Greatest Peaks Project (2022): #30 - 1949-50 George Mikan

[OhayoKD]

But hey, still 13-4; totally a 63-win team once Jordan returned.

You know, I started writing a real reply until I saw this. If that is the style of debate you're after, I'll leave you to it, cheers.

I would be interested to see your real reply!

I promise i won't use mean emojis.

Depending on your respone i could be persuaded to put barkely and/or ewing over pippen

[tsherkin]

I would be amazed if after twenty years on the forum you still have not been exposed to criticisms of saying “33-31 without Jordan, 13-4 with.” It is the laziest analysis of that season, not far off dismissing McGrady for only being 39-36 with the 2003 Magic, and when paired with complaints like “well Horace Grant had two extra rebounds against the Knicks,” yeah, I think it deserves a bit of mild derision.

All right, fine.

First, you inferred something I didn't say and then made a sarcastic comment. I made a superficial remark about the change in their record from 94 to 95 and you ran with it like it was a foundational point and as if I'd put any real effort into discussing what happened in 95. I didn't, because we were speaking specifically about 94. So right off the bat, you set a poor tone for quality discourse by inventing a notion to tear down. I said nothing about the 95 Bulls projecting out based on the 17 games they played with Jordan, particularly given that they didn't even reach that level with him in 93. I didn't mention that Horace Grant was gone to Orlando in 95... reinforcing the quality of his play and relevance in 1994. I also didn't mention the addition of Ron Harper, or the thematic lack of health from Luc Longley. I didn't mention a lot of things because it wasn't the focus of my argument, only of your asinine remark about record projection.

And no, it's nothing like dismissing McGrady. That's ludicrous. McGrady had a HORRIFICALLY BAD roster. Pippen had a roster that wasn't elite. He still had a lot of good talent around him, just certainly not one you'd expect 55 wins from, and he wasn't a good enough driver on offense to do much with it, though he obviously made a huge impact on the other end.

Don't prop up BS and then use that as a foundational piece to give crap to someone else; it's not a good way to invite high-quality discussion.

[LA Bird]

Here are the results for round 30

Winner: 50 Mikan

There were 9 voters in this round: AEnigma, DraymondGold, Samurai, trelos6, falcolombardi, trex_8063, iggymcfrack, OhayoKD, Proxy

A total of 32 seasons received at least 1 vote: 03 McGrady, 09 Howard, 11 Howard, 16 Green, 16 Westbrook, 17 Westbrook, 21 Embiid, 22 Embiid, 49 Mikan, 50 Mikan, 51 Mikan, 58 Pettit, 59 Pettit, 61 Baylor, 62 Baylor, 62 Pettit, 75 Gilmore, 89 Barkley, 90 Barkley, 90 Ewing, 91 Barkley, 91 Pippen, 92 Malone, 92 Pippen, 93 Barkley, 93 Malone, 94 Ewing, 94 Pippen, 95 Malone, 96 Malone, 97 Malone, 98 Malone

Top 10 seasons: 50 Mikan, 51 Mikan, 90 Ewing, 49 Mikan, 03 McGrady, 98 Malone, 90 Barkley, 93 Barkley, 22 Embiid, 97 Malone

H2H record (1 season per player)
50 Mikan: 0.576 (19-14)
03 McGrady: 0.562 (18-14)
90 Barkley: 0.481 (13-14)
90 Ewing: 0.469 (15-17)
22 Embiid: 0.452 (14-17)
98 Malone: 0.448 (13-16)

[AEnigma]

I would be amazed if after twenty years on the forum you still have not been exposed to criticisms of saying “33-31 without Jordan, 13-4 with.” It is the laziest analysis of that season, not far off dismissing McGrady for only being 39-36 with the 2003 Magic, and when paired with complaints like “well Horace Grant had two extra rebounds against the Knicks,” yeah, I think it deserves a bit of mild derision.

All right, fine.

First, you inferred something I didn't say and then made a sarcastic comment. I made a superficial remark about the change in their record from 94 to 95 and you ran with it like it was a foundational point and as if I'd put any real effort into discussing what happened in 95. I didn't, because we were speaking specifically about 94. So right off the bat, you set a poor tone for quality discourse by inventing a notion to tear down.

A fair chunk of my post was about 1995 being a better year, and you replied to that with:

Chicago was pretty successful with him at the forefront. They were less so in 95 than they had been in 94 pre-Jordan, though. They won 8 fewer games that year, and they were 13-4 with Jordan, which emans they were 33-31 without him, so they'd sunk back to just above average. Their D was still strong, their offense was actually a little better per-possession than it had been the year before, but league average moved from 106.3 to 108.3 with the first year of the pulled-in 3, and Chicago was taking something like 6.5 extra 3PA per game in 95 compared to 94, so... They also went from 24th to 19th in team FT%, an area where Pippen most certainly did not contribute positively.

“I did not really spend time on this” is not a good defence.

I said nothing about the 95 Bulls projecting out based on the 17 games they played with Jordan, particularly given that they didn't even reach that level with him in 93.

So why use his record with them to illustrate that they were just above average otherwise.

I didn't mention that Horace Grant was gone to Orlando in 95... reinforcing the quality of his play and relevance in 1994. I also didn't mention the addition of Ron Harper, or the thematic lack of health from Luc Longley. I didn't mention a lot of things because it wasn't the focus of my argument, only of your asinine remark about record projection.

????? You commented all this after I said 1995 was the better Pippen year and gave a quick reason why via much higher on-court rating (and on/off) despite no Horace Grant. If your sole objection was to 1994, you could have said so, but instead you talked about how in 1995 he was not contributing to free throw percentage…

And no, it's nothing like dismissing McGrady. That's ludicrous. McGrady had a HORRIFICALLY BAD roster.

That horrifically bad roster went 3-4 without him, which is just below average right.

Don't prop up BS and then use that as a foundational piece to give crap to someone else; it's not a good way to invite high-quality discussion.

Yeah high-quality discussion is when Horace Grant gets two extra offensive rebounds over seven games so we should be careful not to overstate Pippen’s impact.

[DraymondGold]

You know, I started writing a real reply until I saw this. If that is the style of debate you're after, I'll leave you to it, cheers.

I would be interested to see your real reply!

I promise i won't use mean emojis.

Depending on your respone i could be persuaded to put barkely and/or ewing over pippen

Hey tsherkin -- Sorry to hear you're getting frustrated! I just wanted to reach out to say I've been there, and I think you're not the only one having issues. From memory, there were at least two other posters besides us that seem to have struggled with the attitude and tone of certain conversations. At least one of them seems to have stopped voting pretty soon after, which further shrinks our ever-diminishing voting pool. Hopefully they return soon!

On my end, I've had 5 conversations with this poster. In every conversation we've had, they resorted to sarcasm instead of thoughtful commentary. In the majority of our discussions, they resorted to passive aggressions, needless straw-manning, and blatant intentional misrepresentations. In a few, they even turned to outright personal attacks.

I've asked them to stop using sarcasm and straw-manning in place of thoughtful commentary in every single discussion we've had. I've asked them to stop turning to passive aggressions and personal attacks in place of mature discussion in several as well. A moderator has even stepped in and officially asked them to change their behavior. For whatever reason, they've been unwilling to change.

At this point, if 5 requests from me, numerous requests from you and other posters, and at least one official request from a moderator doesn't improve their behavior, it just seems unlikely that there will be much change. Which is a shame -- since it seems like the quantity of posts has been decreasing with our shrinking voter pool, it's a bummer that the quality and civility of discourse seems to be getting worse as well

To that point, I do think there's potential for us to improve back to our earlier level of discussion in the remaining threads, and certainly in the post-project review. To have a productive discussion, we as a community need to be willing to listen to each other and ask questions to those we disagree with, without resorting to sarcasm or straw-manning. Posts like the one OhayoKD just made give me more of that (thanks OhayoKD!). With that in mind, perhaps we could continue the Barkley/Ewing/Pippen discussion in the next thread? I currently have Malone over all of them and Barkley next, but I'm certainly willing to reconsider with a bit more back and forth

[AEnigma]

Great way to increase the pool of voters is by unsubtly pushing for one of the most active voters to be removed and misrepresenting your every disagreement to do so. You had plenty of opportunities to engage with criticisms echoed by more than just me, but you preferred to hide behind tone rather than ever defend any stance. As I ask every single time you engage in this type of disingenuousness: are you interested in a two-way discussion, or are you just looking for people to agree with you unimpeded. The trend in the past few threads seems like it should be close to your ideal, with everyone just posting their stances independently and then waiting to see the final tally. No more need for any of that acrimonious disagreement that mars such an otherwise pure project.

[tsherkin]

Hey tsherkin -- Sorry to hear you're getting frustrated! I just wanted to reach out to say I've been there, and I think you're not the only one having issues. From memory, there were at least two other posters besides us that seem to have struggled with the attitude and tone of certain conversations. At least one of them seems to have stopped voting pretty soon after, which further shrinks our ever-diminishing voting pool. Hopefully they return soon!

Hey man, I appreciate that, it helps. Sorry to hear that certain conversations aren't going so well. So many wonderful posts in these threads, it's such a shame, too. And likewise OhayoKD, man, thanks.

With that in mind, perhaps we could continue the Barkley/Ewing/Pippen discussion in the next thread? I currently have Malone over all of them and Barkley next, but I'm certainly willing to reconsider with a bit more back and forth

That sounds fun

[OhayoKD]

You know, I started writing a real reply until I saw this. If that is the style of debate you're after, I'll leave you to it, cheers.

I would be interested to see your real reply!

I promise i won't use mean emojis.

Depending on your respone i could be persuaded to put barkely and/or ewing over pippen

Hey tsherkin -- Sorry to hear you're getting frustrated! I just wanted to reach out to say I've been there, and I think you're not the only one having issues. From memory, there were at least two other posters besides us that seem to have struggled with the attitude and tone of certain conversations. At least one of them seems to have stopped voting pretty soon after, which further shrinks our ever-diminishing voting pool. Hopefully they return soon!

On my end, I've had 5 conversations with this poster. In every conversation we've had, they resorted to sarcasm instead of thoughtful commentary. In the majority of our discussions, they resorted to passive aggressions, needless straw-manning, and blatant intentional misrepresentations. In a few, they even turned to outright personal attacks.

I've asked them to stop using sarcasm and straw-manning in place of thoughtful commentary in every single discussion we've had. I've asked them to stop turning to passive aggressions and personal attacks in place of mature discussion in several as well. A moderator has even stepped in and officially asked them to change their behavior. For whatever reason, they've been unwilling to change.

At this point, if 5 requests from me, numerous requests from you and other posters, and at least one official request from a moderator doesn't improve their behavior, it just seems unlikely that there will be much change. Which is a shame -- since it seems like the quantity of posts has been decreasing with our shrinking voter pool, it's a bummer that the quality and civility of discourse seems to be getting worse as well

To that point, I do think there's potential for us to improve back to our earlier level of discussion in the remaining threads, and certainly in the post-project review. To have a productive discussion, we as a community need to be willing to listen to each other and ask questions to those we disagree with, without resorting to sarcasm or straw-manning. Posts like the one OhayoKD just made give me more of that (thanks OhayoKD!). With that in mind, perhaps we could continue the Barkley/Ewing/Pippen discussion in the next thread? I currently have Malone over all of them and Barkley next, but I'm certainly willing to reconsider with a bit more back and forth

This is easily the most toxic/passive aggressive thing i've seen in the four months I've been here.

Edit:
Will also add that only tracking people who have issues with someone without considering those who appreicate what someone offers will lead to slanted view.

I haven't done some deep dive but frmo what i've seen, neatly all of Enigma's posts, including those with a line or two of sarcasm, get multiple recs from multiple posters. I'm rather skeptical the majority of posters here don't appreciate the detailed/well substianted points, extensive historical knowledge, and yes, even those flashes of wit, Enigma offers.

I feel this post is dramatically more toxic than anything ive seen from enigma and i really don't feel comfortable with these types of targeted attacks

[SinceGatlingWasARookie]

If you stick Karl Malone and Mikan in the current game Karl Malone will be the better player. But I do think Mikan could make a current team roster.

So Mikan must be in for dominating his own era.

[Colbinii]

If you stick Karl Malone and Mikan in the current game Karl Malone will be the better player. But I do think Mikan could make a current team roster.

So Mikan must be in for dominating his own era.

Every player is in for dominating their own era.

[SinceGatlingWasARookie]

If you stick Karl Malone and Mikan in the current game Karl Malone will be the better player. But I do think Mikan could make a current team roster.

So Mikan must be in for dominating his own era.

Every player is in for dominating their own era.

If it was only for dominating your own era then Mikan got ranked too low because he was top 10 in dominating his own era.

[Colbinii]

If you stick Karl Malone and Mikan in the current game Karl Malone will be the better player. But I do think Mikan could make a current team roster.

So Mikan must be in for dominating his own era.

Every player is in for dominating their own era.

If it was only for dominating your own era then Mikan got ranked too low because he was top 10 in dominating his own era.

Right but there is no concensus. There was no agreed upon formula or way of thinking for this list so Mikan is simply randomly thrown in.

[trex_8063]

If you stick Karl Malone and Mikan in the current game Karl Malone will be the better player. But I do think Mikan could make a current team roster.

I'd generally see him doing more than merely "making a roster".

Throw him in the roughly 1985-95 era NBA, I have very little difficulty imagining him managing roughly Vin Baker/Dino Radja/Jeff Ruland-level production (but with better defense than any of them)......that would be a very nice player.

Modern era.......idk; he showed very good shooting aptitude [relative to professional peers of his time], and his defensive instincts/intelligence were better than basically everyone else of the era (I seem to recall Bill Russell saying somewhere that he modeled his game somewhat after Mikan), anchoring what was the distinct defensive dynasty of his era (one of the better defensive dynasties of ANY era). Limited video suggests at least a hint of passing aptitude as well (hitting baseline cutters or passing from the high-post).
And the guy was a legit 6'10" and 240+ lbs once past his mid-20s, in an era that discouraged weight training.

.......Could that be a Marc Gasol level guy in the modern era? Maybe.


And the thing about these era projections is, it doesn't always work in a modern player's favour if going BACK in time. The mentoring, training, and in-era players to model their game after will be SO different.......there's no guarantee that a player like Marc Gasol, for example, would thrive in the pre-shotclock era (well......I'm sure he'd do fine; but it's not a given [at all] that he would be as dominant as George Mikan actually was in that era).

It's not at all unimpressive, when you really think about it all together (dominance in that era, and potential in later ones).
I didn't vote for him; but jsia.

[Johnlac1]

If you stick Karl Malone and Mikan in the current game Karl Malone will be the better player. But I do think Mikan could make a current team roster.

I'd generally see him doing more than merely "making a roster".

Throw him in the roughly 1985-95 era NBA, I have very little difficulty imagining him managing roughly Vin Baker/Dino Radja/Jeff Ruland-level production (but with better defense than any of them)......that would be a very nice player.

Modern era.......idk; he showed very good shooting aptitude [relative to professional peers of his time], and his defensive instincts/intelligence were better than basically everyone else of the era (I seem to recall Bill Russell saying somewhere that he modeled his game somewhat after Mikan), anchoring what was the distinct defensive dynasty of his era (one of the better defensive dynasties of ANY era). Limited video suggests at least a hint of passing aptitude as well (hitting baseline cutters or passing from the high-post).
And the guy was a legit 6'10" and 240+ lbs once past his mid-20s, in an era that discouraged weight training.

.......Could that be a Marc Gasol level guy in the modern era? Maybe.


And the thing about these era projections is, it doesn't always work in a modern player's favour if going BACK in time. The mentoring, training, and in-era players to model their game after will be SO different.......there's no guarantee that a player like Marc Gasol, for example, would thrive in the pre-shotclock era (well......I'm sure he'd do fine; but it's not a given [at all] that he would be as dominant as George Mikan actually was in that era).

It's not at all unimpressive, when you really think about it all together (dominance in that era, and potential in later ones).
I didn't vote for him; but jsia.

What I noticed after watching many hours of Mikan tapes is that among his other assets he had great timing. In one game on YT against Syracuse (?) I recorded him blocking four or five shots. And that was just with the limited tape that didn't have all his time during the game.
Mikan was not a great leaper or super quick. But he was quicker and more agile than people gave him credit for. Certainly not the lumbering oaf even some of his bios made him out to be.
There were a number of other players in the league about as big as Mikan, but none of them had his all around game. He took his share of flat footed shots and wild hooks that cut down his fg percentage.
But it would have been interesting to see a Mikan who had entered the league ten years later.
Although he didn't have a regular straight up jump shot, like a number of players from that era he had a turn around jump shot. He had a decent touch. If someone had showed him how to shoot a basic straight up jump shot to go with his hook shot, he would have adjusted very well to the more modern game of five years after he retired.