Greater peak: Mikan v Johnston

[kcktiny]

Do you really think those are comparable situations?

Of course they are.

Both players over multiple seasons score more points than any other player in the league, while also being the best or one of the very best shooters in the league, grab the most or 2nd most rebounds, are named to multiple all-NBA 1st teams, and each received few if any MVP votes.

What are you missing?

[HeartBreakKid]

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.

I mean you're trying to argue that Johnston, by virtue of the fact that he has all-nba selections must mean that he is roughly equal to others? I really do not get what you're arguing.

You're saying people of his time thought he was the best player, but people of his time did not think that. I haven't seen anything that has suggested that, including the stuff you posted.

Now you're saying people of his time thought he was worthy of all-nba, but that isn't the same thing as being the best player.

Now you're trying to connect these things by saying "well this player who plays a totally different position has a comparable number of selections, so if he's in conversation for the best then Johnston must be". All-nba doesn't imply equality and all-nba is a year by year basis award on top of that.

Maybe I am misinterpreting you, but you're going all over the place and I don't really get your main argument. You've also tried using some argument that you can't verify by vaguely citing (you're not even really citing) dead peoples opinions and saying modern peoples opinions are not worth anything, even though this entire conversation is based in modernity including your own interpretation of all-nba selections.


Could you re-illiterate what your primary argument is, and summarize the main points? Because I'm not seeing how Johnston was the best player in the league, if you're interpreting that as me saying he sucks, that isn't what I am going for.

[eminence]

Do you really think those are comparable situations?

Of course they are.

Both players over multiple seasons score more points than any other player in the league, while also being the best or one of the very best shooters in the league, grab the most or 2nd most rebounds, are named to multiple all-NBA 1st teams, and each received few if any MVP votes.

What are you missing?

Wilt finishing 4th in MVP shares over that period is comparable to Johnston finishing tied for 18th with 1 single vote over 3 seasons? Wild.

Look to the 25th anniversary team where Russell/Mikan dominate the C voting over Johnston.

Johnston was emphatically not viewed by his peers as a best in the world caliber player.

Sure he was a good player.

This is an Amar'e to Duncan comparison though.

[kcktiny]

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

I agree.

The best C in the league in the time between Mikan and Russell, arguably the best player in the league over the 6 year stretch from 1952-53 to 1957-58, and one of the very best Cs in the league before Russell/Chamberlain.

Played just 6 full seasons in the NBA yet was still named to the HOF.

[HeartBreakKid]

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

I agree.

The best C in the league in the time between Mikan and Russell, arguably the best player in the league over the 6 year stretch from 1952-53 to 1957-58, and one of the very best Cs in the league before Russell/Chamberlain.

Played just 6 full seasons in the NBA yet was still named to the HOF.

Players didn't play many seasons back then. I don't think that feat is that outlandish?

I'm really not seeing how Johnston was the best player during that stretch, especially the second half of that stretch. How is he better than Paul Airizin for example?

[Doctor MJ]

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?

Dude, you ask "why would Johnston be any different" after I specifically talked about him being a 6'8" guy volume scoring as an interior big with a hook shot. The answer to your question was in the part of my post you chopped out, which also means I talked more about actual basketball in the part you chopped out than in your post where you seemed to be asking about basketball. C'mon.

If you want to argue that it's just a coincidence that nobody volume scores today the way Johnston did back then, regardless of their size, you go right ahead and do that, but first ask yourself why you thought I didn't talk about what I did.

To your point about "dominating" specific players, I find myself doubting you've actually gone through the data.

This is a thread about Johnston vs Mikan, so I'll address that matchup, and see what else makes sense after that.

Here's the head-to-head for Johnston & Mikan:

24 games (all regular season)
Mikan's Lakers win 16, lose 8.

Scoring volume: Mikan 22.0, Johnston 20.6


Interesting in particular because Johnston had a higher PPG in all of their mutual seasons except his rookie year, showing an apparent trend toward Johnston under-scoring against Mikan. Do remember that, as I've already stated, when Johnston is in the league, Mikan is no longer a serious candidate for best scorer, which was why I favored Johnston as a scorer in my earlier post, but my first pass analysis here seems to indicate that Mikan was still the superior scorer when they went head to head.

I think I'll mostly leave it with you to see if you can rebut this as, from what I can tell, you claimed Johnston dominated a whole host of players without bothering to even look to see if this was true against the guy Johnston is being compared to.

But I will note also: You talk about Russell as if he existed in a different era, when that wasn't the case. Johnston was only 5 years old than Russell, so these are two players who should have played most of their careers against each other. In reality it was only 3 years because Johnston's career decayed at such a young age.

So here's their head-to-head:

22 regular season games, 5 playoff games.
Russell's Celtics win 15 & lose 7 in the RS, win 4 & lose 1 in the PS.

RS scoring volume: Russell 15.9, Johnston 14.9
PS scoring volume: Russell 15.6, Johnston 13.2

And, for reference, the playoff games came in one series in a year where Johnston averaged 19.5 PPG, while Russell averaged 16.6.

So yeah, I'd say we have a continued trend of Johnston being the superior scorer against the league compared to the guy he's compared to, but in their match-up, Russell was probably the more effective scorer.

And all of this makes sense if the issue was that Johnston struggled to do his thing on the interior against true defensive bigs, which is what you should expect from a 6'8" guy working from the interior.

What about Pettit & Schayes? Well first:

Schayes was a set shooter, which is a shot like the hook that has been rendered largely extinct. I think there's good reason to think he could be a good jump shooter if he played today, because he just seems to be an excellent shooter in general, and if he could hit the 3-point shot well, that's what might be his ticket into the NBA today...though there is also the question about defense. Too small to guard most 4's, too slow to guard most 3's (maybe most 4's), so how does that work?

So to some degree, this puts Schayes in the same scenario as Johnston: It's not a question of whether they could largely keep doing what they were doing without adding new skillsets, it's a question of what skillsets we think they could plausibly get and how effective we think they'd be with those skills.

What hurts Johnston worse than Schayes is that - my understand is such that - he really lived more in the interior, which makes the transition out to the perimeter that much trickier.

Pettit was a jump-shooter, aka a modern shooter, so he wouldn't have to change that.
Pettit also was a far more ferocious rebounder, and stuff like motor and aggression is just always a good sign.

I don't see it as a given that Pettit could be a star today, but I'm not sure I see any massive "oh my god, he has to totally change that".

[HeartBreakKid]

Johnston vs Mikan reminds me a lot of Drexler vs Jordan.

The best player plays his position, and he's the second best player at his position. This naturally leads to player comparisons between the two, despite them not being very close to each other.

[70sFan]

Schayes was a set shooter, which is a shot like the hook that has been rendered largely extinct. I think there's good reason to think he could be a good jump shooter if he played today, because he just seems to be an excellent shooter in general, and if he could hit the 3-point shot well, that's what might be his ticket into the NBA today...though there is also the question about defense. Too small to guard most 4's, too slow to guard most 3's (maybe most 4's), so how does that work?

Wait, what? Schayes wouldn't be undersized as a modern 4. He was 6'8 without the shoes and he wasn't a lanky guy.

[trelos6]

Do you really think those are comparable situations?

Of course they are.

Both players over multiple seasons score more points than any other player in the league, while also being the best or one of the very best shooters in the league, grab the most or 2nd most rebounds, are named to multiple all-NBA 1st teams, and each received few if any MVP votes.

What are you missing?

Wilt finishing 4th in MVP shares over that period is comparable to Johnston finishing tied for 18th with 1 single vote over 3 seasons? Wild.

Look to the 25th anniversary team where Russell/Mikan dominate the C voting over Johnston.

Johnston was emphatically not viewed by his peers as a best in the world caliber player.

Sure he was a good player.

This is an Amar'e to Duncan comparison though.

Good point about the initial 25th anniversary team. That should really shed light into who was highly rated.

[Doctor MJ]

Schayes was a set shooter, which is a shot like the hook that has been rendered largely extinct. I think there's good reason to think he could be a good jump shooter if he played today, because he just seems to be an excellent shooter in general, and if he could hit the 3-point shot well, that's what might be his ticket into the NBA today...though there is also the question about defense. Too small to guard most 4's, too slow to guard most 3's (maybe most 4's), so how does that work?

Wait, what? Schayes wouldn't be undersized as a modern 4. He was 6'8 without the shoes and he wasn't a lanky guy.

My impression is that Schayes had the reputation as a wimp finesse player who got beat up and had to be protected by tougher players...which included teammates who were guards.

What's your impression?

[70sFan]

Schayes was a set shooter, which is a shot like the hook that has been rendered largely extinct. I think there's good reason to think he could be a good jump shooter if he played today, because he just seems to be an excellent shooter in general, and if he could hit the 3-point shot well, that's what might be his ticket into the NBA today...though there is also the question about defense. Too small to guard most 4's, too slow to guard most 3's (maybe most 4's), so how does that work?

Wait, what? Schayes wouldn't be undersized as a modern 4. He was 6'8 without the shoes and he wasn't a lanky guy.

My impression is that Schayes had the reputation as a wimp finesse player who got beat up and had to be protected by tougher players...which included teammates who were guards.

What's your impression?

Oh, but that's more about non-basketball related situations. We have a lot of anectodes about players protecting Julius Erving in the ABA for example, but it doesn't mean he couldn't guard anyone.

[penbeast0]

My impression is that Schayes had the reputation as a wimp finesse player who got beat up and had to be protected by tougher players...which included teammates who were guards.

What's your impression?

I never heard that before. The impression I got of him from my reading was that he was scrappy, played good defense, and liked to throw elbows, though that was true of most big men of that era. That and his son Danny Schayes was a hard foul type so there may be some conflation.

[Doctor MJ]

Wait, what? Schayes wouldn't be undersized as a modern 4. He was 6'8 without the shoes and he wasn't a lanky guy.

My impression is that Schayes had the reputation as a wimp finesse player who got beat up and had to be protected by tougher players...which included teammates who were guards.

What's your impression?

Oh, but that's more about non-basketball related situations. We have a lot of anectodes about players protecting Julius Erving in the ABA for example, but it doesn't mean he couldn't guard anyone.

When the Nats won the title in '54-55, they did so with 6 core players - Schayes, Seymour, King, Rocha, Kerr & Lloyd. It was noted that 5 of those 6 guys were defensive specialists, and then there was Schayes. This was also of course a team winning with defense, and Schayes dropped from the #2 minute guy to #5 minute guy in the Finals against the tough Pistons, and in the series-deciding game 7, Schayes played only 21 minutes - and so wasn't one of the 5 core guys on the floor. Now, Schayes' offensive struggles were the reason why his minutes likely fell off (he went 4-18 in that game), but had Schayes been one of their 5 best defenders, things probably go differently.

You're right this doesn't mean that his size was necessarily the problem then, or that it would be a problem now, all we really know is that in the '50s if you wanted your best defensive lineup, the 26-year-old Schayes played bench.

[Doctor MJ]

My impression is that Schayes had the reputation as a wimp finesse player who got beat up and had to be protected by tougher players...which included teammates who were guards.

What's your impression?

I never heard that before. The impression I got of him from my reading was that he was scrappy, played good defense, and liked to throw elbows, though that was true of most big men of that era. That and his son Danny Schayes was a hard foul type so there may be some conflation.

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.

For all Schayes knows, that critique might have been true. If so, it was his good luck to get signed with the Syracuse Nationals, who would soon merge into the newly formed National Basketball Association. The Nats had a young player-coach, a guy from Buffalo who was nicknamed "The Digger" because of his frenzied need to win.

To survive, Schayes quickly learned, you'd better play just like Al Cervi.

Of course, that doesn't mean that Schayes actually played just like Cervi. He was the scorer, and Cervi built the defense around himself and the other guys.

[70sFan]

My impression is that Schayes had the reputation as a wimp finesse player who got beat up and had to be protected by tougher players...which included teammates who were guards.

What's your impression?

Oh, but that's more about non-basketball related situations. We have a lot of anectodes about players protecting Julius Erving in the ABA for example, but it doesn't mean he couldn't guard anyone.

When the Nats won the title in '54-55, they did so with 6 core players - Schayes, Seymour, King, Rocha, Kerr & Lloyd. It was noted that 5 of those 6 guys were defensive specialists, and then there was Schayes. This was also of course a team winning with defense, and Schayes dropped from the #2 minute guy to #5 minute guy in the Finals against the tough Pistons, and in the series-deciding game 7, Schayes played only 21 minutes - and so wasn't one of the 5 core guys on the floor. Now, Schayes' offensive struggles were the reason why his minutes likely fell off (he went 4-18 in that game), but had Schayes been one of their 5 best defenders, things probably go differently.

You're right this doesn't mean that his size was necessarily the problem then, or that it would be a problem now, all we really know is that in the '50s if you wanted your best defensive lineup, the 26-year-old Schayes played bench.

I don't know that much about 1955 finals, so that's a new information to me. Outside of game 7, his minutes seemed to be consistently above 30 mpg though, so I don't think the reason why he sat down was because of him being a defensive liability. He averaged 32.6 mpg in the first 6 games, which was actually 2nd highest on the team. I don't know why he played so little in game 7, but I don't think it's fair to assume it's because of his defense. Especially since I haven't heard anything negative about it before.

Either way, you said that Dolph would be too small to guard modern 4s, despite him being legit 6'8 and 230 lbs.

[trex_8063]

My impression is that Schayes had the reputation as a wimp finesse player who got beat up and had to be protected by tougher players...which included teammates who were guards.

What's your impression?

Oh, but that's more about non-basketball related situations. We have a lot of anectodes about players protecting Julius Erving in the ABA for example, but it doesn't mean he couldn't guard anyone.

When the Nats won the title in '54-55, they did so with 6 core players - Schayes, Seymour, King, Rocha, Kerr & Lloyd. It was noted that 5 of those 6 guys were defensive specialists, and then there was Schayes. This was also of course a team winning with defense, and Schayes dropped from the #2 minute guy to #5 minute guy in the Finals against the tough Pistons, and in the series-deciding game 7, Schayes played only 21 minutes - and so wasn't one of the 5 core guys on the floor. Now, Schayes' offensive struggles were the reason why his minutes likely fell off (he went 4-18 in that game), but had Schayes been one of their 5 best defenders, things probably go differently.

Are you absolutely certain of the context of his reduced minutes in game 7? Or are you theorizing based upon an opinion [of Schayes] that you already had established in your mind?

For example, are you certain his reduced minutes in game 7 weren't the result of an injury (twisted ankle or similar)?
Because it's potentially ONLY game 7 where we see his minutes fall: he was still 2nd on the team in minutes thru the first six games [32.8 mpg], and that's with TWO games in which minutes were potentially limited by fouling out (33 minutes in one, minutes unlisted [on bbref] in the other).

And his numbers for the series as a whole [game 7 inclusive] are pretty impressive: 19.0 ppg @ 52.4% (that's elite by '55 standards: almost +7% rTS), 11.9 rpg, 3.0 apg.
He was absolutely instrumental in a close [5-pt] win in an elimination game 6: 28 pts @ 57.2% TS [good even by today's standards], 12 reb, 5 ast.
He'd had 24 pts and 15 reb in a narrow [3-pt] game 2 victory as well.
The boxscore makes it look as though he was carrying an otherwise struggling team during a 7-pt loss in game 4: he had 28 pts @ 57.9% TS, while no one else had more than 15, and Paul Seymour and George King combined for 9 pts @ 17.7% TS.


Not to derail, but just sayin': seems like you're trying to paint him as a shrinking violet in the series, when the bulk of evidence doesn't support that.
It's true the Nats won more on the basis of their defense that year, and you may well be correct that Schayes was the weakest defender of their core six rotation (I don't know for sure: like penbeast0 mentioned I'd actually heard a couple of positive statements wrt his defense). But if so, it's sort of natural that if you surround an offensive star with five defensive specialists, they will probably be better defensively than on offense.

fwiw, in that Finals series, the Nats scored -1.5 ppg relative to their rs avg, but +0.9 ppg relative to the Pistons' pts allowed avg.
As far as their defense, the Piston's scored -1.0 ppg relative to their rs avg, but +1.7 ppg relative to the Nats' pts allowed avg from the rs.
So it's hard to say which they were riding to victory more within that specific series. It looks like perhaps both offense and defense were performing roughly equally.

[Doctor MJ]

Oh, but that's more about non-basketball related situations. We have a lot of anectodes about players protecting Julius Erving in the ABA for example, but it doesn't mean he couldn't guard anyone.

When the Nats won the title in '54-55, they did so with 6 core players - Schayes, Seymour, King, Rocha, Kerr & Lloyd. It was noted that 5 of those 6 guys were defensive specialists, and then there was Schayes. This was also of course a team winning with defense, and Schayes dropped from the #2 minute guy to #5 minute guy in the Finals against the tough Pistons, and in the series-deciding game 7, Schayes played only 21 minutes - and so wasn't one of the 5 core guys on the floor. Now, Schayes' offensive struggles were the reason why his minutes likely fell off (he went 4-18 in that game), but had Schayes been one of their 5 best defenders, things probably go differently.

You're right this doesn't mean that his size was necessarily the problem then, or that it would be a problem now, all we really know is that in the '50s if you wanted your best defensive lineup, the 26-year-old Schayes played bench.

I don't know that much about 1955 finals, so that's a new information to me. Outside of game 7, his minutes seemed to be consistently above 30 mpg though, so I don't think the reason why he sat down was because of him being a defensive liability. He averaged 32.6 mpg in the first 6 games, which was actually 2nd highest on the team. I don't know why he played so little in game 7, but I don't think it's fair to assume it's because of his defense. Especially since I haven't heard anything negative about it before.

Either way, you said that Dolph would be too small to guard modern 4s, despite him being legit 6'8 and 230 lbs.

Hmm. So you don't know much about the 1955 finals, but are confident that you know Schayes' defense well enough to dismiss anything I say on the grounds that if it were correct, you'd already know about it? Be careful my friend, that sure sounds like you're not just in danger of cognitive dissonance, but that you're consciously using it as a epistemic tool.

I do want to be clear that I didn't say "Schayes was sat because of his defense". I certainly understand why my collection of statements would lead you to believe I'd said that, but I didn't. What I said took a lot more words, and I said those words rather than "Schayes was sat because of his defense" for a reason.

Re: "I haven't heard anything negative about (Schayes' defense) before." I'm curious the sources you've used, and what they've said about Schayes' defense.

As for my methods, I'll readily admit to both a) trying to make reasonable inferences through indirect information, and b) not having any claim to absolute certainty, but, here are some things to chew on:

First, here's an article about the 1955 Finals, and a quote from it:

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' starters - 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. Cervi led his team as a charismatic dictator. Eckman sat on the bench and watched. Cervi stormed on the sideline, directing every detail.

They don't say that Schayes was "bad at defense", they just say that the other 4 starters were "specialized in defense" and that the coach had a "frantic defensive style", while praising Schayes offense.

I'll note that they don't mention the defense of the 6th core player, Earl Lloyd, who played the 3rd most minutes for the Nats in that game (behind the two Reds and tied with Seymour). So what do we hear about Lloyd - best known as the first Black player to play in the NBA?

Well, here's from the Naismith HOF entry on him:

A rugged power forward who became a starter on Syracuse’s NBA championship team in 1955, Lloyd was known for his defensive play on the opponent’s top scorer, rugged rebounding, and effective offensive game.

Tons of sources will say that he played "tenacious defense", but I thought this from the New York Times was noteworthy:

He was a strong rebounder and was so tenacious on defense that he sometimes guarded the Minneapolis Lakers’ 6-foot-10 center, George Mikan, the league’s first superstar.

Worth noting that Lloyd was listed at 6'5", so it's a bit eye-brow raising that he would guard Mikan. Another thing I'll note is that the Black players at the time talked about being used as enforcers. I have a memory about Lloyd being talked about as an example of this, but can't find the link.

All this to say, it's pretty clear cut historically that Schayes was part of a 6 man core where the other 5 guys have massive raves about their defense that he doesn't have, along with a coach with an extremely strong defensive reputation, while Schayes reputation just doesn't come from that.

So take all that information, along with the fact that Schayes did have people at the time talk about him as soft, and come to your own conclusion about how good you think Schayes was at defense.

Only other thing I'll say is this:

I think it's really quite important not to fall prey to the idea that it's analytically superior to have an absence of assessment about X, than it is to do the best you can with the information you have. There's clearly a cognitive pull to try to avoid putting something bold forward and be proven wrong, and understandably so, but that's something you do to protect yourself from embarrassment, not arrive at the accurate evaluation.

Further, what I see in this response and the next is people focusing on me rather than the actual content. People are perceiving me making absolute assertions, when I'm not, and are then going straight to question of my "bias", without ever seeming inclined to try to respond to what I say by referencing sources themselves.

While I know that you've done a ton of work with video going back into history and that's very meaningful, what I see in general is people not even attempting to do serious historical research, and then s**ting on those that do for having some agenda that makes them morally inferior to the do-nothings, and it makes me wonder why I keep wasting my time.

If me finding out anything new is just going to be perceived as part of some kind of ego-aggrandizing manipulation, then I'm probably better off just not sharing the stuff I'm trying to do, and others would be better off either learning it from a source they can trust, or, more likely, just never learning anything and feeling self-satisfied with what they think they now.

Sigh, I'm going to regret saying all that stuff, and it's certainly not meant to be targeted at you specifically, but damn, I just don't understand why it's so hard for people to just take in the information they are given with a skeptical but not cynical eye any more. Feels like it makes it impossible to actually get anywhere as a community.

[Doctor MJ]

Oh, but that's more about non-basketball related situations. We have a lot of anectodes about players protecting Julius Erving in the ABA for example, but it doesn't mean he couldn't guard anyone.

When the Nats won the title in '54-55, they did so with 6 core players - Schayes, Seymour, King, Rocha, Kerr & Lloyd. It was noted that 5 of those 6 guys were defensive specialists, and then there was Schayes. This was also of course a team winning with defense, and Schayes dropped from the #2 minute guy to #5 minute guy in the Finals against the tough Pistons, and in the series-deciding game 7, Schayes played only 21 minutes - and so wasn't one of the 5 core guys on the floor. Now, Schayes' offensive struggles were the reason why his minutes likely fell off (he went 4-18 in that game), but had Schayes been one of their 5 best defenders, things probably go differently.

Are you absolutely certain of the context of his reduced minutes in game 7?

Read what I said. The answer is in front of you.

[trex_8063]

When the Nats won the title in '54-55, they did so with 6 core players - Schayes, Seymour, King, Rocha, Kerr & Lloyd. It was noted that 5 of those 6 guys were defensive specialists, and then there was Schayes. This was also of course a team winning with defense, and Schayes dropped from the #2 minute guy to #5 minute guy in the Finals against the tough Pistons, and in the series-deciding game 7, Schayes played only 21 minutes - and so wasn't one of the 5 core guys on the floor. Now, Schayes' offensive struggles were the reason why his minutes likely fell off (he went 4-18 in that game), but had Schayes been one of their 5 best defenders, things probably go differently.

Are you absolutely certain of the context of his reduced minutes in game 7?

Read what I said. The answer is in front of you.

I didn't miss the "offensive struggles were the reason why his minutes likely fell off", if that's what you mean.

But when you both include the word "likely" [denoting uncertainty], and then follow it up with commenting he went 4-18, it feels like maybe you're extrapolating (that is: making an assumption).

But to be "absolutely certain" [that is: NOT making an assumption], you must have a contempory source/account about the game to make you so.
If you don't have such an account of the game to share.....well, then yes, the answer is there in front of me.

EDIT: I also note that the very article you linked [about Al Cervi] states that Schayes "played fierce defense".

[penbeast0]

I went looking in Terry Pluto's "Tall Tales" for mention of Dolph Schayes's defense. I didn't find it but I did find that according to Earl Lloyd, Schayes was playing game 7 of that series with a broken wrist. On the other hand (no pun intended), Lloyd said that guard George King also had a broken wrist and that he himself was playing with a broken hand for what it's worth.