Greater peak: Mikan v Johnston

[trelos6]

Looking at 4 season peaks for George Mikan v Neil Johnston.

Mikan: 1950-54

22.6 ppg, .400 fg%, .786 ft%, 14.1 rpg, 2.8 apg

.480 ts%, 36.2 OWS, 28.9 DWS, 65.1 WS, .264 WS/48

4 all NBA first team, 3 championships

Johnston: 1952-56

22.9 ppg, .449 fg%, .752 ft%, 13.1 rpg, 3.0 apg

.539 ts%, 51 OWS, 11.9 DWS, 62.9 WS, .252 WS/48

4 app NBA first team, 1 championship

So why all the Mikan love, and no Johnston love. He was a more efficient player and looks like the better overall offensive player.

Looking at teammates:

Johnston played with an old Fulks and Phillip on pretty bad teams and got better when Arizin came back from his military service.

Mikan played with Mikkelson, Pollard, Martin. 3 all-stars. To me, Mikan had the better team, which is why, he won 3 championships.

I think all time, Neil Johnston is neck and neck with Mikan, or at least should be.

[iggymcfrack]

You're just looking at regular season stats. See what they did in the playoffs. For his playoff career, Johnston averaged 15/11/3 on .463 TS%. He had a 21.0 PER and .159 WS/48. Mikan averaged 24/14/2 in the playoffs on .493 TS%. He had a PER of 28.5 and a WS/48 of .254 despite those stats missing his best years.

[trelos6]

Johnston’s team was bad. As a rookie they were in the playoffs, then missed for 3 years before his championship season.

In that playoffs, Johnston was 20 / 14 / 5 on .485 ts%

[penbeast0]

There's a big defensive reputation gap and Mikan has a better rep as a passer out of the post as well, but Johnston is one of those guys whose numbers really jump out at you. So, I remembered looking into him (and Ed Macauley) when I tried to analyze the 50s years.

There is possibly a hit when you see what happened to his team when Arizin went into military service and Johnston took primacy. 1953, team record dropped from 30-36 with little contribution from rookie Johnston to 16-53 (worst in league, worst offense in league despite Johnston's putting up excellent individual numbers, 2nd worst defense) with Johnston as team star and Arizin in the military). 27 wins the next year and only 35-47 when Arizin returns which is disappointing for them both. Then 56 they put it together and win a title before slipping back to just over .500 the next two years despite 57 being the best offensive team in the league.

That's Johnston's career. One title with Arizin, below average team defense every year but one, below average team offense every year but 2 (though best in league those two), lots of nice numbers, best record outside of 56 is 37-35 with Paul Arizin playing full time, best year without Arizin is 27 wins. It may be winning bias or it may be that his lesser defensive rep is justified and mattered a lot, but his teams weren't dominant even with a healthy Arizin outside of 56.

[70sFan]

On top of that, Mikan was a strong defensive anchor. Johnston usually is called a weak defender.

[Stalwart]

Mikan established basketball as a legitimate professional sport. Not to mention he has a much bigger basketball resume. There is no debate here.

[kcktiny]

Mikan established basketball as a legitimate professional sport. Not to mention he has a much bigger basketball resume. There is no debate here.

There is clearly a debate here.

From 1952-53 to 1957-58 Johnston dominated the league offensively at just 6-8 in height in an age of plenty of 6-9 to 6-11 Cs.

Those 6 seasons he scored 700 more points in the regular season than did any other player - and he did so while also being the best shooter, his 44.6% FG% being best among all players that played even 3000 total minutes over the 6 seasons. The league average FG% over those 6 seasons was just 38%.

Can you name another NBA player that over 6 seasons scored the most points while also being the best shooter? Chamberlain? Jabbar? That's some pretty select company.

He also attempted the most FTAs while grabbing the 2nd most rebounds during that time.

So he was a great scorer, a very efficient scorer, drew a ton of fouls, and was a very good rebounder for an undersized C.

And those 6 years the only other player on the Warriors that you could consider a star was the 6-4 Paul Arizin.

Mikan lead the first 5 years of the NBA (1949-50 to 1953-54) in points, rebounds, FTAs, but was nowhere near the best shooter.

Mikan was/is an icon. But at the end of the 1957-58 season Johnston was 4th in the 9 year history of the NBA in both total points and total rebounds - despite having played just 6 full seasons.

[Doctor MJ]

Looking at 4 season peaks for George Mikan v Neil Johnston.

Mikan: 1950-54

22.6 ppg, .400 fg%, .786 ft%, 14.1 rpg, 2.8 apg

.480 ts%, 36.2 OWS, 28.9 DWS, 65.1 WS, .264 WS/48

4 all NBA first team, 3 championships

Johnston: 1952-56

22.9 ppg, .449 fg%, .752 ft%, 13.1 rpg, 3.0 apg

.539 ts%, 51 OWS, 11.9 DWS, 62.9 WS, .252 WS/48

4 app NBA first team, 1 championship

So why all the Mikan love, and no Johnston love. He was a more efficient player and looks like the better overall offensive player.

Looking at teammates:

Johnston played with an old Fulks and Phillip on pretty bad teams and got better when Arizin came back from his military service.

Mikan played with Mikkelson, Pollard, Martin. 3 all-stars. To me, Mikan had the better team, which is why, he won 3 championships.

I think all time, Neil Johnston is neck and neck with Mikan, or at least should be.

So key things to me:

1. Mikan's impact in the '50s is really not about his scoring, but about his rebounding and defense.

2. If we focus only on scoring in the '50s (aka with the widened key), I'd absolutely give Johnston the edge, but...

3. There appears to be a major impact deficit for Johnston relative to what you'd expect from his TS Add. His teammate Paul Arizin seems to correlate way more with team ORtg, and also seems considerably more robust in the playoffs.

I'm not comfortable making definitive "He was overrated!!!" statements about a guy I really haven't seen, but those are the concerns I have.

What I can say is that with Johnston you're talking about 6'8" center whose signature was hook shots, whereas Arizin was a proto-Jordan. That doesn't mean that Arizin was necessarily more effective at the time, but Johnston would certainly have to play very differently in a more modern era, whereas Arizin's game was tailor made for the future.

[kcktiny]

but Johnston would certainly have to play very differently in a more modern era

The 6-8 Johnston went up against the likes of 7-0 Walt Dukes, 6-11 Chuck Share, 6-11 Ray Felix, 6-10 George Mikan, 6-9 Larry Foust, 6-9 Clyde Lovellette, 6-9 Arnie Risen, 6-9 Johnny Kerr, 6-9 Red Rocha, and a host of others - and he dominated them all.

He did great in his era, and he would have a decade later. Both Pettit and Schayes - who also dominated in the 50s - did just fine going up against Chamberlain and Russell and the like in the early 1960s, each scoring 20+ pts/g the first few seasons of the 60s. Why would Johnston have been any different?

I think the greatest players of their eras could play in any era. You think Dolph Schayes, Bob Pettit, George Yardley, Jack Twyman, Elgin Baylor, Jerry West, and Oscar Robertson couldn't play today?

[trex_8063]

You're just looking at regular season stats. See what they did in the playoffs. For his playoff career, Johnston averaged 15/11/3 on .463 TS%. He had a 21.0 PER and .159 WS/48. Mikan averaged 24/14/2 in the playoffs on .493 TS%. He had a PER of 28.5 and a WS/48 of .254 despite those stats missing his best years.

A larger consideration than this is simply: defense.

By both results and reputation, comparing Neil Johnston to Mikan [defensively] is sort of like comparing Montrezl Harrell to Rudy Gobert.

[picko]

There is an argument that Mikan peaked higher, relative to his peers, than anyone in NBA history. Higher than Wilt or Russell or Jordan or LeBron.

Johnston took over from Mikan as the league's best player but I don't think you could reasonably argue that he was anywhere near ss dominant at his peak.

[HeartBreakKid]

There is an argument that Mikan peaked higher, relative to his peers, than anyone in NBA history. Higher than Wilt or Russell or Jordan or LeBron.

Johnston took over from Mikan as the league's best player but I don't think you could reasonably argue that he was anywhere near ss dominant at his peak.

I think Maurice Stokes was probably the best player after Mikan retired, then Bob Petit, then Russell. Probably can fit Paul Airzin in there as well.

There was also players like Dolph Schayes in their prime. I don't think Johnston had much of an argument for best player in the NBA.

[kcktiny]

Johnston took over from Mikan as the league's best player but I don't think you could reasonably argue that he was anywhere near ss dominant at his peak.

I don't think Johnston had much of an argument for best player in the NBA.

Mikan was named all-NBA 1st team 6 times (actually 5 NBA and 1 BAA). Johnston was named all-NBA 1st team 4 times. 4 times versus 6 times sounds a lot more reasonable than no times versus 6 times.

Evidently the people that actually saw him play - at that time - have a far higher impression of his basketball abilities than a few people of today claim some 60+ years later.

[HeartBreakKid]

Johnston took over from Mikan as the league's best player but I don't think you could reasonably argue that he was anywhere near ss dominant at his peak.

I don't think Johnston had much of an argument for best player in the NBA.

Mikan was named all-NBA 1st team 6 times (actually 5 NBA and 1 BAA). Johnston was named all-NBA 1st team 4 times. 4 times versus 6 times sounds a lot more reasonable than no times versus 6 times.

Evidently the people that actually saw him play - at that time - have a far higher impression of his basketball abilities than a few people of today claim some 60+ years later.

There is plenty of testimony that Mikan was better...it's not like Mikan was retroactively claimed to be better.

[penbeast0]

Johnston took over from Mikan as the league's best player but I don't think you could reasonably argue that he was anywhere near ss dominant at his peak.

I don't think Johnston had much of an argument for best player in the NBA.

Mikan was named all-NBA 1st team 6 times (actually 5 NBA and 1 BAA). Johnston was named all-NBA 1st team 4 times. 4 times versus 6 times sounds a lot more reasonable than no times versus 6 times.

Evidently the people that actually saw him play - at that time - have a far higher impression of his basketball abilities than a few people of today claim some 60+ years later.

Very weak straw man argument. The quoted poster said Johnston didn't have a good argument for best player in the league, somehow you decided that that meant he had said that Johnston had no All-NBA awards which no one ever said. The actual post in the part you clipped mentioned several players, Stokes, Pettit, Schayes, Arizin, who were better in at least one year of Johnston's relatively short career . . . all of whom are primarily considered forwards so they wouldn't be competing directly against Johnston for 1st team All-NBA center anyway.

[Johnlac1]

Looking at 4 season peaks for George Mikan v Neil Johnston.

Mikan: 1950-54

22.6 ppg, .400 fg%, .786 ft%, 14.1 rpg, 2.8 apg

.480 ts%, 36.2 OWS, 28.9 DWS, 65.1 WS, .264 WS/48

4 all NBA first team, 3 championships

Johnston: 1952-56

22.9 ppg, .449 fg%, .752 ft%, 13.1 rpg, 3.0 apg

.539 ts%, 51 OWS, 11.9 DWS, 62.9 WS, .252 WS/48

4 app NBA first team, 1 championship

So why all the Mikan love, and no Johnston love. He was a more efficient player and looks like the better overall offensive player.

Looking at teammates:

Johnston played with an old Fulks and Phillip on pretty bad teams and got better when Arizin came back from his military service.

Mikan played with Mikkelson, Pollard, Martin. 3 all-stars. To me, Mikan had the better team, which is why, he won 3 championships.

I think all time, Neil Johnston is neck and neck with Mikan, or at least should be.

Mikan had five titles.

[kcktiny]

Very weak straw man argument.

Is that a fact.

The quoted poster said Johnston didn't have a good argument for best player in the league

And I am saying one can reasonably argue he clearly does - at least from 1952-53 to 1957-58, when he lead the league in both points scored and shooting, was second in rebounds, and was named all-NBA 1st team 4 times and 2nd team 1 time.

Plus won a title in 1955-56.

somehow you decided that that meant he had said that Johnston had no All-NBA awards which no one ever said

Where exactly did I infer anyone said anything? I simply stated what was factual - that people at that time who actually saw him play a lot thought very highly of his abilities, so much so that they named him all-NBA 1st team for four straight seasons.

And that some people now - who did not see him play - are in retrospect saying his production on the floor and his accolades at that time are not enough for him to reasonably be considered the best at that time.

By the end of the 1957-58 season Mikan had been named all-NBA 1st team 5 times, Cousy 7 times, Johnston 4 times, Dolph Schayes 6 times, and Pettit 4 times. These were the very best players of the day, the all-time greats at that time.

Saying Mikan was the best of that group is reasonable based on his stats and accolades. But to say the others could not reasonably be considered the very best of that time is being disingenuous.

[eminence]

Johnston received 0 MVP votes in his final 1st team All-NBA season (8 players did), none in his 2nd team season, and tied for 12th in his final Allstar season (Arizin was 2nd/3rd/8th those seasons). I don't think it's a reasonable take to argue that the folks of the day thought he was arguably the best player on his own team, let alone in the world.

[kcktiny]

Johnston received 0 MVP votes in his final 1st team All-NBA season (8 players did), none in his 2nd team season, and tied for 12th in his final Allstar season (Arizin was 2nd/3rd/8th those seasons). I don't think it's a reasonable take to argue that the folks of the day thought he was arguably the best player on his own team, let alone in the world.

From 1960-61 to 1962-63 Wilt Chamberlain scored 44.6 pts/g being one of the very best shooters in the league playing 48 min/g with 25.7 reb/g. Russell averaged 17.5 pts/g with 23.7 reb/g playing 45 min/g. Wilt's stats dwarfed those of Bill.

Yet those 3 seasons Russell received 142 votes for MVP, Chamberlain just 12.

Chamberlain was named all-NBA 1st team 2 of those 3 years, Russell the other.

Are you seriously going to try to tell us that Wilt could not reasonably have been considered the best player in the league those 3 seasons?

[eminence]

Johnston received 0 MVP votes in his final 1st team All-NBA season (8 players did), none in his 2nd team season, and tied for 12th in his final Allstar season (Arizin was 2nd/3rd/8th those seasons). I don't think it's a reasonable take to argue that the folks of the day thought he was arguably the best player on his own team, let alone in the world.

From 1960-61 to 1962-63 Wilt Chamberlain scored 44.6 pts/g being one of the very best shooters in the league playing 48 min/g with 25.7 reb/g. Russell averaged 17.5 pts/g with 23.7 reb/g playing 45 min/g. Wilt's stats dwarfed those of Bill.

Yet those 3 seasons Russell received 142 votes for MVP, Chamberlain just 12.

Chamberlain was named all-NBA 1st team 2 of those 3 years, Russell the other.

Are you seriously going to try to tell us that Wilt could not reasonably have been considered the best player in the league those 3 seasons?

Do you really think those are comparable situations?

One guy finishes 4th, 2nd, and then a low point of 7th (notably wins 4 MVPs not in those seasons).

The other is always #2 on his team and never seriously sniffs MVP consideration?