This 50s/60s/70s player x was like this modern player y, but a better (worse) version! Your takes!

[sepulchre]

I'll take a stab at it.

Thank you for taking your time.

- George Mikan: < Dwight Howard

So it seems to me that you don't rate Mikan that high in your rankings/views then? A worse version of Dwight, that is a hot take right? I thought Mikan was the first GOAT ever and him being worse than Dwight, I dont know .

[penbeast0]

Thanks everyone for sharing their opinions.
Especially seeing these giant users of RealGM which I follow made me very happy. Your takes mean a lot to me.

My rough attempt, I also decided to include videos that represent each player quite well (in my opinion):

Much much appreciated. This was very helpful to understand the point of views you have, really. I will quote some parts which I find very interesting. Btw. you posted the same Bob Lanier video twice, wrongly for Bob McAdoo as well, fyi.

- Bill Russell: a fusion of Draymond Green and Bam Adebayo, but with GOAT-level athleticism.

Do you have Bill or Wilt higher in your rankings? If you have seen my list from 1st post, I put Wilt in my tier 1 list but Bill in tier 2. If I did it in order, I would probably put Bill as 5th on my list. But I am not sure if I do justice or injustice in this case.

- Bob Cousy: hard to find a perfect comparison, at his peak he was like a smaller Magic Johnson (transition monster and amazing passer) without a post game and questionable shooting selection.

Not sure if I can follow this point of view. I see him being a transition monster and amazing passer, the footage is great btw, but a smaller version of Magic? He looks like more of a JJ Barea to me. So a better version of him. So nowhere near Magic or any other alltime PG. Because he is small and his body type doesn't look like it would have translated well in modern times. He would be like a rotation player and a leader of the 2nd unit with his passing and transitioning. But I don't see him lasting on defense at all. Am I wrong?

- Bob McAdoo: slightly more inside oriented Kevin Durant, excellent scorer

Would you put him on the same level as Durant or what? Like a top 17-20 player alltime level good? Or a weaker version of Durant, so like ~50-70th place or sth?

- Bob Pettit: very skilled scorer, capable of creating shots outside and inside, rough rebounder and great at drawing fouls. Someone like Karl Malone with worse passing, but better faceup game

Whre do you put him on your rankings?

- Julius Erving: one of the greatest athletes ever at his position, more athletic but worse defensive version of Jimmy Butler

Would you put Erving or Elgin higher on your list? Or between Elgin, Erving, Moses Malone how would you rank them?

Not directed to me but . . .
I have Russell over Wilt. Wilt was the better player . . . one on one. Probably the most incredible single player in NBA history. But Russell's team impact, particularly on defense, was so strong that he ends up better in my book. I have him a little higher than Jordan, will work out where LeBron fits when we do the next top 100 list (probably #1 with the strength of the modern era v. Jordan's or Russell's time plus his longevity advantage).

Cousy in the 50s was so dominant that you can't compare him to a JJBarea type. He was the focal point on those Celtics teams up to around 57, even if he might not have been the best player. Nobody worried much about Barea beating them. We have seen Trae Young get to the conference finals and Damon Lillard arguably be a top 10 player for a number of years to say nothing of Steve Nash and none of them play much defense either so there are dominant modern comps.

McAdoo was an undersized center but he did have a post game that he used for at least half the time as well as taking guys outside, so more Jokic than KD (without Jokic's passing of course). Threat to lead the league in scoring in his prime, not a strong defender.

Pettit is a tough modern comp. Big PF, not quick feet, extremely aggressive on the offensive boards, big scorer with outside range as well as inside. Solid but not great defender. Tim Duncan without the rim protection?

Baylor had so many injuries and meh efficiency. Though a great scorer and rebounder, that drops him clearly below Erving and Moses (and Pettit as well in my lists). Erving and Moses are closer and so drastically different but I give it to Julius because of Moses' weak passing game.

[Doctor MJ]

I'll take a stab at it.

Thank you for taking your time.

- George Mikan: < Dwight Howard

So it seems to me that you don't rate Mikan that high in your rankings/views then? A worse version of Dwight, that is a hot take right? I thought Mikan was the first GOAT ever and him being worse than Dwight, I dont know .

Understandable question. Honestly, didn't particularly see it as a hot take. I'll elaborate a bit:

If we're including longevity, Mikan has the edge her for me. Mikan didn't have great longevity, but he operated very successfully as an anchor around which a team could build a contender for 8 seasons. Howard on the other hand was only at that level briefly before he started ruining the opportunity.

Further, even in the best of times, Howard wasn't the guy who made his teammates stand up straight, while Mikan was.

But if we're just talking about skillsets:

I think Mikan's top strength was rebounding, but I'm not sure he has any advantage there over Howard who was outstanding as a rebounder.

Mikan spent most of his career being more dominant on defense than offense, but in the post-goaltending rules era (which is when he was a pro), my understanding is that no one was really looking to focus on blocking shots the way they would post-Russell. I'd give Howard the edge there.

Scoring-wise, while Mikan had a more diverse skillset, I think we saw that after they widened the lane, he wasn't actually super-effective as a scorer even in the '50s.

In the end, I think Howard's got the more talented physical body, and that gives him the edge if you just want a sense of how each player played at their best.

[ZeppelinPage]

- Bob Cousy: hard to find a perfect comparison, at his peak he was like a smaller Magic Johnson (transition monster and amazing passer) without a post game and questionable shooting selection.

Not sure if I can follow this point of view. I see him being a transition monster and amazing passer, the footage is great btw, but a smaller version of Magic? He looks like more of a JJ Barea to me. So a better version of him. So nowhere near Magic or any other alltime PG. Because he is small and his body type doesn't look like it would have translated well in modern times. He would be like a rotation player and a leader of the 2nd unit with his passing and transitioning. But I don't see him lasting on defense at all. Am I wrong?

Cousy stood at 6'1", probably 6'2" in modern sneakers, while Barea stands at 5'10".

Cousy had long arms and big hands for his size, which was how he was able to control the ball so well. Several players and coaches have mentioned how these aspects of his athleticism stood out to them.

These measurables also made him underrated defensively. Auerbach thought highly of him, and other players and coaches have praised him in this area. He was especially renowned for his stealing ability, which was arguably the deadliest in the league during the 1950s.

[70sFan]

Much much appreciated. This was very helpful to understand the point of views you have, really. I will quote some parts which I find very interesting. Btw. you posted the same Bob Lanier video twice, wrongly for Bob McAdoo as well, fyi.

Oh, sorry about that. Here is Big Mac video I wanted to post:

Watch on YouTube

Do you have Bill or Wilt higher in your rankings? If you have seen my list from 1st post, I put Wilt in my tier 1 list but Bill in tier 2. If I did it in order, I would probably put Bill as 5th on my list. But I am not sure if I do justice or injustice in this case.

I understand both approaches, but I have Russell higher on my list. If I exclude longevity component out of my ranking (which is quite important to me), I'd have Russell 1st ever on my list. He was just insanely valuable even in his weakest seasons and his effort was very consistent from what I can tell.

Wilt is right now 6th on my list, fighting with Duncan (5th) and Hakeem (7th).

Not sure if I can follow this point of view. I see him being a transition monster and amazing passer, the footage is great btw, but a smaller version of Magic? He looks like more of a JJ Barea to me. So a better version of him. So nowhere near Magic or any other alltime PG. Because he is small and his body type doesn't look like it would have translated well in modern times. He would be like a rotation player and a leader of the 2nd unit with his passing and transitioning. But I don't see him lasting on defense at all. Am I wrong?

Cousy wasn't really that small. He was 6'1 with long arms and although I wouldn't call him a top tier athlete obviously, he had a great hand-eye coordination. I don't see Barea comparison, Cousy was bigger and played differently.

Would you put him on the same level as Durant or what? Like a top 17-20 player alltime level good? Or a weaker version of Durant, so like ~50-70th place or sth?

No, I don't think he was as good as Durant. He was a weaker passer, likely a weaker shooter overall and had way shorter and weaker prime. He's closer this 50-70 range than to Durant all-time.

Whre do you put him on your rankings?

Not counting this season (because it's not over yet), I ranked him 25th last time.

Would you put Erving or Elgin higher on your list? Or between Elgin, Erving, Moses Malone how would you rank them?

Erving clearly over Baylor. Much longer career with a stronger prime. Better defender as well.

Moses lower than Erving, but higher than Baylor.

[70sFan]

I'll take a stab at it.

Thank you for taking your time.

- George Mikan: < Dwight Howard

So it seems to me that you don't rate Mikan that high in your rankings/views then? A worse version of Dwight, that is a hot take right? I thought Mikan was the first GOAT ever and him being worse than Dwight, I dont know .

Understandable question. Honestly, didn't particularly see it as a hot take. I'll elaborate a bit:

If we're including longevity, Mikan has the edge her for me. Mikan didn't have great longevity, but he operated very successfully as an anchor around which a team could build a contender for 8 seasons. Howard on the other hand was only at that level briefly before he started ruining the opportunity.

Further, even in the best of times, Howard wasn't the guy who made his teammates stand up straight, while Mikan was.

But if we're just talking about skillsets:

I think Mikan's top strength was rebounding, but I'm not sure he has any advantage there over Howard who was outstanding as a rebounder.

Mikan spent most of his career being more dominant on defense than offense, but in the post-goaltending rules era (which is when he was a pro), my understanding is that no one was really looking to focus on blocking shots the way they would post-Russell. I'd give Howard the edge there.

Scoring-wise, while Mikan had a more diverse skillset, I think we saw that after they widened the lane, he wasn't actually super-effective as a scorer even in the '50s.

In the end, I think Howard's got the more talented physical body, and that gives him the edge if you just want a sense of how each player played at their best.

Mikan was significantly more gifted as a passer and shooter than Dwight though and he created offense for himself and others way more often than Howard.

[Doctor MJ]

Mikan was significantly more gifted as a passer and shooter than Dwight though and he created offense for himself and others way more often than Howard.

I think it's true he was better at both than Howard, and perhaps that makes him the better overall player, but I will say I'm not in love with him as either a passer or a shooter.

[70sFan]

Mikan was significantly more gifted as a passer and shooter than Dwight though and he created offense for himself and others way more often than Howard.

I think it's true he was better at both than Howard, and perhaps that makes him the better overall player, but I will say I'm not in love with him as either a passer or a shooter.

What do you have against him as a passer?

[Doctor MJ]

Mikan was significantly more gifted as a passer and shooter than Dwight though and he created offense for himself and others way more often than Howard.

I think it's true he was better at both than Howard, and perhaps that makes him the better overall player, but I will say I'm not in love with him as either a passer or a shooter.

What do you have against him as a passer?

I think the big thing for me is that I don't think the perimeter players on the Lakers showed stats anywhere near what they were capable of at any time in their career, and while I think that's about coaching strategy, I also know that the situation was even worse when Mikan joined the Lakers and made the team worse before it got better.

None of this necessarily speaks to the ceiling of what Mikan was capable of, but in practice, I like to see signs of teammates getting easy shots from guys I consider to be worth praising in their passing, and we don't see that at all from Mikan despite the fact I think they had the talent on the roster for it.