed on that end) that he was ... fine. Now that's perhaps missing the detail on his better end.


I might also quibble with an that the best defensive player on a defense inclined winning team has be something ...
I think that profile would tend to get you underrated if an ensemble or a less visible defender (young Rodman?) but at the same time it could be done by a Bol or Eaton where they give everything they gain back and are neutral or even worse. Now I don't think that is Seymour (certainly not big picture, looking at his efficiency for a guard in 53 and 54 (spiking a WS or WS/48 [outlier-y?] short prime that accounts for nearly half his career WS); there are clearly times he had real offensive value. I just think net is what matters and you can always nuke one great end with a terrible one.


To reiterate though, big picture: I don't know, it's all very fuzzy. If you call him a 1 (as I did circa a decade ago when breaking all-time lists to primary decades and positions ... probably due to a assist totals in prime years, maybe size) much more so than later it's hard (for me, at least) to have any real confidence in where he is versus McGuire or Martin or Philip or Beard or King (or George).