Hoopshype ranks the top 77 NBA players of all-time (spoiler: Kevin Garnett is not #9)

[DC_Melo]

Mikan at 46 when he's a top 10 all timer.

Crapping on Schayes and Pettit, who blow away the likes of Garnett and Nowitzki. In what universe is Isaiah more accomplished than Cousy? Maravich and Carmelo over Sam Jones and Bill Sharman? Dwight Howard over Artis Gilmore?

Typical recency-bias ChatGPT nonsense. These lists have been circulating on the web for so long that we've lost our ability to reason with them because they become de facto "generally accepted."

"Think about how dumb the average person is, and then realize half of them are even dumber than that."- George Carlin

I’m actually tired of much more talented players being overlooked because of these pre 65’s players making these list. They literally played pre-Civil rights act were as efficient as terrible point guards.

Agreed.

George Mikan played with his glasses on. Not sports goggles… just a plain old pair of spectacles… and it was never an issue.

Has anyone else played ball with glasses? You gotta play in chill mode to keep them on your face, especially if your banging down low.

Let that sink in while you ponder the level of competition and athletic prowess being displayed on NBA courts circa 1960.

[Masigond]

Agreed.

George Mikan played with his glasses on. Not sports goggles… just a plain old pair of spectacles… and it was never an issue.

Has anyone else played ball with glasses? You gotta play in chill mode to keep them on your face, especially if your banging down low.

Let that sink in while you ponder the level of competition and athletic prowess being displayed on NBA courts circa 1960.

Do you see that strap on his glasses?


Furthermore: Chill mode? Mikan was known for his hustle play. Man, guys making claims about the game of that era seemingly without ever having seen a bit of it.

[Dutchball97]

They kind of seem to fall into the same traps just about all these lists do. Magic as an actual GOAT candidate for some reason, Duncan fringe top 10, Baylor, IT and AI all being ranked way too high solely on reputation. I'll be nice and give the list a 3/5 because nothing here was that unexpected, it's just a safe and honestly unnecessary list so "mediocre" sounds about right.

[hauntedcomputer]

[quote="DimesandKnicks"

Let that sink in while you ponder the level of competition and athletic prowess being displayed on NBA courts circa 1960.

In 50 years people are going to look back and wonder why people like KG, Nowitzki, and Durant were rated above true all-time performers. It's all recency bias and other personal biases. It doesn't make KG's career "better" just because you watched him play. He's basically Artis Gilmore. only with an NBA ring instead of an ABA ring.

I'd still put Mikan over Shaq. Mikan was the best player in the world for nearly a decade. Shaq maybe had a couple years there. Pettit was probably the best player in the world between Mikan and Russell. KG never even sniffed it. I'd say being best in the world at some point elevates you above the likes of Chris Paul and Karl Malone.

I get the argument that modern players are better in talent and skill and development and training. But that doesn't make their careers, impact, or total game better. No other sports fans crap on the past like basketball fans. It's truly weird.

[DC_Melo]

Agreed.

George Mikan played with his glasses on. Not sports goggles… just a plain old pair of spectacles… and it was never an issue.

Has anyone else played ball with glasses? You gotta play in chill mode to keep them on your face, especially if your banging down low.

Let that sink in while you ponder the level of competition and athletic prowess being displayed on NBA courts circa 1960.

Do you see that strap on his glasses?


Furthermore: Chill mode? Mikan was known for his hustle play. Man, guys making claims about the game of that era seemingly without ever having seen a bit of it.

Nice find… The vast majority of pics of him playing are in good old fashioned spectacles. Just google George Milan image (not sure how to post the pics on here otherwise I would)

And I get that George Mikan hustled… poor choice of words on my part… I was more referring the the level of competition he played against that allowed to him wear regular glasses more often than not.

[og15]

[quote="DimesandKnicks"

Let that sink in while you ponder the level of competition and athletic prowess being displayed on NBA courts circa 1960.

In 50 years people are going to look back and wonder why people like KG, Nowitzki, and Durant were rated above true all-time performers. It's all recency bias and other personal biases. It doesn't make KG's career "better" just because you watched him play. He's basically Artis Gilmore. only with an NBA ring instead of an ABA ring.

I'd still put Mikan over Shaq. Mikan was the best player in the world for nearly a decade. Shaq maybe had a couple years there. Pettit was probably the best player in the world between Mikan and Russell. KG never even sniffed it. I'd say being best in the world at some point elevates you above the likes of Chris Paul and Karl Malone.

I get the argument that modern players are better in talent and skill and development and training. But that doesn't make their careers, impact, or total game better. No other sports fans crap on the past like basketball fans. It's truly weird.

I can't truly comment on how other sports fans discuss their sports history, because I simply don't have exposure to fans of so many other sports.

I'll hypothesize though that basketball is certainly a sport where it's beginning and it's more modern versions almost look like a different sport. It went through so much development, and part of it is simply the nature of the sport. Dribbling with heads down to head up, to more dynamic dribbling allowed. Shooting two handed and set shots, to one handed to jumpshots. So many rule changes as things were being figured out.

I'm not sure how many other sports had the fundamentals look so different. Yeah, they have rule changes, but like soccer, kicking the ball is kicking it, shooting is shooting, players can get better or learn better techniques, but there's no drastic change in techniques compared to how two major things in basketball, shooting and dribbling look so different, not to mention finishing moves, etc.

That said, I know at least in soccer discussions of greatest, level of competition is definitely mentioned, similarly in sports like boxing, and even tennis, so that's nothing special to basketball.

[DC_Melo]

[quote="DimesandKnicks"

Let that sink in while you ponder the level of competition and athletic prowess being displayed on NBA courts circa 1960.

In 50 years people are going to look back and wonder why people like KG, Nowitzki, and Durant were rated above true all-time performers. It's all recency bias and other personal biases. It doesn't make KG's career "better" just because you watched him play. He's basically Artis Gilmore. only with an NBA ring instead of an ABA ring.

I'd still put Mikan over Shaq. Mikan was the best player in the world for nearly a decade. Shaq maybe had a couple years there. Pettit was probably the best player in the world between Mikan and Russell. KG never even sniffed it. I'd say being best in the world at some point elevates you above the likes of Chris Paul and Karl Malone.

I get the argument that modern players are better in talent and skill and development and training. But that doesn't make their careers, impact, or total game better. No other sports fans crap on the past like basketball fans. It's truly weird.

I think your points are very valid.

As to your last point, in basketball specifically, there was an era where the league wasn’t as inclusive and many players still needed to work second jobs to make ends meet.

As the league increased it’s inclusiveness and also got to a point where the majority of players could focus on basketball being their one and only career (which led to teams being able to drastically increase the amount of practice hours for their players) the level of competition dramatically increased, at least in my opinion. This was further compounded by improvements in technology that allowed teams to scout each other much more effectively (and implement what they scouted since they had time for more film sessions)

That’s why it’s hard for me to view the overall game and competition pre 1970’s as anywhere near comparable to how the game is played now.

[celtxman]

Jokic at 41 was the biggest surprise. If you were starting a franchise today how many people would honestly take the following players above Jokic:

28. Chris Paul
29. John Havlicek
30. Allen Iverson
31. Bob Pettit
32. John Stockton
34. Steve Nash
35. Patrick Ewing
36. Rick Barry
37. Bob Cousy
38. Jason Kidd
39. James Harden
40. Elvin Hayes

Once again we snub some of the greats of All Time. Jokic better than Havlicek? Here's how Havlicek stacks up against Michael Jordan

Havlicek. Jordan
11x All NBA. 11 x All NBA
13 X All Star. 14 x All NBA
8 titles. 6 titles
26k points. 32k points
8k rebounds. 6k rebounds
6k assists. 5k assists
31 triple doubles. 28 triple doubles
8-0 in NBA FINALS. 6-0 in NBA FINALS

NOBODY is claiming Havlicek is better than Jordan. But underrated in this poll and better than Jokic at this point? 100%

Havlicek’s more of a Pippen than a Jordan. If you go to our retro POY project, he ranks 53rd all-time. Jokic ranks 20th. The highest Havlicek ever registered for a single season was 4th in 1972 and you know people would give him the benefit of the doubt for being on all those championship teams if you could make any case he was the straw that stirred the drink. And none of this is even accounting for the much, much weaker era he played in.

Conservatively Havlicek was the best Celtic in 4 of those 8 championships- he was the straw. As Cousy, Russell, and the others slowed ultimately to retirement Havlicek went on with a new group for 2 championships in the 70's. Havlicek the consummate team player who sacrificed, and created the example for the 6th man role. Pippen? He said "no mas" with Jordan gone to the point of staying on the bench at the end of a playoff game.
Retro POY project? This clearly has bias if Havlicek is 53, but that's what happens if people who never saw you, judge you.
Jokic will likely pass a lot of people and rise much higher than he has now. But he hasn't done it yet. On the one hand we value team players and championships......until its from an era we didn't see, and then we want to water it down. The irony is if Jokic did the same thing in the 70's we'd be talking about how this big slow guy would even make the list

[NZB2323]

[quote="DimesandKnicks"

Let that sink in while you ponder the level of competition and athletic prowess being displayed on NBA courts circa 1960.

In 50 years people are going to look back and wonder why people like KG, Nowitzki, and Durant were rated above true all-time performers. It's all recency bias and other personal biases. It doesn't make KG's career "better" just because you watched him play. He's basically Artis Gilmore. only with an NBA ring instead of an ABA ring.

I'd still put Mikan over Shaq. Mikan was the best player in the world for nearly a decade. Shaq maybe had a couple years there. Pettit was probably the best player in the world between Mikan and Russell. KG never even sniffed it. I'd say being best in the world at some point elevates you above the likes of Chris Paul and Karl Malone.

I get the argument that modern players are better in talent and skill and development and training. But that doesn't make their careers, impact, or total game better. No other sports fans crap on the past like basketball fans. It's truly weird.

Mikan only played 7 years in the NBA, the NBA didn’t have any black players his rookie year, and he wasn’t as effective once the shot clock came out.

Shaq played 19 years in the NBA and had to go up against Hakeem, Ewing, Robinson, Mutumbo, Mourning, Duncan, Jordan, Malone, Dirk, KG, Ben Wallace, and Yao.

Mikan played before Russell, Wilt, Thurmond, Reed, Baylor, West, and the Big O were in the league. Shaq beat Jordan, Duncan, and Hakeem in playoff series. Who is the best player Mikan beat in a playoff series?

It’s also odd to call Mikan the best player in the world when the NBA didn’t have black players and people in Germany, China, Nigeria, and Congo had never heard of basketball.

[dhsilv2]

These methods for making these lists are so lazy and just frankly pathetic.

[dhsilv2]

[quote="DimesandKnicks"

Let that sink in while you ponder the level of competition and athletic prowess being displayed on NBA courts circa 1960.

In 50 years people are going to look back and wonder why people like KG, Nowitzki, and Durant were rated above true all-time performers. It's all recency bias and other personal biases. It doesn't make KG's career "better" just because you watched him play. He's basically Artis Gilmore. only with an NBA ring instead of an ABA ring.

I'd still put Mikan over Shaq. Mikan was the best player in the world for nearly a decade. Shaq maybe had a couple years there. Pettit was probably the best player in the world between Mikan and Russell. KG never even sniffed it. I'd say being best in the world at some point elevates you above the likes of Chris Paul and Karl Malone.

I get the argument that modern players are better in talent and skill and development and training. But that doesn't make their careers, impact, or total game better. No other sports fans crap on the past like basketball fans. It's truly weird.

I can't truly comment on how other sports fans discuss their sports history, because I simply don't have exposure to fans of so many other sports.

I'll hypothesize though that basketball is certainly a sport where it's beginning and it's more modern versions almost look like a different sport. It went through so much development, and part of it is simply the nature of the sport. Dribbling with heads down to head up, to more dynamic dribbling allowed. Shooting two handed and set shots, to one handed to jumpshots. So many rule changes as things were being figured out.

I'm not sure how many other sports had the fundamentals look so different. Yeah, they have rule changes, but like soccer, kicking the ball is kicking it, shooting is shooting, players can get better or learn better techniques, but there's no drastic change in techniques compared to how two major things in basketball, shooting and dribbling look so different, not to mention finishing moves, etc.

That said, I know at least in soccer discussions of greatest, level of competition is definitely mentioned, similarly in sports like boxing, and even tennis, so that's nothing special to basketball.

Grid Iron Football and baseball have imo changed more than basketball has. From the forward pass rules to the deadball era of baseball.

[dhsilv2]

[quote="DimesandKnicks"

Let that sink in while you ponder the level of competition and athletic prowess being displayed on NBA courts circa 1960.

In 50 years people are going to look back and wonder why people like KG, Nowitzki, and Durant were rated above true all-time performers. It's all recency bias and other personal biases. It doesn't make KG's career "better" just because you watched him play. He's basically Artis Gilmore. only with an NBA ring instead of an ABA ring.

I'd still put Mikan over Shaq. Mikan was the best player in the world for nearly a decade. Shaq maybe had a couple years there. Pettit was probably the best player in the world between Mikan and Russell. KG never even sniffed it. I'd say being best in the world at some point elevates you above the likes of Chris Paul and Karl Malone.

I get the argument that modern players are better in talent and skill and development and training. But that doesn't make their careers, impact, or total game better. No other sports fans crap on the past like basketball fans. It's truly weird.

Who was better than KG in 2004? Shaq and declined and Duncan missed games and started to see his minutes drop a bit. I don't really see a case for anyone over KG that year and it's rare to have a year with a pretty clear best player.

[-Luke-]

[quote="DimesandKnicks"

Let that sink in while you ponder the level of competition and athletic prowess being displayed on NBA courts circa 1960.

In 50 years people are going to look back and wonder why people like KG, Nowitzki, and Durant were rated above true all-time performers. It's all recency bias and other personal biases. It doesn't make KG's career "better" just because you watched him play. He's basically Artis Gilmore. only with an NBA ring instead of an ABA ring.

I'd still put Mikan over Shaq. Mikan was the best player in the world for nearly a decade. Shaq maybe had a couple years there. Pettit was probably the best player in the world between Mikan and Russell. KG never even sniffed it. I'd say being best in the world at some point elevates you above the likes of Chris Paul and Karl Malone.

I get the argument that modern players are better in talent and skill and development and training. But that doesn't make their careers, impact, or total game better. No other sports fans crap on the past like basketball fans. It's truly weird.

I can't truly comment on how other sports fans discuss their sports history, because I simply don't have exposure to fans of so many other sports.

I'll hypothesize though that basketball is certainly a sport where it's beginning and it's more modern versions almost look like a different sport. It went through so much development, and part of it is simply the nature of the sport. Dribbling with heads down to head up, to more dynamic dribbling allowed. Shooting two handed and set shots, to one handed to jumpshots. So many rule changes as things were being figured out.

I'm not sure how many other sports had the fundamentals look so different. Yeah, they have rule changes, but like soccer, kicking the ball is kicking it, shooting is shooting, players can get better or learn better techniques, but there's no drastic change in techniques compared to how two major things in basketball, shooting and dribbling look so different, not to mention finishing moves, etc.

That said, I know at least in soccer discussions of greatest, level of competition is definitely mentioned, similarly in sports like boxing, and even tennis, so that's nothing special to basketball.

Many soccer fans I know crap on the past as much as NBA fans do. "Man, look at how slow they were", "All they could do was kick other players and injure them" or "That guy wouldn't even play fourth division nowadays".

Probably not that different and more of a generational thing in all sports. I told a number of young soccer fans how great Cruyff, Beckenbauer or Puskás were. The reaction is usually something like "I watched a youtube video, they were slow and nobody really played soccer." "They only played against lumberjacks"

[iggymcfrack]

Once again we snub some of the greats of All Time. Jokic better than Havlicek? Here's how Havlicek stacks up against Michael Jordan

Havlicek. Jordan
11x All NBA. 11 x All NBA
13 X All Star. 14 x All NBA
8 titles. 6 titles
26k points. 32k points
8k rebounds. 6k rebounds
6k assists. 5k assists
31 triple doubles. 28 triple doubles
8-0 in NBA FINALS. 6-0 in NBA FINALS

NOBODY is claiming Havlicek is better than Jordan. But underrated in this poll and better than Jokic at this point? 100%

Havlicek’s more of a Pippen than a Jordan. If you go to our retro POY project, he ranks 53rd all-time. Jokic ranks 20th. The highest Havlicek ever registered for a single season was 4th in 1972 and you know people would give him the benefit of the doubt for being on all those championship teams if you could make any case he was the straw that stirred the drink. And none of this is even accounting for the much, much weaker era he played in.

Conservatively Havlicek was the best Celtic in 4 of those 8 championships- he was the straw. As Cousy, Russell, and the others slowed ultimately to retirement Havlicek went on with a new group for 2 championships in the 70's. Havlicek the consummate team player who sacrificed, and created the example for the 6th man role. Pippen? He said "no mas" with Jordan gone to the point of staying on the bench at the end of a playoff game.
Retro POY project? This clearly has bias if Havlicek is 53, but that's what happens if people who never saw you, judge you.
Jokic will likely pass a lot of people and rise much higher than he has now. But he hasn't done it yet. On the one hand we value team players and championships......until its from an era we didn't see, and then we want to water it down. The irony is if Jokic did the same thing in the 70's we'd be talking about how this big slow guy would even make the list

“Conservatively” 4??? That’s hilarious. Like there’s a case he might have been better than peak Russell? LOL. Give me a break. I’d say that “conservatively” he has zero. Russell was “the straw” throughout his entire career in Boston. He was still an elite defender in his final season and he averaged over 20 rebounds per game in the playoffs. When he retired, the Celtics DRtg went from 89.1 (best in the league) to 98.9 (8th out of 14). That’s a massive impact.

The one year Havlicek played without an elite rim protecting center in Russell or Cowens, the Celtics went 34-48. 1974’s Havlicek’s best case for being the Celtics’ best player in a championship year, but it’s by no means a slam dunk. Cowens finished 2nd in the MVP vote that year to Havlicek’s 7th while Havlicek won Finals MVP. Going back to our retro POY project, both players finished tied for 7th in the vote that year. Of the 16 voters, Cowens received 2 4th place votes and 1 5th place vote for player of the year while Havlicek had 1 3rd place vote and 2 5th place votes giving both players 5 points. By ‘76 Hondo was pretty washed and it was clearly Cowens’ team. John’s playoff PER was 5th on the team and below league average.

So of the title teams, ‘62-‘66 and ‘68, Russell was clearly the best player. ‘69 was Russell too, but Hondo has a weak case. ‘74’s a coin flip and ‘76 is 100% Cowens. Havlicek was the best player on 0-2 title teams, but really it’s either 0 or 1.

[iggymcfrack]

In 50 years people are going to look back and wonder why people like KG, Nowitzki, and Durant were rated above true all-time performers. It's all recency bias and other personal biases. It doesn't make KG's career "better" just because you watched him play. He's basically Artis Gilmore. only with an NBA ring instead of an ABA ring.

I'd still put Mikan over Shaq. Mikan was the best player in the world for nearly a decade. Shaq maybe had a couple years there. Pettit was probably the best player in the world between Mikan and Russell. KG never even sniffed it. I'd say being best in the world at some point elevates you above the likes of Chris Paul and Karl Malone.

I get the argument that modern players are better in talent and skill and development and training. But that doesn't make their careers, impact, or total game better. No other sports fans crap on the past like basketball fans. It's truly weird.

I can't truly comment on how other sports fans discuss their sports history, because I simply don't have exposure to fans of so many other sports.

I'll hypothesize though that basketball is certainly a sport where it's beginning and it's more modern versions almost look like a different sport. It went through so much development, and part of it is simply the nature of the sport. Dribbling with heads down to head up, to more dynamic dribbling allowed. Shooting two handed and set shots, to one handed to jumpshots. So many rule changes as things were being figured out.

I'm not sure how many other sports had the fundamentals look so different. Yeah, they have rule changes, but like soccer, kicking the ball is kicking it, shooting is shooting, players can get better or learn better techniques, but there's no drastic change in techniques compared to how two major things in basketball, shooting and dribbling look so different, not to mention finishing moves, etc.

That said, I know at least in soccer discussions of greatest, level of competition is definitely mentioned, similarly in sports like boxing, and even tennis, so that's nothing special to basketball.

Grid Iron Football and baseball have imo changed more than basketball has. From the forward pass rules to the deadball era of baseball.

The difference is that no one mythologizes the formative years of the NFL the same way they do the formative years of the NBA. Imagine if every time people brought up Rodgers on an all-time list, people were like “well, he’s no Sid Luckman” or if they decried “recency bias” that Paddy O’Driscoll and Jimmy Conzelman aren’t mentioned with Marino and Montana.

[dhsilv2]

I can't truly comment on how other sports fans discuss their sports history, because I simply don't have exposure to fans of so many other sports.

I'll hypothesize though that basketball is certainly a sport where it's beginning and it's more modern versions almost look like a different sport. It went through so much development, and part of it is simply the nature of the sport. Dribbling with heads down to head up, to more dynamic dribbling allowed. Shooting two handed and set shots, to one handed to jumpshots. So many rule changes as things were being figured out.

I'm not sure how many other sports had the fundamentals look so different. Yeah, they have rule changes, but like soccer, kicking the ball is kicking it, shooting is shooting, players can get better or learn better techniques, but there's no drastic change in techniques compared to how two major things in basketball, shooting and dribbling look so different, not to mention finishing moves, etc.

That said, I know at least in soccer discussions of greatest, level of competition is definitely mentioned, similarly in sports like boxing, and even tennis, so that's nothing special to basketball.

Grid Iron Football and baseball have imo changed more than basketball has. From the forward pass rules to the deadball era of baseball.

The difference is that no one mythologizes the formative years of the NFL the same way they do the formative years of the NBA. Imagine if every time people brought up Rodgers on an all-time list, people were like “well, he’s no Sid Luckman” or if they decried “recency bias” that Paddy O’Driscoll and Jimmy Conzelman aren’t mentioned with Marino and Montana.

A lot of that is just that the NBA is newer.

[DimesandKnicks]

[quote="DimesandKnicks"

Let that sink in while you ponder the level of competition and athletic prowess being displayed on NBA courts circa 1960.

In 50 years people are going to look back and wonder why people like KG, Nowitzki, and Durant were rated above true all-time performers. It's all recency bias and other personal biases. It doesn't make KG's career "better" just because you watched him play. He's basically Artis Gilmore. only with an NBA ring instead of an ABA ring.

I'd still put Mikan over Shaq. Mikan was the best player in the world for nearly a decade. Shaq maybe had a couple years there. Pettit was probably the best player in the world between Mikan and Russell. KG never even sniffed it. I'd say being best in the world at some point elevates you above the likes of Chris Paul and Karl Malone.

I get the argument that modern players are better in talent and skill and development and training. But that doesn't make their careers, impact, or total game better. No other sports fans crap on the past like basketball fans. It's truly weird.

The truth is the truth. I don’t even really think those guys had an impact. You can’t draw a line to George Mikan and the players of today. You can draw a line from Wilt to Embid, in that he inspired Kareem l, Kareem inspired Shaq and so on. It’s one thing to appreciate players of the past but when inferior talent takes the spot of guys like TMac and Howard, I think that’s an afront to the talent that’s made the league as well.

[DimesandKnicks]

Agreed.

George Mikan played with his glasses on. Not sports goggles… just a plain old pair of spectacles… and it was never an issue.

Has anyone else played ball with glasses? You gotta play in chill mode to keep them on your face, especially if your banging down low.

Let that sink in while you ponder the level of competition and athletic prowess being displayed on NBA courts circa 1960.

Do you see that strap on his glasses?


Furthermore: Chill mode? Mikan was known for his hustle play. Man, guys making claims about the game of that era seemingly without ever having seen a bit of it.

Nice find… The vast majority of pics of him playing are in good old fashioned spectacles. Just google George Milan image (not sure how to post the pics on here otherwise I would)

And I get that George Mikan hustled… poor choice of words on my part… I was more referring the the level of competition he played against that allowed to him wear regular glasses more often than not.

I’m pretty sure a foul was putting a hand on a player similiar to how things are now. Shooting 39 percent at 6”8 playing against non-athletes that can’t touch doesn’t constitute an all time great as far as I’m concerned.

[DimesandKnicks]

[quote="DimesandKnicks"

Let that sink in while you ponder the level of competition and athletic prowess being displayed on NBA courts circa 1960.

In 50 years people are going to look back and wonder why people like KG, Nowitzki, and Durant were rated above true all-time performers. It's all recency bias and other personal biases. It doesn't make KG's career "better" just because you watched him play. He's basically Artis Gilmore. only with an NBA ring instead of an ABA ring.

I'd still put Mikan over Shaq. Mikan was the best player in the world for nearly a decade. Shaq maybe had a couple years there. Pettit was probably the best player in the world between Mikan and Russell. KG never even sniffed it. I'd say being best in the world at some point elevates you above the likes of Chris Paul and Karl Malone.

I get the argument that modern players are better in talent and skill and development and training. But that doesn't make their careers, impact, or total game better. No other sports fans crap on the past like basketball fans. It's truly weird.

I think your points are very valid.

As to your last point, in basketball specifically, there was an era where the league wasn’t as inclusive and many players still needed to work second jobs to make ends meet.

As the league increased it’s inclusiveness and also got to a point where the majority of players could focus on basketball being their one and only career (which led to teams being able to drastically increase the amount of practice hours for their players) the level of competition dramatically increased, at least in my opinion. This was further compounded by improvements in technology that allowed teams to scout each other much more effectively (and implement what they scouted since they had time for more film sessions)

That’s why it’s hard for me to view the overall game and competition pre 1970’s as anywhere near comparable to how the game is played now.

I’d say the hof level talent that could compete in todays game came in the 60s. The 60s had outstanding transcendent talents. The 50’s not so much.

[AbeVigodaLive]

[quote="DimesandKnicks"

Let that sink in while you ponder the level of competition and athletic prowess being displayed on NBA courts circa 1960.

In 50 years people are going to look back and wonder why people like KG, Nowitzki, and Durant were rated above true all-time performers. It's all recency bias and other personal biases. It doesn't make KG's career "better" just because you watched him play. He's basically Artis Gilmore. only with an NBA ring instead of an ABA ring.

I'd still put Mikan over Shaq. Mikan was the best player in the world for nearly a decade. Shaq maybe had a couple years there. Pettit was probably the best player in the world between Mikan and Russell. KG never even sniffed it. I'd say being best in the world at some point elevates you above the likes of Chris Paul and Karl Malone.

I get the argument that modern players are better in talent and skill and development and training. But that doesn't make their careers, impact, or total game better. No other sports fans crap on the past like basketball fans. It's truly weird.

Mikan only played 7 years in the NBA, the NBA didn’t have any black players his rookie year, and he wasn’t as effective once the shot clock came out.

Shaq played 19 years in the NBA and had to go up against Hakeem, Ewing, Robinson, Mutumbo, Mourning, Duncan, Jordan, Malone, Dirk, KG, Ben Wallace, and Yao.

Mikan played before Russell, Wilt, Thurmond, Reed, Baylor, West, and the Big O were in the league. Shaq beat Jordan, Duncan, and Hakeem in playoff series. Who is the best player Mikan beat in a playoff series?

It’s also odd to call Mikan the best player in the world when the NBA didn’t have black players and people in Germany, China, Nigeria, and Congo had never heard of basketball.

Somebody had to be THE star in the early days of the league. And that was undeniably George Mikan.

The league doubled the width of the lane to try to slow Mikan. As for the shot clock... the league put in the shot clock in a way to help Mikan. Or, at least to stop teams who were holding the ball... which was famously done to avoid Mikan a few years earlier in a 19-18 thriller.

The rub is that the shot clock arrived in 1954. Mikan had already retired. He took a season off and returned in the middle of the 1956 season. Was it the shot clock that limited his stats on his return? Or, that he was in his 30s, had been away from the game entirely for nearly two years... and was already on the decline? The guy had 10 broken bones in his career...