Shaq vs Mikan

[ShaqAttac]

Mod told me to put these in pc so

[picko]

Shaq was almost certainly the better player - by virtue of competing and succeeding against vastly superior competition. Mikan was almost certainly the more dominant player within his respective era.

[Ryoga Hibiki]

Impossible to answer if you don't provide further context to your question, what you really want to know.
Mikan was more dominant in his time, when the pool was much smaller. He had a shorter career, but had a bigger impact in changing the game. He played before the shot clock.
I don't know where to start.

[eminence]

Shaq surely the better player, Mikan surely more dominant in era. Relatively speaking Shaq was the better offensive player and Mikan the better defender. Both have reps for not being afraid to throw their weight around. Shaq had a longer career, though I think maybe a bit overstated, Mikan had 8 MVP level years up through age 29 (‘02 Shaq).

In terms of accomplishment I’d go Mikan - 7 rings in 8 years (up to first retirement), would surely have a handful of MVPs if the award existed, was named player of the first half of the century only a few years into his career. Shaq obviously led a very dominant Lakers run and then teamed up with Wade for another. Probably a bit underrated by RS accolades, but partially due to missing little bits of time a lot of the time.

[Dutchball97]

Mikan is arguably the most dominant player ever relative to era. For reference his career WS/48 in the regular season doesn't qualify for games/minutes requirements but would be 3rd all-time behind MJ and David Robinson, for the play-offs he's 2nd all-time behind only MJ. Now of course this looks very good but not necessarily best of all-time, especially since he's behind MJ in both regular season and play-offs. Then you take into account that it's not that accurate of a stat in the first place and the lower the sample size for rate stats like this, the easier it is to maintain a higher number.

At that point you'll probably be wondering why I even bring it up but WS/48 doesn't start untill 1952, which means that Mikan's earlier seasons aren't taken into account. In the regular season the highest WS he had for seasons that are taken into account is 14.6 in the 1953 season, which gave him a league leading .264 WS/48. In the three years prior to WS/48 being available he had 20.9, 21.1 and 23.9 WS. He even played less games those years than he did in 53 and 54. His WS/48 in those first three seasons listed on bkref that aren't taken into account would all roughly fall between .350 and .400 WS/48. Assuming he played a similar amount of minutes per game that would mean he had about the same amount of regular season WS as early 70s Kareem with about 1k less minutes a season.

Similar for the post-season where he'd already 2nd all-time he'd only rise further with the earlier seasons taken into account. It probably wouldn't be as drastic an increase as the regular season because it includes the 51 season where the Lakers fell short but he'd have insane WS/48 in 1949 and 1950. Mikan's 1954 campaign has a .391 WS/48, which is second by a hair only to 2009 LeBron. His mpg was decreasing at that point so his 1950 campaign would probably (there is no WS/48 because there are no minutes listed so this is all just estimation and trend watching) fall slightly lower than that but still increase the career average by quite a bit. His 1949 season would've absolutely blown away LeBron's record though.

If you're just looking for the most dominant player ever without adjusting for era the answer should by all means be Mikan. All that said though I do think it's important to account for era, which hurts his case overall due to playing in by far the weakest era. Another important factor is longevity as he's had right around half the seasons, games and minutes (if we're assuming 1952 numbers for the 3 years prior) played as longevity "whipping boy" Larry Bird.

Last time I tried placing Mikan in my all-time rankings for the preliminary top 30 thread I ended up with him towards the back end of the top 20 and I have Shaq 7th so I'd go with Shaq here. Thing is that the range you can put Mikan in realistically is by far the largest of any player. You could put him in the GOAT tier or leave him out of the top 100 altogether, could get quite a few different answers here.

[Samurai]

Mod told me to put these in pc so

Can you clarify what you are looking for? Who had the better peak? Prime? Career? Who was more dominant within their own era? Answers can vary depending on what the actual question is.

[McBubbles]

There needs to be a middle ground / massive grain of salt when using "Era Relative Dominance" for players who were damn born in the 19th century. I'm not even typically the guy who discounts former era's, Bill Russell might be my GOAT but jesus Christ, I really can't bring myself to care about anything accomplished in a league that was not only brought into existence for 3 years before he was drafted,but was also founded just months after World War 2 endedand a whopping 18 years before desegregation was enacted. Think about how utterly, utterly garbage the talent pool would be.

I don't wanna be close minded though. Someone convince me to care lol.

[wojoaderge]

There needs to be a middle ground / massive grain of salt when using "Era Relative Dominance" for players who were damn born in the 19th century. I'm not even typically the guy who discounts former era's, Bill Russell might be my GOAT but jesus Christ, I really can't bring myself to care about anything accomplished in a league that was not only brought into existence for 3 years before he was drafted,but was also founded just months after World War 2 endedand a whopping 18 years before desegregation was enacted. Think about how utterly, utterly garbage the talent pool would be.

I don't wanna be close minded though. Someone convince me to care lol.

Russell is your GOAT? There are only 2 years in between Mikan's last championship and Russell's first.

[No-more-rings]

Peak? Prime? Career? You didn’t even ask a question at all.

[No-more-rings]

There needs to be a middle ground / massive grain of salt when using "Era Relative Dominance" for players who were damn born in the 19th century. I'm not even typically the guy who discounts former era's, Bill Russell might be my GOAT but jesus Christ, I really can't bring myself to care about anything accomplished in a league that was not only brought into existence for 3 years before he was drafted,but was also founded just months after World War 2 endedand a whopping 18 years before desegregation was enacted. Think about how utterly, utterly garbage the talent pool would be.

I don't wanna be close minded though. Someone convince me to care lol.

Yeah I mean there probably should be some middle ground as you say, or balance or whatever when looking at era relative dominance. The different leagues aren’t apples to apples. I mean what would stop us from calling Jim Naismith the goat? He was probably putting the ball in the basket easier than anyone ever before.

[trex_8063]

I take Shaq in the 7th, by knock-out. I love Mikan's grit and savvy, but I think the size/power disparity will be too much to overcome in the end.

[McBubbles]

There needs to be a middle ground / massive grain of salt when using "Era Relative Dominance" for players who were damn born in the 19th century. I'm not even typically the guy who discounts former era's, Bill Russell might be my GOAT but jesus Christ, I really can't bring myself to care about anything accomplished in a league that was not only brought into existence for 3 years before he was drafted,but was also founded just months after World War 2 endedand a whopping 18 years before desegregation was enacted. Think about how utterly, utterly garbage the talent pool would be.

I don't wanna be close minded though. Someone convince me to care lol.

Russell is your GOAT? There are only 2 years in between Mikan's last championship and Russell's first.

He might be my GOAT. He's anywhere from 1st to 5th, I've not settled on an opinion yet. Regardless Russell "proved" himself to me in a way that Mikan seemingly did not by still maintaining uber high impact very late into his career after the league had improved in talent, whereas to my knowledge Mikan dropped off at the ripe old age of 26.

I mean damn, how ass does your league have to be for a center to be able to lead team to an NBA title on 37FG% shooting

[wojoaderge]

He might be my GOAT. He's anywhere from 1st to 5th, I've not settled on an opinion yet. Regardless Russell "proved" himself to me in a way that Mikan seemingly did not by still maintaining uber high impact very late into his career after the league had improved in talent, whereas to my knowledge Mikan dropped off at the ripe old age of 26.

Maybe a little. He had 3 more dominating seasons. Did you know he had 10 broken bones in his career?

I mean damn, how ass does your league have to be for a center to be able to lead team to an NBA title on 37FG% shooting

State of the art at the time

[McBubbles]

He might be my GOAT. He's anywhere from 1st to 5th, I've not settled on an opinion yet. Regardless Russell "proved" himself to me in a way that Mikan seemingly did not by still maintaining uber high impact very late into his career after the league had improved in talent, whereas to my knowledge Mikan dropped off at the ripe old age of 26.

Maybe a little. He had 3 more dominating seasons. Did you know he had 10 broken bones in his career?

I mean damn, how ass does your league have to be for a center to be able to lead team to an NBA title on 37FG% shooting

State of the art at the time

That's my point. It's extremely easy to dominate / extremely easy to be a pioneer when a medium has just started because everything is horrible and nothing has been figured out or pushed to its full potential yet.

I have no doubt that if you took Bill Russell or Wilt out of the 60's and into today's NBA they'd still dominate. I don't even mean giving them access to modern training or resources either. Straight up plop their 60's selves into this league and they'd still be good players. This speaks to the level of their competition and how much better they were than it at the time. I'm skeptical that this would be the case for Mikan however.

[LA Bird]

Honestly, I've been moving Mikan up my GOAT list lately. Not necessarily because my opinion of him as a player has improved but because I can't really justify excluding him while being consistent with how I rank the players that came right after him. Pettit was born only 8 years after Mikan and within a 6 year span, there was 5 more players (Russell, Baylor, Wilt, West, Oscar) who are frequently ranked in the top 25 too. That's one of the most stacked periods of top end talent in history and there is too much overlap of guys who played against those players and Mikan for me to completely dismiss what Mikan did because of 'weak era'. The pre shot clock era is unquestionably the weakest in NBA history but 60s basketball was more similar to that than basketball today. And the gap is only going to widen as we move forward. In the year 2100, does it make sense to say Mikan and other players from 150 years ago are too ancient to be compared to future players but guys such as Wilt from 140 years ago are perfectly era portable?

The evolution of the league is like the Ship of Theseus. And while I still penalize Mikan's era because of the smaller size and lack of integration, I don't think a direct comparison between Mikan and players long after him is useful. By and large, the league has been steadily improving over time so if we are really ranking players with consideration for era quality, the all time list would always be heavily skewed towards more recent players. But it's not in reality. Shaq is the better player and had better longevity but I now have Mikan like top 20 on my all time list which is way higher than where he used to be.

[penbeast0]

I think you would get a better debate taking a center a bit further down the list like Mikan v. Moses or Thurmond or even Embiid, people that are arguably in the 10-50 range rather than a top 10 all time player.

[Owly]

There needs to be a middle ground / massive grain of salt when using "Era Relative Dominance" for players who were damn born in the 19th century. I'm not even typically the guy who discounts former era's, Bill Russell might be my GOAT but jesus Christ, I really can't bring myself to care about anything accomplished in a league that was not only brought into existence for 3 years before he was drafted,but was also founded just months after World War 2 endedand a whopping 18 years before desegregation was enacted. Think about how utterly, utterly garbage the talent pool would be.

I don't wanna be close minded though. Someone convince me to care lol.

Russell is your GOAT? There are only 2 years in between Mikan's last championship and Russell's first.

He might be my GOAT. He's anywhere from 1st to 5th, I've not settled on an opinion yet. Regardless Russell "proved" himself to me in a way that Mikan seemingly did not by still maintaining uber high impact very late into his career after the league had improved in talent, whereas to my knowledge Mikan dropped off at the ripe old age of 26.

Okay this doesn't seem to be a consistent standard ...
"dropped off" ... well production and efficiency did fall though (more "at" 27, from, or relative to, 26 by Reference age). But PER leader for 27-29 seasons. Still top three including a first overall by WS/48 and with I think a better defensive rep than those around him (especially '54, whilst in '52 ... though I'll generally boost for Mikkelsen ... I think he benefits here from playing with Mikan). He was twice the top all-NBA vote getter too, for what that's worth.

Then too, the rules are being actively changed to counter him. And also those numbers hold in the playoffs (arguably rise a little, depending how you aggregate, how you weight different numbers).

In terms of maintaining impact I would suggest hunting Mikan's impact/WoWY type data for his comeback. I'd heard his comeback dismissed or ridicule by non-contemporaries so probably had it mentally in the Cowens category, not absolutely bad (Cousy) but probably not worth doing in terms of adding value.

I ran the numbers last year after hearing maybe a W-L change or something. If I ran the numbers correctly, and granting a road tilting schedule in the out sample, and the reverse for the in, before he arrived (but still with HOF center Clyde Lovellette at C) they were being outscored for a -4.171428571 per game. After his arrival, just RS, they were +2.216216216, for a difference of 6.387644788. Including playoffs and tiebreakers to the on group it goes up to +3.512195122, and a difference of 7.683623693.

I haven't tried to even out for schedule, I don't know if there were other roster or injury or rotation changes. So an imperfect application of a noisy measure.

Still per the above, if production were the bar it's not like Russell didn't decline, whilst if it's about sustaining high absolute level impact, whilst the tools are crude, I am presently of the opinion that Mikan always had a high level of impact, even in his return, never mind the back end of his main career.

[wojoaderge]

He might be my GOAT. He's anywhere from 1st to 5th, I've not settled on an opinion yet. Regardless Russell "proved" himself to me in a way that Mikan seemingly did not by still maintaining uber high impact very late into his career after the league had improved in talent, whereas to my knowledge Mikan dropped off at the ripe old age of 26.

Maybe a little. He had 3 more dominating seasons. Did you know he had 10 broken bones in his career?

I mean damn, how ass does your league have to be for a center to be able to lead team to an NBA title on 37FG% shooting

State of the art at the time

That's my point. It's extremely easy to dominate / extremely easy to be a pioneer when a medium has just started because everything is horrible and nothing has been figured out or pushed to its full potential yet.

I have no doubt that if you took Bill Russell or Wilt out of the 60's and into today's NBA they'd still dominate. I don't even mean giving them access to modern training or resources either. Straight up plop their 60's selves into this league and they'd still be good players. This speaks to the level of their competition and how much better they were than it at the time. I'm skeptical that this would be the case for Mikan however.

It's your prerogative to use era portability as a factor in your rankings. Not everyone does that though. Alexander the Great's army used pikes as their main infantry weapon, and his cavalry didn't even use stirrups. They probably wouldn't be a match for Napoleons army. But they are still compared as generals and armies as all-time greats.

[trex_8063]

He might be my GOAT. He's anywhere from 1st to 5th, I've not settled on an opinion yet. Regardless Russell "proved" himself to me in a way that Mikan seemingly did not by still maintaining uber high impact very late into his career after the league had improved in talent, whereas to my knowledge Mikan dropped off at the ripe old age of 26.

Maybe a little. He had 3 more dominating seasons. Did you know he had 10 broken bones in his career?

I mean damn, how ass does your league have to be for a center to be able to lead team to an NBA title on 37FG% shooting

State of the art at the time

That's my point. It's extremely easy to dominate / extremely easy to be a pioneer when a medium has just started because everything is horrible and nothing has been figured out or pushed to its full potential yet.

1) I think you overstate how "easy" it is to dominate or pioneer in a new medium. I mean, if it were, Mikan wouldn't have been too special, right? A LOT of guys could have done the same (because it's "easy"/"extremely easy").......but they didn't. He was rather singular in his own era.
Same in other mediums: there weren't a hundred Orson Welles one-upping each other in 1940s cinema, just because it was still relatively new (at least the talkie).

2) Realistically, the era-portablity thing isn't a total one-way street. Guys like Shaq, if born fifty years earlier, are going to be adopting and practicing the same skills and habits that were conventional at the time; and he's going to have to play with the equipment, shoes, floors of the time, and within the same set of ball-handling rules of the time. He's not going to go THRU defenders like he did in his own era (because even a fraction of that aggression is a super-easy offensive foul call in Mikan's time).

3) Suppose you have someone who is, in YOUR opinion, a true all-time talent........what would you expect him to do in a weak or watered-down era? You'd expect him to crush the world, no?

Well.......isn't that sort of what Mikan did?
He was [handily] the most dominant defensive force in the game for several years, anchoring perhaps one of the best defensive dynasties of all-time. He did that while being top 10 in the league in OWS every year he played in the BAA/NBA (was top 5 four times, top 2 THREE times). Going back into the NBL, a Mikan-led team won the championship 7 times in 8 years.

The league altered the rules/court layout to curb his dominance. There's a fundamentals drill that is STILL taught kids today which bears his name.


None of this is to say that you aren't to some degree correct: it WAS a substantially weaker league, it WAS a somewhat "fledgling" game at that time.
But just some food for thought. There's a ton to suggest Mikan wasn't merely a big nobody who looked good only because he played in a league of nobodies. He was somebody.

[ShaqAttac]

Mod told me to put these in pc so

Can you clarify what you are looking for? Who had the better peak? Prime? Career? Who was more dominant within their own era? Answers can vary depending on what the actual question is.

ig peak?