RealGM 2023 Top 100 Project - #16 (George Mikan)

[trex_8063]

.

Is an ineffecient 23 ppg while you lose to playoff-fodder "pretty effective"? I'm not using this as some indictment of what he was in his prime, but I do not really understand how this helps him comparatively

While I agree he was not effective as a 1st-option scorer in that series, it was nonetheless very clear for this 53-win [nearly +6 SRS] team, that a 34-year-old post-injury David Robinson was the best replacement option they had once their true 1st-option went down...........that mere statement of fact arguably says something [positive] about Robinson.


Also, Duncan missed 8 rs games for which Robinson was present and had to assume the 1st-option role. We could look at the results of those [below is pts (fgs, fts, ast, tov) (result; opponent SRS)]:

23 (8/11, 7/8; 0, 0) (+13 on road to chicago -9.23)
29 (10/19, 9/12; 2, 2) (-4 on road to minny +2.67)
19 (5/12, 9/11; 1, 1) (+24 at home to miami +2.75 [though no Mourning])
24 (7/12, 10/12; 0, 3) (-6 at home to minny +2.67)
16 (7/10, 2/5; 2, 2) (-16 loss at home to portland +6.36)
19 (5/11, 9/11; 2, 1) (+23 at home to Utah +4.51)
27 (10/19, 7/11, 1, 3) (+7 at home to Van -5.10)
17 (7/16, 3/4, 1, 0) (+5 at home to LAL, +8.41)

TOTAL [8 games]: 21.8 ppg @ 61.0% TS [+8.7% rTS], 1.1 apg, 1.5 topg
Team record: 5-3 with +5.88 SRS [that's counting HCA as worth a 3-pt advantage; aside from Miami missing Zo, all opponents were at basically full strength])

Considering this was a low-scoring era, that DOES look fairly effective.

And I'll again emphasize that which you also have alluded to: this was post-injury Robinson at 34 years old (thrown rather suddenly into the role again).


fwiw, '90-'96 [prime] David Robinson in the playoffs averaged 24.0 ppg @ 55.7% TS [approx +2.1% rTS on avg], 2.9 apg, 2.9 topg (and pretty substantial 3.5 oreb, fwiw). Is this a great 1st option? Definitely not. But it's fair/respectable.

And noting that even after substantial post-season fall-off his scoring numbers still look this decent, and that his rs scoring numbers are *substantially above this^^^ (*same years he collectively averaged 25.6 ppg @ 59.2% TS [+5.6% rTS], 3.1 apg, 2.9 topg, 3.5 oreb), he looks like an "effective" (but not great) 1st option scorer.

And all of the above [including the topmost sample from when he's 34 years old post-injury] came while simultaneously anchoring [good] defenses.

[One_and_Done]

Mikan just got up with 10 out of 23 votes, so a plurality. I thought we went to a run off when nobody had a majority. It's unfortunate, because voters like Colbini and Dr P didn't get a chance to support D.Rob as they likely would have.

I'd say this is the vote I most disagree with. Just very unfortnate.

[Doctor MJ]

Mikan just got up with 10 out of 23 votes, so a plurality. I thought we went to a run off when nobody had a majority. It's unfortunate, because voters like Colbini and Dr P didn't get a chance to support D.Rob as they likely would have.

I'd say this is the vote I most disagree with. Just very unfortnate.

Easy to get confused by the rules as they've changed with the addition of 2nd votes.

I'm only going to an extended run-off if there's a tie in all votes counted - 1st and 2nd votes.

I'd say that in general those who feel passionately enough about who gets any particular vote have plenty of opportunity before the well-specified deadlines to make sure that their vote is in and influencing the direction they feel passionately about.

For many of us, such specifics are not really that big of a deal. As I've said, what I want is good discussion that I and others can learn from - now and in the future.

[trex_8063]

Mikan just got up with 10 out of 23 votes, so a plurality. I thought we went to a run off when nobody had a majority.

It goes to runoff if it is still tied after looking at secondary preferences.

It's unfortunate, because voters like Colbini and Dr P didn't get a chance to support D.Rob as they likely would have.

It unquestionably does underscore the importance of listing a secondary preference, fellas. However.....

I'd say this is the vote I most disagree with. Just very unfortnate.

This is being rather dramatic.
Even though I disagree with Mikan going this high, it will---in a way---be nice to have him off the table, as his polarizing candidacy has tended to dominate the conversation in a way that is growing tiresome.

[Doctor MJ]

Induction Vote 1: David Robinson

Given your focus on accomplishment, I'm curious why Mikan isn't one of the 3 you're considering. He's comfortably the most accomplished and dominant and if I'm tracking correctly, you are not trying to use a modernist lens here.

My focus is on accomplishment adjusted for league.

I'll push back hard against:

1. The idea that the NBA between the '60s and '00s was that radically different.
2. The idea that basketball was an utterly new thing in the '40s.

But I do see plenty of statistical evidence that makes me see the '40s & '50s as considerably weaker than the '60s, and that hurts Mikan.

ftr, I had Mikan as 23rd on my pre-project rough draft. So that's a great deal of respect as an all-time great, but just a bit further back than many here see it.

I don't mind at all Mikan getting in already. One of the most important players in basketball history, and very hard to place if you factor in league quailty. Glad people were passionately championing him.

If we evaluated exclusively bad on what each guy did as the primary scoring option, Robinson would certainly be last among the 3, but aside from Robinson's killer defense, there's the way he so seamlessly was able to slide to a secondary option effectively - and we was pretty effective sliding back to the #1 option after Duncan's 2000 injury.

Is an ineffecient 23 ppg while you lose to playoff-fodder "pretty effective"? I'm not using this as some indictment of what he was in his prime, but I do not really understand how this helps him comparatively

So first, let's not ignore the regular season. Here are Robinson's scoring numbers in the final 3 months in the regular season:

Feb - 20.3 PPG, 56.4% TS
Mar - 20.1 PPG, 58.8% TS
Apr - 22.0 PPG, 60.6% TS

So, near Duncan's volume, generally more efficient, despite the fact that Duncan's out injured for a chunk of the time.

To me we're seeing pretty clear indicators that Robinson role-shifted as needed and did so effectively. As I've said, if Robinson were a normal superstar, he'd have remained the primary scorer in Duncan's in those early Duncan year, and the narrative around '98-99 is that Robinson won a title with Duncan as a sidekick. The fact that Duncan had primacy is more about Robinson choosing to prioritize the future of Spurs ahead of his own glory.

What about the playoffs?

Let's start by recognizing that the Suns were a 53-29 team with a +5.26 SRS and the #3 DRtg behind the Lakers and Spurs. That's a contender-level team that is a contender because of their defense. You dismissing a team like that as "playoff fodder" honestly just makes you look like you need to look more closely.

Let's then recognize that the Spurs themselves were only a 53-29 team despite having Duncan for most of the season, and in the playoffs they didn't have him. So, we should be expecting the Spurs sans-Duncan to lose.

That doesn't mean that losing is an accomplishment of course, but as I've said:
The Spurs won the 38.8 MPG they had Robinson on the court.

So in other words, this post-prime Robinson didn't need the full Tim Duncan Experience to beat a contender-level team, he just needed his team to have someone to keep the ship afloat for the 9-10 minutes he was resting.

What about the efficiency? Well, I certainly wouldn't want to talk like Robinson "scored at will" against the Suns, so there's a limit to how much I'd want to praise Robinson for the series.

But something I think we need to keep in mind when we see volume scorers at low efficiency in the playoffs:

When a team doesn't have other scorers that are scary enough, a playoff defense can really lock down on the primary scorer and force him to low efficiency because him scoring a low efficiency is still (believed to be) a better option than anyone else.

We can talk in more depth about whether this was actually the best option for the Spurs - my general answer would be "Of course not, they should have been taking way more 3's just like literally everyone else at all competitive levels of basketball!" - but I think you'd be hard-pressed not to argue that a) the Spurs did not have any kind of faith that their other players could handle primacy effectively and b) looking at the other players' efficiency and how poorly the Spurs offense faired without Robinson in the series, their reasoning was well-founded.

I'll also say that when you're not talking about a guy who volume shoots as a matter of course - Robinson willingly gave that up, and began the year not looking for his own shot like an alpha - it's hard for me to really to say anything like "he hurt the team with his inefficiency at volume". He clearly adapted to this role because of how Pop & co decided to play.

[OldSchoolNoBull]

What a finish! A vote from falco - who hadn't voted since the Kobe/West runoff - less than an hour before the votes were tallied gave Mikan the one vote win, resulting in him moving up three spots from his #19 2020 finish. Who would've thought he would move up?

As a Mikan supporter, I'm happy for the win, but I can't say I was expecting it quite this soon.

At least we don't have to debate the 50s and 60s anymore for a while. FYI there were four other old-timers that made the last Top 50 - Pettit at 25, Baylor at 33, Havlicek at 34, and Schayes at 41.

[LukaTheGOAT]

The 2022 and 2023 isn't in the database yet, so it can't be counted. However, if we look at CP3's 14 PS from 08-21, it does not show him to be an inferior player to Stockton on a per-game basis.

CP3 from 08-21 in the PS averaged an adjusted 22.7 pts per 75 on rTS% of 4.4%

Stockton from 86-99 in the PS (Stockton I don't think played enough MPG to be picked up in the Backpicks database, however, this ends up helping his PS averages) averaged an adjusted 16.5 pts per 75 on rTS% of 5.3%.

So Stockton maintains the efficiency advantage, however he is also scoring 5.7 pts less per 75 possessions in exchange for +1.3% of efficiency. Philosophically, if the much higher volume is worth may come down to preference, however, I will generally people favor Kobe and Hakeem as scorers over CP3, so I would say the same should extend to be true for CP3 being over Stockton in this case.

According to PS ScoreVal during those spans, CP3's scoring looks more valuable:

CP3 ScoreVal-0.7

Stockton ScoreVal-0.3


CP3's general PS metrics do look better as well:

Backpicks BPM-5.7

PER-23.7
BPM-7.1
WS/48-.193


Compared to Stockton

Backpicks BPM-5.3

PER-20.1
BPM-6.3
WS/48-.163

It's not just the PS either. Paul's RS play looks better on a per-possession basis too.

Paul
Adjusted 21.3 pts per 75 (rTS% of 4.3%)

PIPM-5.7

PER-25.3
BPM-7.8
WS/48-.251


Stockton
Adjusted 16.3 pts per 75 (rTS% of 7.9%)

PIPM-5

PER-22.2
BPM-7.4
WS/48-.214

Both Paul and Stockton have playstyles that are generally pretty well represented by the box-score and full encapsulates what they bring to the table. Even with Stockton's RS efficiency advantage, the numbers don't suggest that Stockton's lower volume was preferential to Paul. I think it is fair to argue Stockton's durability helps in a comparison to Paul, however, I certainly don't get the impression that Stock is a better basketball player than Paul.

We also have numbers heavily using the on/off and plus-minus from we have from 97 onward. And while Stockton looks great, none of the numbers suggests he surpassed Paul's peak years in this regard. I don't doubt younger Stockton might look better in his younger years, but that is more of a projection than a certainty.

I'm not as familiar with Ben Taylor's stuff as a lot of you are, and I don't put a whole lot of stock in PER, but your point re BPM and WS/48 is taken and well worth consideration - though I'm a little confused where you're getting those numbers from? BBRef says CP3's RS BPM is 7.1 and WS/48 is .236, and Stockton's 6.8 and .209, respectively. Doesn't change your point, but the numbers look a bit different.

Where I would push back a little is where you use the phrase "much higher volume" to characterize Paul's 5.7 point per 75 possession advantage. If you round up to 6 points, that's 3 shots, 2 if we're talking about threes. It's nitpicking, but I wouldn't call that much higher.

BTW, is there an advantage to using Per 75 Possessions instead of Per 100? Genuinely asking.

I still lean Stockton, but I will think on it some more. We probably have five or six threads until CP3 has a real shot(he may not even win this nominee vote).

Oh, I was looking at he 08-21 versus 86-99 stretch throughout all of this, because I wanted to use Backpicks numbers.

Per 75 and per 100 amount to the same thing in the end, however, per 75 possessions, probably more accurately reflects how many possessions a star plays typically. A star player, plays arounds 3/4 of all available possessions typically, so the per 75 number maybe gives you a better idea of the production you would expect from a player.

Also, I would argue 5.7 points per every 75 possessions is a decent difference. For example:

For example 15-17 CP3, averaged an adjusted 25.9 pts per 75 on rTS% of 7.9%.


Kobe from 08-10 in the PS, averaged an adjusted 30.4 pts per 75 on rTS% of 3.9%.

I think a lot of people would favor the Kobe stretch over CP3's based on the volume difference, if you ran a poll, because they see s a significant difference in volume.

[MyUniBroDavis]

Mikan just got up with 10 out of 23 votes, so a plurality. I thought we went to a run off when nobody had a majority. It's unfortunate, because voters like Colbini and Dr P didn't get a chance to support D.Rob as they likely would have.

I'd say this is the vote I most disagree with. Just very unfortnate.

Insider knowledge tells me this was your fault lol

[Dr Positivity]

My bad, I thought that vote was going to come down to Dirk vs Drob with or without me

[One_and_Done]

My bad, I thought that vote was going to come down to Dirk vs Drob with or without me

nice one.

D.Rob, Dirk and Malone had the numbers to go 16-18, now instead we get a 12th man in today's game ranked 16th of all-time. Let's all be a bit more dilligent when Pettit or some other old timer is being put forward.

[JimmyFromNz]

I think we flew pretty blind on George Mikan.

Dominance in a small, post ww2 non-NBA league, half a career played in an 'all whites' league closer in history to James Naismith and a wooden basket than it is to today's league, very few statistical points, and small sample of NBA performance. I guess it can be considered, but the importance lies in the weighting, and I can't get my head around weighting something so highly with who we have left on the board and what we know about how Basketball developed. Sounds somewhat dismissive to some I'm sure, but that's just a factual description of the era.

We have such depth in analysis and splitting of hairs in other selections leading up to #16, the high level arguments we are limited to with George feel more like a historical achievement award for 'Mr Basketball'.

Oh well, cant complain as have to be in it to win it, luckily I have more time to contribute to #17 - which is a really hard decision

[One_and_Done]

I think we flew pretty blind on George Mikan.

Dominance in a small, post ww2 non-NBA league, half a career played in an 'all whites' league closer in history to James Naismith and a wooden basket than it is to today's league, very few statistical points, and small sample of NBA performance. I guess it can be considered, but the importance lies in the weighting, and I can't get my head around weighting something so highly with who we have left on the board and what we know about how Basketball developed. Sounds somewhat dismissive to some I'm sure, but that's just a factual description of the era.

We have such depth in analysis and splitting of hairs in other selections leading up to #16, the high level arguments we are limited to with George feel more like a historical achievement award for 'Mr Basketball'.

Oh well, cant complain as have to be in it to win it, luckily I have more time to contribute to #17 - which is a really hard decision

Maybe next time remember to vote.

[JimmyFromNz]

I think we flew pretty blind on George Mikan.

Dominance in a small, post ww2 non-NBA league, half a career played in an 'all whites' league closer in history to James Naismith and a wooden basket than it is to today's league, very few statistical points, and small sample of NBA performance. I guess it can be considered, but the importance lies in the weighting, and I can't get my head around weighting something so highly with who we have left on the board and what we know about how Basketball developed. Sounds somewhat dismissive to some I'm sure, but that's just a factual description of the era.

We have such depth in analysis and splitting of hairs in other selections leading up to #16, the high level arguments we are limited to with George feel more like a historical achievement award for 'Mr Basketball'.

Oh well, cant complain as have to be in it to win it, luckily I have more time to contribute to #17 - which is a really hard decision

Maybe next time remember to vote.

Great contribution.

If you read the above, it's not a matter of remembering for me.

[OhayoKD]

I think we flew pretty blind on George Mikan.

Dominance in a small, post ww2 non-NBA league, half a career played in an 'all whites' league closer in history to James Naismith and a wooden basket than it is to today's league, very few statistical points, and small sample of NBA performance. I guess it can be considered, but the importance lies in the weighting, and I can't get my head around weighting something so highly with who we have left on the board and what we know about how Basketball developed. Sounds somewhat dismissive to some I'm sure, but that's just a factual description of the era.

We have such depth in analysis and splitting of hairs in other selections leading up to #16, the high level arguments we are limited to with George feel more like a historical achievement award for 'Mr Basketball'.

Oh well, cant complain as have to be in it to win it, luckily I have more time to contribute to #17 - which is a really hard decision

Variants of this can be noted for every period before the "current" iteration of the league. There's nothing inherently better with era-relativity(it is a more indirect approach for "purists"), but ultimately if you are going to "adjust for context" there are many ways you can do it.

By strict era-relativism Mikan might belong higher.

By the selective relativism typically employed(even by those who have backflipped to argue that it's "not fair" to make direct comparisons), Mikan goes lower. How low really depends on how selective

[AEnigma]

My bad, I thought that vote was going to come down to Dirk vs Drob with or without me

nice one.

D.Rob, Dirk and Malone had the numbers to go 16-18, now instead we get a 12th man in today's game ranked 16th of all-time. Let's all be a bit more dilligent when Pettit or some other old timer is being put forward.

Yes, we all must be more diligent so people do not have mistaken impressions about who is competing for a spot.

Looks like Oscar is a lock this round, and D.Rob is a lock next round.

Oscar 11 (at least 14 on prefs), Mikan 4, D.Rob 3 (but with at least 10 votes on prefences to Mikan's 0), Dirk 3 and K.Malone 1.

I'm curious who will be 2nd place to D.Rob between Malone & Dirk, since that'll be the modernist rallying point next round once D.Rob gets in.

Vote

1. Dirk Nowitzki
2. Karl Malone

I prefer Dirk on offense to Malone as I feel his skillset translates to playoffs and the spacing has impact, albeit you can say Malone is better passer/defender. Close but edge goes to slightly more modern player. I prefer Robinson as a player to Malone (the defensive gap is bigger than offense) but there is a pretty significant longevity difference.

Nominate

1. CP3
2. Barkley

I think there are 4 great choices this round, and Mailman is one, but the alternate vote is to influence the outcome. Right now Malone doesn't have any support. If I thought KD had support I'd vote for him now, but I'd be throwing my vote away. Malone has only 1 vote so far out of 15. I think once D.Rob or Dirk get in this round then Malone will get alot of their support next time.

Oops!

[One_and_Done]

Well I was right. If people had preferenced or bothered to vote Mikan would have lost.

[Cavsfansince84]

I think we flew pretty blind on George Mikan.

Dominance in a small, post ww2 non-NBA league, half a career played in an 'all whites' league closer in history to James Naismith and a wooden basket than it is to today's league, very few statistical points, and small sample of NBA performance. I guess it can be considered, but the importance lies in the weighting, and I can't get my head around weighting something so highly with who we have left on the board and what we know about how Basketball developed. Sounds somewhat dismissive to some I'm sure, but that's just a factual description of the era.

We have such depth in analysis and splitting of hairs in other selections leading up to #16, the high level arguments we are limited to with George feel more like a historical achievement award for 'Mr Basketball'.

Oh well, cant complain as have to be in it to win it, luckily I have more time to contribute to #17 - which is a really hard decision

I think some on here are overreacting to Mikan's place on the list. Whether its 16 or 20 or 25, he is the one true outlier to the pre Russell league who deserves a spot based on his place in the history of the sport and moving it forward. The only real criticism I have of Mikan is his somewhat short prime. That's really the only reason I have him more at around 20 than 10-12. If someone wants to bring up the overall competition as a way to bring him down that's within their right but if you value dominance within era at all I think its better to give him credit than drop him down to like 50 because you don't think he could play in today's nba. I think it's important to honor the guys who helped to build the league into what it has become.

[JimmyFromNz]

I think we flew pretty blind on George Mikan.

Dominance in a small, post ww2 non-NBA league, half a career played in an 'all whites' league closer in history to James Naismith and a wooden basket than it is to today's league, very few statistical points, and small sample of NBA performance. I guess it can be considered, but the importance lies in the weighting, and I can't get my head around weighting something so highly with who we have left on the board and what we know about how Basketball developed. Sounds somewhat dismissive to some I'm sure, but that's just a factual description of the era.

We have such depth in analysis and splitting of hairs in other selections leading up to #16, the high level arguments we are limited to with George feel more like a historical achievement award for 'Mr Basketball'.

Oh well, cant complain as have to be in it to win it, luckily I have more time to contribute to #17 - which is a really hard decision

Variants of this can be noted for every period before the "current" iteration of the league. There's nothing inherently better with era-relativity(it is a more indirect approach for "purists"), but ultimately if you are going to "adjust for context" there are many ways you can do it.

By strict era-relativism Mikan might belong higher.

By the selective relativism typically employed(even by those who have backflipped to argue that it's "not fair" to make direct comparisons), Mikan goes lower. How low really depends on how selective

I don't disagree with what you've described. I'd even say strict era-relativism is the easiest way to assess, its nice and neat, measurable and it avoids uncomfortable tension in comparisons. But I don't think it reflects the reality of the league, players or basketball when assessing along a continuum in a top 100 project.

Selective relativism which I obviously fit into, isn't really how its described, its an acknowledgment that league and sport progression is not linear and external factors are entirely relevant when comparing hundreds of players across eras. I dont compare players between the 80s and 2000s in the same way we would with the late 1940s, and naturally the 'selectiveness' or 'weighting' will be significantly lower.

Inconsistency as we know is inevitable, the starting assumption that era-relativism gets wrong is that it inconsistency is always a bad thing. In the search for this we are left with arbitrary outcomes. I think it also traps itself in the idea that simply because the league was the 'NBA' brand or in Mikan's case 'NBL' for parts, that it reflects a stable base line for inclusion in comparisons - perhaps that also an outcome of the rules for inclusion in the project more than anything. George is the most extreme example of era differentiation we will find in the entire pool of players we assess.

How that's applied as you imply is in the eye of the beholder, I'm just curious as to why it's occurred at this point in the project, given the lack of footage, statistical analysis, apples-oranges comparison where how the consistent supporting logic comes in. Which is the irony to me that in the search of a consistency, we encapsulate players in an era, but do not apply the same method of analysis (not to be confused with 'selection criteria') to then place them into the bigger picture. At least we certainly aren't with George.

I wont post about the era based stuff again as its a constant thorn in discussions and sounds like complaining (which it isnt), I just find it interesting given its very specific to the NBA league, where in other all time discussions of sports we really don't take this approach or certainly not to the same extent.I think it would make for a good project to attempt to quantify an era weighting based on consistent criteria, maybe its been done?

[OhayoKD]

Induction Vote 1: David Robinson

Given your focus on accomplishment, I'm curious why Mikan isn't one of the 3 you're considering. He's comfortably the most accomplished and dominant and if I'm tracking correctly, you are not trying to use a modernist lens here.

My focus is on accomplishment adjusted for league.

I'll push back hard against:

1. The idea that the NBA between the '60s and '00s was that radically different.
2. The idea that basketball was an utterly new thing in the '40s.

But I do see plenty of statistical evidence that makes me see the '40s & '50s as considerably weaker than the '60s, and that hurts Mikan.

ftr, I had Mikan as 23rd on my pre-project rough draft. So that's a great deal of respect as an all-time great, but just a bit further back than many here see it.

I don't mind at all Mikan getting in already. One of the most important players in basketball history, and very hard to place if you factor in league quailty. Glad people were passionately championing him.

Yeah, I think he was due for a bit of a rise with the meta-questions regarding approach that have been lingering. He is also a two-way anchor at a point where the stock is all-time high(lebron, kareem, duncan, hakeem, and kg all seem to have risen in board-opinion as a result). He also potentially benefits from a lack of data. In some ways, how he was covered/perceived is the best evidence we have.

The approach where a player like Steph is not pushing for top 2 or 3 is not really in sync with one where Mikan is out of the top 20 I think.

I am curious if anyone else from that period has a shot at making this list. Am trying to maintain era-relativity as a standard, but basic knowledge is a hurdle. On that note, am curious where Russell's teammates are going to land up. If people are willing to vote him out of the top 3 based on league-weakness, then it's hard to justify paticularly high-placements for the teammates for his teammates given the rather consistent track-record he has as the gold-standard of individual era-dominance in all the data/emperics we currently have access to.

I put alot less stock in "regressed over long periods of time psuedo rapm" than you do, but russell destroys both that and large-sample/granular analysis in a way no one else does. If 11-rings as the most dominant force ever gets you to 4th, not sure how we can justify putting his teammates(who his teams were largely unaffected without) as high as "hall of fame" and "all-star selections" would suggest.

The early superteam is somewhat immune from this(but the league is also not where it is going to be by the 60's), but we have plenty to suggest that a bunch of that dynasty was more of a carry-job than a should-be-dynastic buzzsaw. Then again, people seemed mostly willing to drop the "60's weak" line with Wilt...

If we evaluated exclusively bad on what each guy did as the primary scoring option, Robinson would certainly be last among the 3, but aside from Robinson's killer defense, there's the way he so seamlessly was able to slide to a secondary option effectively - and we was pretty effective sliding back to the #1 option after Duncan's 2000 injury.

Is an ineffecient 23 ppg while you lose to playoff-fodder "pretty effective"? I'm not using this as some indictment of what he was in his prime, but I do not really understand how this helps him comparatively

So first, let's not ignore the regular season. Here are Robinson's scoring numbers in the final 3 months in the regular season:

Feb - 20.3 PPG, 56.4% TS
Mar - 20.1 PPG, 58.8% TS
Apr - 22.0 PPG, 60.6% TS

So, near Duncan's volume, generally more efficient, despite the fact that Duncan's out injured for a chunk of the time.

To me we're seeing pretty clear indicators that Robinson role-shifted as needed and did so effectively. As I've said, if Robinson were a normal superstar, he'd have remained the primary scorer in Duncan's in those early Duncan year, and the narrative around '98-99 is that Robinson won a title with Duncan as a sidekick. The fact that Duncan had primacy is more about Robinson choosing to prioritize the future of Spurs ahead of his own glory.

That would depend greatly on them winning the title though(in comparably dominant fashion would help). As is, regular-season production was not really the question mark. "If Pippen's Bulls won the championship in 94", if "kobe beat the suns in 2006", "if the celtics beat the magic without kg", if "lebron beats the warriors without kyrie and love", "if miami beat the mavs with wade outplaying lebron", and "if kareem wins in 72 and 74 in-spite of oscar/dandrige/allen injury" are all more interesting hypotheticals for me.

Prime maybe best rs peak-of-the-era David Robinson had his run as a #1. He hit similar(or lower) playoff heights to KD without the Warriors, Pippen without Jordan, and Embid's sixers. Then he got worse and his minutes went down and....they go 15-2.

What about the playoffs?

Let's start by recognizing that the Suns were a 53-29 team with a +5.26 SRS and the #3 DRtg behind the Lakers and Spurs. That's a contender-level team that is a contender because of their defense. You dismissing a team like that as "playoff fodder" honestly just makes you look like you need to look more closely.

I recognized that, and rather generously took it at face-value(as well as a 1-point mov based on a singular blow-out win) when I pointed out the massive drop off from 1999(7-point drop iirc), But no, I said playoff fodder, not regular-season fodder. The suns went onto face the Lakers and performed vastly worse than the +6 blazers or the +4 pacers. Besides the Drob Spurs, they won an incredible 3 playoff games over 4-years.

If that is not "Playoff fodder" then what is? Did they have to literally win 0 games to qualify? If we can question sweeping the 7srs raptors as an achievement, we can also question how impressive it is to notch a singular blow-out win against the team everyone else was running through until Nash arrived(including rookie duncan+drob...).

That doesn't mean that losing is an accomplishment of course, but as I've said:
The Spurs won the 38.8 MPG they had Robinson on the court.

Well if we take that sample at face-value then perhaps we need to give drob a bigger chunk of the pie and everyone outside of duncan/drob a lower chunk. Implicitly that would also lead to duncan getting more credit for sharing the court with whoever on the bench was letting drob down so much. And tangent it may be I guess this is a good point to return to a point I wanted to make regarding RAPM. RAPM indeed does "adjust" for rotation effects, but it is approximating. It is still prone to bias when top players have their minutes tied(or as with duncan, the opposite), which is why its good to use things like minute distribution/rotation sheets(thanks squared)/real-world lineup-splits/wowy(or indirect) to see in which direction the "variance" produced by the correlation goes. From what squared posted it seems magic/kareem, mj/pippen(and oakley?), might see the opposite effect to what you get with duncan/drob.

Am planning a more in-depth response regarding that, but back to the topic, I will say that both doing well(relative to expectation)without each other warrants some extra-credit and hints towards something I don't think is covered much. People act like duncan and drob were great fits next to each other as a result of them finding success together. But I've never seen that sort of point made for any other great whose best teammate happens to naturally play the same position and is also very good at their strongest value add(in this case paint-protection for both).

Do we actually think they look better next to each other than they would paired with kobe or a penny? That both are considered to be good fits next to each other based on them winning a bunch anyway is a testament to the situational resliency of their skill-sets(and/or a higher value-base than people give them credit for). Robinson gets some(but perhaps not enough) credit for this while Duncan seems to get none.

If I put shaq next to mourning, curry next to westbrook, or jordan next to kobe, I imagine our opinions of their "port" might drop. I think it's also apparent that offensive great+defensive great works better than two guys who generate big value on the same side of the floor. Pair love with a defensive anchor, oh wow his lineups look kind of awesome. Pair him with another negative defender...yeah not great. Duncan and Drob play the same position and were both great defensive anchors(we can check post-drob results or pre-duncan results to verify that claim for both). Their most valuable attribute on that end was protecting the rim. And both were more valuable as scorers than playmakers. That pairing still winning enough to trick people into thinking that their fit was a privilege is a testament to both.

And with that, I think i've talked myself into robinson over karl malone.

[JimmyFromNz]

I think we flew pretty blind on George Mikan.

Dominance in a small, post ww2 non-NBA league, half a career played in an 'all whites' league closer in history to James Naismith and a wooden basket than it is to today's league, very few statistical points, and small sample of NBA performance. I guess it can be considered, but the importance lies in the weighting, and I can't get my head around weighting something so highly with who we have left on the board and what we know about how Basketball developed. Sounds somewhat dismissive to some I'm sure, but that's just a factual description of the era.

We have such depth in analysis and splitting of hairs in other selections leading up to #16, the high level arguments we are limited to with George feel more like a historical achievement award for 'Mr Basketball'.

Oh well, cant complain as have to be in it to win it, luckily I have more time to contribute to #17 - which is a really hard decision

I think some on here are overreacting to Mikan's place on the list. Whether its 16 or 20 or 25, he is the one true outlier to the pre Russell league who deserves a spot based on his place in the history of the sport and moving it forward. The only real criticism I have of Mikan is his somewhat short prime. That's really the only reason I have him more at around 20 than 10-12. If someone wants to bring up the overall competition as a way to bring him down that's within their right but if you value dominance within era at all I think its better to give him credit than drop him down to like 50 because you don't think he could play in today's nba. I think it's important to honor the guys who helped to build the league into what it has become.

What you've described appears to me an acknowledgment of Mikan pioneering the game which i completely agree with. The difference in opinion we have is how its weighted and the relevancy in the ranking. I barely if at all consider projecting careers out to modern standard because its unfair, so Mikan's portability into NBA didn't even come into the equation for me.

Overall competition is a salient point, I guess you could call it 'bringing him down', I'd prefer to describe it as an absolute consideration that we apply to everyone else, and apply in micro-terms when it comes to SRS and modern players. Level of competition is a vital ingredient in assessing the value of era related dominance. In very similar way dominance in an overseas basketball league vs NBA looks like today. If we extended this project historically to european players/leagues the logical hurdles would become even more pronounced. George however benefits greatly from the NBA umbrella (albeit amongst multiple other leagues that crashed and burned during his playing days). More succinctly the idea of only 'beating who is in front of you' holds very little weight with me personally when applied against a scale of thousands of NBA players across 75+ years.

I enjoy the discussion more than anything, unlike a few others upset with his ranking, I'm not going to pretend I have a monopoly on logic. I look forward to the Bob Cousy discussions