Does Mikan have any argument to be ranked higher than Hakeem?

[Sailor Haumea]

George Mikan is often called difficult to rank, but I think that in large part comes down to the fact that he gets penalized by a lot of awards not existing at the time he played (he would have 5+ MVPs if the award existed for the entirety of his career, for example).

But with this in mind, does Mikan have an argument for being top 10 ever via being ranked higher than Hakeem Olajuwon? The level of dominance he exhibited is MJ/Russell-level, and he's in that particular club with Shaq and Wilt of "so good that they literally had to change the rules."

Would ranking Mikan higher than Olajuwon be completely outlandish/ludicrous, or would it be a respectable, well-reasoned argument?

[FrodoBaggins]

Depends on how you contextualize and ultimately value his career. He played against Bob Pettit and retired only one year before Bill Russell entered the NBA. Russ & Auerbach thought highly of him, which is enough for me.

[eminence]

I don't currently rank Mikan quite that high, but it doesn't strike me as outlandish. Have him in the teens.

Positives:
Top 2 in era player ever (with Russell)

Negatives:
Weakest era (maybe there's an argument for the ABA era being weaker than the last few years of Mikan's dominance due to expansion)
Weak longevity due to health issues even considering era (perhaps somewhat mitigated by a 'what was left to accomplish' view - which one could also give Russell)

I don't see a view to get him over Russell, and there's probably not a lot of views that'd have him all the way at #2 (titles as #1 as a huge factor?), but he's certainly got a high ceiling as a guy who was the top player in the world for ~8 years without serious challenge.

I suppose one could make an era based argument that basketball is played without a shot clock/key shaped post/etc and rank him #1. Dumb, but no real dumber than unequivocally putting all current guys over all guys from Mikans era, and we see a fair amount of that around.

[iggymcfrack]

ANY argument? Sure. If you completely ignore longevity and competition, he definitely had a more dominant in-era prime. If that's your criteria, he has it. With that said, I find his career much less impressive. It was very much a niche league during Mikan's era with very few black stars allowed to compete. Mikan's dominance correlates much better to a player dominating college play today than it does to the NBA. As a result, personally I have Hakeem in my top 5 and Mikan somewhere in the 30s.

[tsherkin]

The quick answer is "yes, he does."

The longer answer is that it very much depends on how you intersect with cross-era comparisons.

If you ignore the subsequent 70-odd years of rules changes (and his decline with the widened lane), playoff structure differences, league size, integration and so forth, Mikan was a 4-time AS and 5-time All-NBA 1st teamer 6 relevant seasons, who led the league in scoring 3 times, and rebounding twice, and who won 5 titles in 6 years (one was technically BAA).

That, on the surface, is a guy who should have an argument against almost anyone. There's a lot of conditionals there, though, so it's understandable to see both perspectives. Mikan was the OG dominant superstar running the league, and set a player-type template for decades to come. He created drills which are still used today. There's lots to appreciate about his relevance and significance in NBA history, as well as his resume. Cross-era comparisons are hard, because the context of achievements is so different. And then you have to decide if you like the "forward in time" or "backward in time" type arguments.

For me, I'm very much less impressed with the 6'10 asthmatic who was a giant in his time and didn't really deal with a significantly-integrated league, who got worse when they widened the lane and played in an ultra-small league which had nothing like the talent depth of even the ABA-split 70s. In a comparison of who is the better player, it's very clearly Hakeem; he'd run circles around Mikan without even breathing hard.

But ranking criteria vary quite significantly, and greatness can be defined in many ways. Plus, you can only deal with the environment you found, so...

[One_and_Done]

Not really, given he wouldn't even make the league today.

[EmpireFalls]

If we rank Wilt and Russell above Hakeem, why not Mikan?

[Sailor Haumea]

Not really, given he wouldn't even make the league today.

Not really sure how you can make this argument when Deandre Ayton has pretty much the same build and is at least average for a center.

[One_and_Done]

Not really, given he wouldn't even make the league today.

Not really sure how you can make this argument when Deandre Ayton has pretty much the same build and is at least average for a center.

Ayton's skill level and athleticism is way beyond Mikan, who might be well be a YMCA player today.

[penbeast0]

Not really, given he wouldn't even make the league today.

Not really sure how you can make this argument when Deandre Ayton has pretty much the same build and is at least average for a center.

Ayton's skill level and athleticism is way beyond Mikan, who might be well be a YMCA player today.

Of course if you were consistent in your era arguments, you'd make the same argument about Hakeem and today . . . or Jordan.

[One_and_Done]

Not really sure how you can make this argument when Deandre Ayton has pretty much the same build and is at least average for a center.

Ayton's skill level and athleticism is way beyond Mikan, who might be well be a YMCA player today.

Of course if you were consistent in your era arguments, you'd make the same argument about Hakeem and today . . . or Jordan.

That doesn't make sense. Jordan and Hakeem showed modern NBA athleticism and skill, whereas Mikan dropped off a cliff once the league introduced the shot clock. They also widened the lane since he played from 6 to 16 feet. Mikan's film, what little of it exists, looks nothing like Hakeem. Hakeem also didn't play in a league of tiny, unathletic white only players with part time jobs. Mikan's career FG% against the amateurish league he played in was barely over 40%, despite towering over his diminutive opponents (even though he was only 6-10).

[Sailor Haumea]

Ayton's skill level and athleticism is way beyond Mikan, who might be well be a YMCA player today.

Of course if you were consistent in your era arguments, you'd make the same argument about Hakeem and today . . . or Jordan.

That doesn't make sense. Jordan and Hakeem showed modern NBA athleticism and skill, whereas Mikan dropped off a cliff once the league introduced the shot clock. They also widened the lane since he played from 6 to 16 feet. Mikan's film, what little of it exists, looks nothing like Hakeem. Hakeem also didn't play in a league of tiny, unathletic white only players with part time jobs.

1. They literally widened the lane BECAUSE of Mikan.

2. Mikan spent his early career in the NBL, which, you know, actually had Black players, unlike the BAA. That's the reason why NBL teams initially did better than BAA teams post merger.

[One_and_Done]

Of course if you were consistent in your era arguments, you'd make the same argument about Hakeem and today . . . or Jordan.

That doesn't make sense. Jordan and Hakeem showed modern NBA athleticism and skill, whereas Mikan dropped off a cliff once the league introduced the shot clock. They also widened the lane since he played from 6 to 16 feet. Mikan's film, what little of it exists, looks nothing like Hakeem. Hakeem also didn't play in a league of tiny, unathletic white only players with part time jobs.

1. They literally widened the lane BECAUSE of Mikan.

2. Mikan spent his early career in the NBL, which, you know, actually had Black players, unlike the BAA. That's the reason why NBL teams initially did better than BAA teams post merger.

And? I'm not talking about the impact he had on a fledgling league, I'm talking about how good he'd be in a real one.

[penbeast0]

Now look at the average heights of the players of the other centers Mikan played against and those Hakeem played against, add in the fact that they started measuring in sneakers so players from before 1970 get underrated by about an inch and a half, and you will find the average height of starting NBA centers went up maybe an inch (depending on what year you pick), about the same average height increase from Hakeem's era to today. The greater size differential growth has been in the middle players (wings and forwards).

The other factors that get ignored by careless analysts (the sneakers, the floors, weight work, coaching, PEDs and other medicine) are also still there; on the other hand so are expansion and racism. Of those, the racism and the exposure of the league are the big factors that might imply that the league has progressed far more from the 50s to the 90s (40 years) than from the early 90s to today (30 years). They are real and the primary reasons why I have Hakeem higher.

But the question wasn't who do you or I, with our idiosyncratic criteria, rank higher. It was, are there any arguments for Mikan. And there are . . . mainly peer comparison where Mikan, while not the tallest center of his era, was probably the strongest and one of the best scorers and passers. Hakeem was not the physical MIkan/Moses/Shaq type bully, but instead one of the quickest of his era (though with good lower body strength), didn't stand out from his peers nearly as much in terms of scoring and ever efficiency, and took longer to adjust to the NBA where Mikan dominated more from day one. Hakeem had considerably greater longevity, but that may have been attributable to era medicine differentials and era playstyle and expectations at least in part.

[Doctor MJ]

George Mikan is often called difficult to rank, but I think that in large part comes down to the fact that he gets penalized by a lot of awards not existing at the time he played (he would have 5+ MVPs if the award existed for the entirety of his career, for example).

But with this in mind, does Mikan have an argument for being top 10 ever via being ranked higher than Hakeem Olajuwon? The level of dominance he exhibited is MJ/Russell-level, and he's in that particular club with Shaq and Wilt of "so good that they literally had to change the rules."

Would ranking Mikan higher than Olajuwon be completely outlandish/ludicrous, or would it be a respectable, well-reasoned argument?

Nothing crazy about putting Mikan ahead of Hakeem depending on your criteria and reasons. Mikan's certainly the more historically significant player.

I think the more concrete thing to do is talk about how you perceive the various aspects of their game, strengths & weaknesses, etc. To start that process:

Mikan was bigger, stronger, rougher, and entered the NBA with considerably more mature fundamental skill development than Hakeem (yes, likely even on an absolute level, there's a reason why we have a Drill named after him).

Hakeem jumped higher, was longer, faster & more agile generally with feet that came from soccer.

Both were good shooters for bigs, extremely adept scorers from the interior, and adept learners of physical skills - which including getting better at passing fwiw.

Re: so good that they literally had to change the rules. So, to me this is something to bring up when talking about historical significance more so than competitive greatness, because they didn't change the rules back after Mikan aged out. Instead, a few years down the road they widened the key again because, while the first widening was enough to level the playing field against Mikan, it wasn't enough for Wilt.

And of course, from a historical significance perspective, the fact that Mikan is one of two guys who forced the creation of a goaltending rule (along with Bob Kurland), and that this was arguably the most important rule change in basketball history, Mikan's all the more important.

Were I to make a list of most significant basketball players in history, no one born before him would rank higher, and I'm not sure if he'd fall lower than #3 coming up to the present. (Russell & MJ would be Top 2, and then I'm thinking about LeBron & Steph.)

[Doctor MJ]

If we rank Wilt and Russell above Hakeem, why not Mikan?

An important question.

I tend to think what people tend to do in these cross-era evaluations is a combination of:

a) imagine the two players going at it and what we think would happen.

b) have a general sense for how strong we think a given era was and how much we should attempt to normalize for that.

Players who wouldn't actually interact as a matchup on the court we tend to triangulate more on (b), whereas those who really would have gone head to head we probably use more (a).

I think the (a) perspective is your answer here. People can imagine Wilt & Russell getting the better of Hakeem more easily than Mikan. For that reason, I think arguments specifically for how Mikan would get the better of these guys could be powerful...but I think you'd have your work cut out for you.

Before I leave that though: I do think there are plenty of people who rank Hakeem ahead of Wilt and/or Russell, I'd just grant your premise that Wilt & Russell are more likely to be ranked ahead of Hakeem than Mikan.

[Doctor MJ]

Mikan dropped off a cliff once the league introduced the shot clock

Just want to be clear that I believe it was a complete coincidence that Mikan dropped off right around the time of the shot clock.

Shot clocks were put in to prevent egregious stalling, which was done by guards on the perimeter if their team had the lead late in the game, and in fact the team most known for it wasn't in the NBA, it was the Harlem Globetrotters who used it specifically against the Mikan Lakers.

In an era where scoring offensive strategy was focused on moving the ball to the interior, if you felt your team had the better ball handlers and passers on the interior and you had the lead, stalling was a go-to strategy...but that's wasn't what the Lakers were. The Lakers were the ultimate "get it to your front court guys!" team of the era with Mikan, Jim Pollard & Vern Mikkelsen (along with Clyde Lovellette), and so I'd actually say they likely benefitted from the creation of the shot clock rule.

Mikan's effectiveness was curtailed by goaltending and key widening rules, but everything seems to point to wear & tear doing in his career rather than any kind of rule change.

[Doctor MJ]

Not really, given he wouldn't even make the league today.

Not really sure how you can make this argument when Deandre Ayton has pretty much the same build and is at least average for a center.

Great example. If Ayton had a relentless drive to get better, fast motor, and competitive obsessiveness with a mean streak, he'd very clearly be at least an all-star level dude, which is about how how I think Mikan would be today.

[FrodoBaggins]

George had great strength and a fantastic, robust, sturdy, wide-bodied frame. He came into the pros weighing 245 pounds and played at 260-270 in his prime, reaching as high as 280+. All this without the aid of weight lifting. I think you give him 20-30 lbs with modern strength & conditioning. He's comparable to Jeff Ruland and Nikola Jokic in this regard—very strong 280 to 300 pound Cs who carve out/block off a lot of space inside.

He was a lot longer than Ruland, though. Comparable in reach and span to Jokic (9'3", 7'3"), Dwight Howard (9'3.5", 7'4.5"), Cole Aldrich (9'3.5", 7'4.75"), DeMarcus Cousins (9'5", 7'5.75"), and DeAndre Jordan (9'5.5", 7'6").

It's hard to project what level of player he'd be in the post-merger/three-point era. I could see him as a better, more skilled version of pre-injury Ruland on offense, with an all-D impact on defense. Like a 1983-1985 Ruland, mixed with pre-injury McHale. Don't get it twisted: that's a very good player who's an annual all-pro with MVP upside.

1983-1985 Ruland had a lower scoring rate (19.3 points/75) but was very efficient (114 TS+, 372.0 FG Add & 485.6 TS Add over 7380 MP). 20.4 ppg and 11.5 rpg on 61.5% TS.

Absolute, best projection for Mikan? A bully-ball, offensively slanted variant of Tim Duncan. Not the level of defender, but a better scorer. A bona fide franchise centerpiece.

Watch on YouTube

;ab_channel=RyanVanDusen

Watch on YouTube

;ab_channel=RyanVanDusen

[iggymcfrack]

Now look at the average heights of the players of the other centers Mikan played against and those Hakeem played against, add in the fact that they started measuring in sneakers so players from before 1970 get underrated by about an inch and a half, and you will find the average height of starting NBA centers went up maybe an inch (depending on what year you pick), about the same average height increase from Hakeem's era to today. The greater size differential growth has been in the middle players (wings and forwards).

The other factors that get ignored by careless analysts (the sneakers, the floors, weight work, coaching, PEDs and other medicine) are also still there; on the other hand so are expansion and racism. Of those, the racism and the exposure of the league are the big factors that might imply that the league has progressed far more from the 50s to the 90s (40 years) than from the early 90s to today (30 years). They are real and the primary reasons why I have Hakeem higher.

But the question wasn't who do you or I, with our idiosyncratic criteria, rank higher. It was, are there any arguments for Mikan. And there are . . . mainly peer comparison where Mikan, while not the tallest center of his era, was probably the strongest and one of the best scorers and passers. Hakeem was not the physical MIkan/Moses/Shaq type bully, but instead one of the quickest of his era (though with good lower body strength), didn't stand out from his peers nearly as much in terms of scoring and ever efficiency, and took longer to adjust to the NBA where Mikan dominated more from day one. Hakeem had considerably greater longevity, but that may have been attributable to era medicine differentials and era playstyle and expectations at least in part.

When Mikan won his first BAA title, he faced the Washington Capitols in the championship. They're tallest player was 6'9" Reggie Klermsen. Second was Jack Nichols at 6'7". In the division finals he faced the Knicks. Their 2 tallest players were both listed at 6'7". In the first round, he faced the Warriors whose tallest player was 6'9", but their second tallest was 6'5". So in 3 rounds, Mikan faced 2 6'9" guys and everyone else was 6'7" or shorter.

When Hakeem won his first ring, he faced 15 guys that were 6'10" or taller in 4 rounds. So yeah, you're gonna have to take a loss on this one chief.