Retro Player of the Year 1949-50 — George Mikan

[eminence]

I'd strongly advocate for one of the Pistons/Stags/Packers bigs over any of Groza/Macauley/Risen (though Risen seems decent). Schayes likely belongs in the discussion with the 1st group as well.

The only Packers big who actually played a significant portion of the season was Milo Komenich, whom we don't have ANY other information for (because this was his only season). The Packers were 13th of 17 in pts allowed, but this definitely looks like a mirage, as they're a whopping +16.2 TSA/game above league average (and led the league in ppg despite being an awful -2.6% rTS as a team); so it's pretty clear they were playing at a ridiculous pace compared to the league average, and they're DRtg was probably pretty good. Still.....Komenich is a bit of an unknown, unless you're holding something back.

Pistons look probably decent defensively [pace adjusted], though I logged later games of guys like Bob Carpenter and Bob Harris, and neither looked notable defensively to me (Carpenter only 6'5", too, fwiw). And Bill Henry missed a third of the season.

Grabowski [Stags], I'd consider.

The Packers didn't come out of nowhere, they were the reigning NBL champs going into this season (having beaten out a Nationals team that featured Schayes/Cervi). Komenich was the main big on that squad as well.

Bob Carpenter is the guy I'm looking at from the Pistons, he doesn't exactly have a lot of later games to sample, and '50 seems at cleanly a higher level than '51.

Graboski was the bench guy for the '50 Stags, Hermsen is the guy to be looking at, successful seasons prior with the Bullets/Capitols.

But overall I probably should've put Risen in the same tier as those guys (defensively only, he's a better offensive guy than any of them). I think I was underrating Risen doing his defensive job with a lot of 3 guard lineups. Macauley/Groza are really the defensive guys I'm unimpressed by.

[Dr Positivity]

After looking at it closer, I've decided to put Schayes over Groza, Schayes stats don't change that much until the shot clock suggesting he may have come in a more finished product, and has a more all around game, while I don't like lack of success for Groza in following seasons and that his team didn't collapse after his ban.

Some candidates after that

Bob Davies - His efficiency is average, though his volume is good for a guard this era and is up there for playmakers. Was rewarded with 1st team All NBA. It's possible stats didn't capture the value of rare dynamic off the dribble guy. A lot of his teammates had really good efficiency so he could have been helping them as slasher and passer.

Al Cervi - Has good assists for PGs, has great defensive reputation (although is aging) and is by far most efficient PG, though lower volume than Davies.

Max Zaslofsky - The highest volume SG this year and efficiency better than most at the position. Don't think he passed much.

Bobby Wanzer - Lower volume than Zaslofsky but great efficiency

Ed Macauley - Next most skilled big but on a bad team.

Jim Pollard/Vern Mikkelson - Pollard is nice playmaekr for wing but average scorer. If you believe in Mikkelson's defense already his combo of that and solid efficiency is already pretty good.

Vote

1. George Mikan
2. Dolph Schayes
3. Alex Groza
4. Bob Davies
5. Al Cervi

I'll give Davies the benefit of the doubt since I believe in his talent, and Cervi overall seems like a high value player between the D/efficiency/leadership (player coach) on finalist, for all we know he could've even been his team's MVP over rookie Schayes.

Offensive player of the year

1. Alex Groza
2. George Mikan
3. Dolph Schayes

Defensive player of the year

1. George Mikan
2. George Senesky
3. Al Cervi

[ZeppelinPage]

The Anderson Packers were an elite defensive team as a result of their philosophy and playstyle, rather than any standout individual defenders (although Closs and Hargis were both very good). Before he was traded, head coach Howie Schultz had previously played for the Packers in the NBL under coach Murray Mendenhall, who coached the Packers to a 1949 NBL championship. Schultz adopted much of the same strategy from Mendenhall for the 1950 Packers, but with more of an emphasis on speed and fast breaking. Losing Schultz was certainly a hindrance to the Packers in the playoffs, as Doxie Moore was more conservative and preferred to play in the half-court.

The strategy the Packers used under Schultz is reminiscent of Frank Keaney's "Firehouse" basketball style. They would essentially run fast breaks as a way to tire the opposition and get them out of their comfort zone. This meant shooting earlier in the shot clock to limit turnovers and conserve energy. The Packers were also a borderline dirty team, utilizing physicality to help make up for their lack of size. Mendenhall and Schultz were very well aware of the teams weakness to size, and crafted a strategy that would help alleviate that. The speed of their game would drain stamina from the taller players--and long, quicker shots would result in difficult rebounds that could bounce further, making box-outs less effective. All of this combined made many teams dread playing against the Packers' unique playstyle.

So, while I would say the team were all solid defenders across the board, it was more of a coaching and strategy thing than anything else. Frankie Brian was one of the better ball stealers in the league and could help initiate valuable fast breaks, but he was rather average as a defender. This strategy does have similarities to what Auerbach's Celtics would later attempt with Cousy. Though this strategy obviously exploded for the Celtics when adding one of the greatest rebounders and defenders of era.

Random aside here, but this is why I do caution against utilizing advanced stats and box scores too much for players from so far back (especially win shares). Although it can give one a brilliant outline to work with, there is a lot of context that can be lost, and sometimes other resources can help fill in that outline with color for a more complete picture.

[AEnigma]

The Anderson Packers were an elite defensive team as a result of their philosophy and playstyle, rather than any standout individual defenders (although Closs and Hargis were both very good)… So, while I would say the team were all solid defenders across the board, it was more of a coaching and strategy thing than anything else… Random aside here, but this is why I do caution against utilizing advanced stats and box scores too much for players from so far back (especially win shares). Although it can give one a brilliant outline to work with, there is a lot of context that can be lost, and sometimes other resources can help fill in that outline with color for a more complete picture.

Thank you for the valuable context on the 1950 Packers, Zeppelin. Do you have opinions on which players were the standout defenders in the league that year?

[kcktiny]

Obviously, this project is the ultimate in era-relativity, so we are not judging the players from 1949-50 by any standards but their peers in their own day.

In watching that video of the 1950 Fort Wayne/New York game, you know what you don't see?

When players dribble no palming and no carrying of the ball. And no blatant traveling. Could you imagine the players of today trying to play under those harsh conditions? The complaints would be endless.

Also, you ever hold an BAA/NBA ball from the late 40s early 50 in your hands? I have (at the basketball HOF years ago). It's a lot more slippery than the balls of the past few decades.

Remember all the complaints by NBA players in the middle 2000s when the league tried to be environmentally conscience and got rid of the leather ball for a ball that was a synthetic composite? Players complained it was too slippery, and the players union actually filed a lawsuit against the league under an unfair labor practice charge to get the leather ball back.

For everyone saying the NBA players of today are so much better than those of bygone years, I can imagine the complaints you would hear if today's players had to play under the conditions/rules of the 40s/50s, and having to wear Converse tennis shoes to boot. Again, the complaints would be endless.

The amount of movement, contact, missed shots, and turnovers aligns with the crazy paces recorded. This looks like an exhausting game to play, and that's without being able to appreciate exactly how good the athletes are!

Yes we always hear today how the players of the past were not athletic or in shape, which is of course nonsense. Back then NBA players were constantly moving, in motion, there was not much standing around in the corners watching a Harden/Doncic-type dribbling endlessly at the top of the key for 5-10 seconds.

[Tim Lehrbach]

Obviously, this project is the ultimate in era-relativity, so we are not judging the players from 1949-50 by any standards but their peers in their own day.

In watching that video of the 1950 Fort Wayne/New York game, you know what you don't see?

When players dribble no palming and no carrying of the ball. And no blatant traveling. Could you imagine the players of today trying to play under those harsh conditions? The complaints would be endless.

Also, you ever hold an BAA/NBA ball from the late 40s early 50 in your hands? I have (at the basketball HOF years ago). It's a lot more slippery than the balls of the past few decades.

Remember all the complaints by NBA players in the middle 2000s when the league tried to be environmentally conscience and got rid of the leather ball for a ball that was a synthetic composite? Players complained it was too slippery, and the players union actually filed a lawsuit against the league under an unfair labor practice charge to get the leather ball back.

For everyone saying the NBA players of today are so much better than those of bygone years, I can imagine the complaints you would hear if today's players had to play under the conditions/rules of the 40s/50s, and having to wear Converse tennis shoes to boot. Again, the complaints would be endless.

The amount of movement, contact, missed shots, and turnovers aligns with the crazy paces recorded. This looks like an exhausting game to play, and that's without being able to appreciate exactly how good the athletes are!

Yes we always hear today how the players of the past were not athletic or in shape, which is of course nonsense. Back then NBA players were constantly moving, in motion, there was not much standing around in the corners watching a Harden/Doncic-type dribbling endlessly at the top of the key for 5-10 seconds.

Thanks for this. One thing you didn't mention, aside from the footwear, ball, and physical endurance test of 1950s basketball is the quality of the footage itself. Reduce the frames per second and overall video quality of today's game, distort the audio, and remove color, and the games start to look more alike...

...to an extent, but still a very limited extent. Your point would seem to be that the games are very different and should be celebrated on their own merits. I appreciate that perspective and the subtleties you bring up.

Do you have an opinion on my revulsion at the shot selection? That's the part that doesn't compute for me. The skills are displayed, the athleticism is undeniable, but the offensive output suffers from shots that do not appear forced by the defenses. With the exception of the quasi-SSOL approach I've seen mentioned as a tactic to limit live-ball turnovers, I just can't find a reason why so many shots of extraordinary difficulty are taken.

By the late 50s footage I've watched, teams appear to be more deliberate and varied in their offense. It's still far, far, far removed from pounding the varnish off the floor like you get in the iso-heavy modern era, but like I said, there's a noticeable difference. Maybe it's just because I'm judging off one potentially unrepresentative game from 1950, but the numbers suggest teams just didn't make field goals consistently (and still didn't by 1960, but it was improved, to be sure, and that improvement was gained despite the limitation of the shot clock inhibiting extended sets, such as the endless DHO idea I jokingly suggested). And it doesn't appear to be a lack of technical ability, as the footage does include pull-up and spot-up jumpers and set shots. Defense may have been frenetic and smothering in that time, but it clearly was not impossible to generate, or make, quality shots. So why all the hasty, low-probability heaves from all over?

[Tim Lehrbach]

The strategy the Packers used under Schultz is reminiscent of Frank Keaney's "Firehouse" basketball style. They would essentially run fast breaks as a way to tire the opposition and get them out of their comfort zone. This meant shooting earlier in the shot clock to limit turnovers and conserve energy. The Packers were also a borderline dirty team, utilizing physicality to help make up for their lack of size. Mendenhall and Schultz were very well aware of the teams weakness to size, and crafted a strategy that would help alleviate that. The speed of their game would drain stamina from the taller players--and long, quicker shots would result in difficult rebounds that could bounce further, making box-outs less effective. All of this combined made many teams dread playing against the Packers' unique playstyle.

I'm curious as to how much this approach or its neighbors in the basketball strategy world may have contributed to the pace of the game altogether. In my posts I have asked for wisdom on the puzzling shot selection of that 1950 sample (again, granting it may not be representative). Was it just especially important to play fast and get up shots, lest you cough up the ball for an easy lay-in at the other end, and also so as to generate more offensive rebounds (and with them, higher-percentage putbacks)? That makes sense, and in an era where you couldn't attack the basket relentlessly or be rewarded for effective spacing with an extra point on deep attempts, maybe accounts for a lot of the "bad" shots I observed.

[kcktiny]

Your point would seem to be that the games are very different and should be celebrated on their own merits.

Celebrated yes. And it was starting to get integrated (but a slow process).

The game of basketball itself wasn't different (two hoops, one ball, ten players, similar court), but the conditions of the pro game and players was certainly different.

1949-50 was the first "official" year of the NBA (although the NBA likes to claim 3 years earlier as the BAA) as the league was formed as an amalgamation of teams from both the BAA and NBL. In 1948-49 the BAA and NBL counted 22 teams. The first year of the NBA (a "merger" of the two leagues) counted just 17 teams. The 2nd year of the NBA, 1950-51, counted just 11 teams, the next season, just 10 teams. So in just 3 years over half the teams (and half the players) were gone. The teams were just not very profitable and many folded.

The pay also was not anything like now (I've read maybe an average of $5,000/year that first season). At the start of the NBA many players had second jobs in the off season to make a living, except for a few (like Mikan), and in the off season players had to go to a local gym to stay in shape. Teams did not have training facilities, weight rooms, or personal trainers. Most teams traveled to games by train or bus (some by plane, but not much). Teams only made money through gate receipts (gameday ticket sales), not via TV.

After WWII arena owners were desperate to fill open dates (basketball, hockey, the circus, ice capades, rodeos, wrestling, touring plays/operas), but if a basketball team did not draw very well they simply weren't around very long.

As to the actual game movement and passing was the norm, more fundamentals and team play. It was also much more physical. In 1949-50 there were 2 FTAs for every 5 FGAs. By 1959-60 that was down to 2 FTAs for every 6 FGAs.

Also the best players were on the floor the longest time (that's who the paying fans came to see). The first year the league tracked minutes played was 1951-52, and of the 117 players in the league 11 played 40+ minutes per game, 23 played 35+ min/g.

As for the shot selection all I can surmise is that teams did not practice together much during the season, and definitely not in the offseason. I'm also guessing most players were not putting up 500+ shots a day in the local gym on their off days.

[eminence]

My very rough back of the napkin calculations to estimate Ortg/Drt.

(Team TSA)/Games Played = Ortg

SRS - Ortg = Drtg (so positive is good this go around)

Teams, Ortg/Drtg, sorted by SRS (rank on each side, of 17):
Lakers +3.4(4)/+4.8(3)
Royals +6.8(1)/+0.9(7)
Nationals +3.7(3)/+2.8(6)
Olympians +6.0(2)/-3.5(14)
Knicks +3.4(5)/-0.9(12)
Packers -6.0(16)/+8.4(1)
Stags -2.6(13)/+4.7(4)
Pistons -4.3(14)/+6.1(2)
Capitols -0.9(9)/+0.7(8)
Blackhawks -1.2(11)/-0.2(10)
Celtics -1.2(10)/-0.6(11)
Bombers +0.9(8)/-3.0(13)
Warriors -6.4(17)/+4.1(5)
Bullets -4.6(15)/+0.1(9)
Red Skins +2.4(7)/-8.2(15)
Hawks +2.9(6)/-8.8(16)
Nuggets -2.5(12)/-8.8(17)

[Doctor MJ]

Alright, look y'all, I'm just going to go ahead and reveal exactly how ignorant I am to the earliest NBA years. The obvious noob question: how come players had shooting mechanics that yielded 70-75% free throw shooting, but offenses couldn't generate shots at anything resembling the efficiency teams would eventually reach leading up to 1980? (For reference, league-wide shooting efficiency was .397 eFG/.410 TS in 1949-50 vs. .485 eFG/.530 TS in 1978-79, the last year before the three point line was introduced.)

What was the typical shot distance? What types of attempts were taken? Catch-and-shoot... floater... off-the-scoreboard-off-Grimace-nothing-but-net? Were layups and dunks rare? To the uninitiated like myself, this era of basketball seems so different from even ten years later (for reference, .410 eFG/.463 TS in 1959-60), when stats start to look a little more familiar and we have at least enough film to begin to explain the differences between that and contemporary ball. Just what were they doing out there in 1950?

I feel dumb to even have to ask. Would a primer of the game of basketball as it was played in this time be helpful? I assume this would require study of the NBA but also other contests, training "manuals" or whatever circulated in those times for skills and strategy instruction, etc.

Where does one begin understanding the game in its proto-professional days and whatever improvements the upstart NBA represented, so as to give its titans their due respect for their achievements? Looking at numbers alone just doesn't give me much of a picture. I can see how Mikan is a major outlier, which obviously commands immediate attention, but without video or at least a vivid description I have a really hard time evaluating a game I clearly do not understand.

EDIT: lol while I typed this a video got posted... I'll get to watching it!

EDIT2: I know not everybody needs such a primer, but I feel like there could be more, and richer participation, on these earliest threads if more of us knew where to even start. So, to the extent that y'all have some of this knowledge and can explain some basics to the rest of us, we might at least have a language for beginning to talk about these guys, if not confidently analyze them.

So I'll jump in here and post a video that I saw recently which I think really helps give some perspective here:

Watch on YouTube

The reason for the video being made is to actually show what Dolph Schayes was like after JJ Redick talked about wanting to go back into the past so he could be better than Schayes and be on the NBA Top 75.

One of the things the video talks about though is that the data seems to suggest that guys were hitting shots at about the same percentage as modern guys both in the interior and what we now call the midrange, it's just that there were less shots in the interior. Hence, that guy who seems like a great shooter but has a low FG%? Yup, he's actually a great shooter, and it's something else in the shape of the game that is making him less effective as a scorer.

The video then posits that might be almost entirely explained by changes in officiating. He shows clips of plays from the '50s getting called for offensive fouls and then shows analogous clips from today where they instead get called on the defense. Basically, scoring on the interior has always meant there was bound to be contact, and so how you officiate that contact has an utterly profound difference.

Incidentally, as someone known as something of a Schayes cynic myself, I was very impressed by what I saw, and no, I don't think Redick would be anywhere near as good as Schayes in the 1950s.

[Tim Lehrbach]

eminence and ZeppelinPage: I don't know how you know the stuff you're sharing here (the narrative color extending beyond the stats, especially), but it's extremely interesting. Thank you.

[Doctor MJ]

My very rough back of the napkin calculations to estimate Ortg/Drt.

(Team TSA)/Games Played = Ortg

SRS - Ortg = Drtg (so positive is good this go around)

Teams, Ortg/Drtg, sorted by SRS (rank on each side, of 17):
Lakers +3.4(4)/+4.8(3)
Royals +6.8(1)/+0.9(7)
Nationals +3.7(3)/+2.8(6)
Olympians +6.0(2)/-3.5(14)
Knicks +3.4(5)/-0.9(12)
Packers -6.0(16)/+8.4(1)
Stags -2.6(13)/+4.7(4)
Pistons -4.3(14)/+6.1(2)
Capitols -0.9(9)/+0.7(8)
Blackhawks -1.2(11)/-0.2(10)
Celtics -1.2(10)/-0.6(11)
Bombers +0.9(8)/-3.0(13)
Warriors -6.4(17)/+4.1(5)
Bullets -4.6(15)/+0.1(9)
Red Skins +2.4(7)/-8.2(15)
Hawks +2.9(6)/-8.8(16)
Nuggets -2.5(12)/-8.8(17)

I think this is extremely valuable. It's bound to be imperfect and anyone who want to work to improve should do so - because it's important thing to make visually salient, and so we should use whatever the best metric we have for it.

Looking at what you have here, it seems roughly aligned with how I was thinking about things, so I'd use eminence's metric unless something better emerges.

[Tim Lehrbach]

Spoiler:

Alright, look y'all, I'm just going to go ahead and reveal exactly how ignorant I am to the earliest NBA years. The obvious noob question: how come players had shooting mechanics that yielded 70-75% free throw shooting, but offenses couldn't generate shots at anything resembling the efficiency teams would eventually reach leading up to 1980? (For reference, league-wide shooting efficiency was .397 eFG/.410 TS in 1949-50 vs. .485 eFG/.530 TS in 1978-79, the last year before the three point line was introduced.)

What was the typical shot distance? What types of attempts were taken? Catch-and-shoot... floater... off-the-scoreboard-off-Grimace-nothing-but-net? Were layups and dunks rare? To the uninitiated like myself, this era of basketball seems so different from even ten years later (for reference, .410 eFG/.463 TS in 1959-60), when stats start to look a little more familiar and we have at least enough film to begin to explain the differences between that and contemporary ball. Just what were they doing out there in 1950?

I feel dumb to even have to ask. Would a primer of the game of basketball as it was played in this time be helpful? I assume this would require study of the NBA but also other contests, training "manuals" or whatever circulated in those times for skills and strategy instruction, etc.

Where does one begin understanding the game in its proto-professional days and whatever improvements the upstart NBA represented, so as to give its titans their due respect for their achievements? Looking at numbers alone just doesn't give me much of a picture. I can see how Mikan is a major outlier, which obviously commands immediate attention, but without video or at least a vivid description I have a really hard time evaluating a game I clearly do not understand.

EDIT: lol while I typed this a video got posted... I'll get to watching it!

EDIT2: I know not everybody needs such a primer, but I feel like there could be more, and richer participation, on these earliest threads if more of us knew where to even start. So, to the extent that y'all have some of this knowledge and can explain some basics to the rest of us, we might at least have a language for beginning to talk about these guys, if not confidently analyze them.

So I'll jump in here and post a video that I saw recently which I think really helps give some perspective here:

Watch on YouTube

The reason for the video being made is to actually show what Dolph Schayes was like after JJ Redick talked about wanting to go back into the past so he could be better than Schayes and be on the NBA Top 75.

One of the things the video talks about though is that the data seems to suggest that guys were hitting shots at about the same percentage as modern guys both in the interior and what we now call the midrange, it's just that there were less shots in the interior. Hence, that guy who seems like a great shooter but has a low FG%? Yup, he's actually a great shooter, and it's something else in the shape of the game that is making him less effective as a scorer.

The video then posits that might be almost entirely explained by changes in officiating. He shows clips of plays from the '50s getting called for offensive fouls and then shows analogous clips from today where they instead get called on the defense. Basically, scoring on the interior has always meant there was bound to be contact, and so how you officiate that contact has an utterly profound difference.

Incidentally, as someone known as something of a Schayes cynic myself, I was very impressed by what I saw, and no, I don't think Redick would be anywhere near as good as Schayes in the 1950s.

Thanks for this, Doc! I can't watch the video now but will by tomorrow.

Your explanations add a lot. I am learning so much already. So far, as explanations for the "bad shots" I observed, we have:

1. Intentionally uptempo game which favors shot attempts over turnovers (for obvious reasons), crashing the offensive glass (for higher-efficiency putbacks), and -- because the game was played so fast and the best players played so many minutes -- possibly exhausting the biggest or least-fit players.
2. Increased physicality inside (evidenced both by more fouls called and free throws awarded by volume but also by fewer fouls called as a percentage of potential fouls committed), which deterred drives and post play. This would in turn allow very aggressive closeouts and denials on the perimeter because the threat of getting burned or whistled for inhibiting freedom of movement is diminished considerably. We do indeed see a lot of overplaying the perimeter and getting up into offensive players' space in the video.
3. Minimal structured offense due to teams not having the capacity to train or practice together.
4. The ball and footwear were not conducive to the ball-handling, cuts, etc. which characterize our familiar approaches to creating space for open looks.
5. Equal or similar efficiency on like shots but vastly different distribution of shots at the rim vs. midrange/perimeter.
6. No incentive (the additional point) to shoot from where one is most likely to be wide open: beyond the (future) arc.

I'll add an admission:
7. Bias. The several circus shots I observed are credibly explained as byproducts of the first four points and represent just a few of the many attempts in the game, yet I zeroed in on them because they look silly and because we've all been yelled at and benched in our youth for attempting even one such off-balance improv heave.

I'll watch the Schayes video tomorrow, rewatch some of the 1950 footage, and probably ask some more questions. As I alluded above, I am trying to get at an elementary understanding of what we should be looking for in an effective basketball player from 1950. In one sense this is obvious and the same as any era: scoring efficiency at one end or its opposite at the other. But, given the aforementioned constraints on the game, the means for generating good offense (or preventing it) will obviously differ. If I could arrive at a sort of toolbox of the effective pro circa 1950, I can start to form judgments about what I'm looking at, rather than just gazing in wonder at how unfamiliar it all is.

Thanks everybody.

[LA Bird]

What are people's thoughts on Zaslofsky's RS numbers falling off at age 25 after the team folded?

1950 vs 1951-53 win shares
Zaslofsky: 8.4 vs 2.7, 1.7, 1.7* (missed half of the season)
Phillip: 7.7 vs 9.7, 4.8, 7.2

Different team situations obviously but Phillip's all in one number held up a lot better in later seasons when they went separate ways. Though if we look at the playoffs, Phillip falls off while Zaslofsky thrives (similar to the other backcourt duo of Davies/Wanzer). I would still rank Zaslofsky higher but the fact that Phillip is nowhere near this discussion makes me doubt whether the gap is large enough for Zaslofsky to make it into top 5 ahead of one of Cervi/Wanzer/Pollard.

Also not sure what is the board's rule on linking external forums but there is a lot of 50s info here if people are interested:
https://www.reddit.com/r/nbadiscussion/comments/shuo8m/resource_for_learning_about_50s_basketball_and/

[eminence]

Voting Post

Player of the Year
1. George Mikan
Shocker. It's by a mile, ripped off his 4th consecutive title with a monstrous scoring run through the playoffs - in modern terms it was something like 40 pts/g on great efficiency. And the competition was pretty much as good as it could get (they beat the #2/7/8/6/3 SRS squads on their way to the title, and the #7/4/2/1/6 defenses by my estimate above). Strong arguments as the best player in the game on both sides of the ball. Clearly a cut above everyone else.

2. Dolph Schayes
Also a pretty easy decision imo. Groza can challenge his box-score, Davies can challenge his team success as a star, but Groza's team wasn't close and Davies collapsed vs the Pistons. Outside of Mikan the most balanced player in the league by my estimation, he'll be on the fringes of both my OPOY and DPOY ballots.

3. Alex Groza
First tricky decision for me, it was Groza vs Davies. I'm not completely sold Groza was really a real deal win a title #1 impact guy, or just a #2 guy with the prettiest box scores who could lead a decent but non title competitive team. I think I come down closer to #2 (that impact signal when banned is so bad), but that's enough for #3 this season. The scoring is really pretty, Davies did lay an egg, and Beard's missed game/play does give him a suitable excuse for losing to the Packers.

4. Bob Davies
If he'd delivered vs the Pistons and subsequently lost to the Lakers I'd be debating him vs Schayes for #2. Through the RS and the first game of the postseason (26/6 on good efficiency in a 2 pt loss to the Lakers in the 1 seed tiebreaker) he was lapping the guard field. But he didn't. This is far as I can drop him, I don't think there was another player below him who remotely would've had the Royals in that position to start with, it simply would've been a clear two top teams. And honestly the Royals losing to the Pistons with Davies playing poorly is a pretty decent signal as to who was driving that team.

5. Jim Pollard
Was he efficient, absolutely not. Did several opponents outplay him in the playoffs, absolutely. Davies, Zaslofsky, Schaus, ???, Schayes likely in order. But I guess it's hard for me to wind up saying anybody else really accomplished more in sum. As much a nod to the Lakers dynasty as anything. I'm certain nobody else was capable of being a competitive #1 in a league with Mikan, so why not give some love to the guy who proved so much as his #2.

HMs:
Macauley - good stats, but not quite there yet imo
Cervi - Good player, but had worn down by the Finals (something I'd forgotten about), Nationals may have more seriously pushed for a ring if not
Wanzer - Didn't particularly step up when Davies was down, got his shot, didn't make it
Zaslofsky - Strong ballot contender imo, but I think pretty well captured by the Pts/g and TS combo that was available even in 1950, no hidden impact
Schaus - I think a guy I should've given a bit more weight than on my first pass, 2nd team deservedly, indicators are he was a decent defensive forward on a strong defense, probably outplayed both Zaslofsky and Pollard in their PO matchups, though seemed less strong vs the Royals in their upset win. My honorary #6 guy.

Offensive Player of the Year
1. George Mikan
He was the guy to stop (3x reigning champ) and nobody showed they could even begin to slow him down. Went directly through every player I'm considering for my DPOY ballot (other than himself, duh).

2. Alex Groza
Led a very very strong offense with individual efficiency through the roof. Held up well in the playoffs.

3. Bob Davies
The other elite offense leader, lost his flow in the POs and immediately got sent packing (3 game series are harsh). Unsure if there were any injury issues there or not, but it eliminated him from contention with the above two regardless.

HM: Dolph Schayes - Not quite the shooter he'd grow into, but already a very talented all-around offensive big man, who led the 2nd most successful team on the season.

Defensive Player of the Year
1. George Mikan
Might've won because he didn't have to face Mikan. Or maybe that was his OPOY award. Who knows.

2. Milo Komenich
I don't think he lucked into winning titles in the NCAA/NBL and a +8 defense (estimated) as his teams primary big. Absolutely atrocious by traditional offensive measures and yet won a ton. Couldn't slow Mikan, but nobody else could either.

3. Kleggie Hermsen
Not the most resounding pick, but I don't see a ton of other guys deserving of that much defensive love in Chicago and they certainly got it done on the team level. Good success at prior stops as well.

HMs:
Bill Closs - Honestly don't know much, but good rep, decent size, great team result with Komenich.
Bob Carpenter - Great team result as the lead big, but I see a lot of other meaningful defensive players/size on the Pistons roster.
Dolph Schayes - Good size, have seen his lateral quickness complemented (I like what I've seen as well), and a better natural understanding of the game than 95% of guys (you don't wind up playing good minutes in an NCAA final at 16 by accident). Consistently good defensive team results.
Arnie Risen - Good all around big man, may have been the Royals #2 over Wanzer through their contention era.

[Doctor MJ]

So, let me go through my basic starting process here - doing this without looking what I concluded the last time I did this (though I know Mikan was my #1 lol). Key thing here: First thing I try to do is figure out what people at the time would have thought, and from there only deviate if I have a good enough reason to deviate. So this is kind of a circuitous approach that probably just feels like rambling on.

Who were the players celebrated on a level at the time that would make them seem likely POY candidates, and who did they play for?

All-NBA 1st Team
Bob Davies (Roc)
Alex Groza (Ind)
George Mikan (Mpl)
Jim Pollard (Mpl)
Max Zaslofsky (Chi)

All-NBA 2nd Team
Ralph Beard (Ind)
Frankie Brian (And)
Al Cervi (Syr)
Fred Schaus (FtW)
Dolph Schayes (Syr)

If we look at their representation sorted by standings:

Syracuse 51-13 (Cervi, Schayes)
Minneapolis 51-13 (Mikan, Pollard)
Rochester 51-13 (Davies)
New York 40-28 (none)
Fort Wayne 40-28 (Schaus)
Chicago 40-28 (Zaslofsky)
Indianapolis 39-25 (Groza, Beard)
Anderson 37-27 (Brian)

Note that Anderson is the last >.500 team in the league, so all All-NBA players came from winning teams - as is often something close to how things go.

I'll focus on these teams first, as well as foremost.

Syracuse - I don't think there's any doubt that Cervi & Schayes defined the team. Aside from the fact that Schayes was the lead scorer and 2nd assist man, and Cervi was the 3rd scorer and 1st assist man, Cervi was also player-coach and renowned both for his individual defense and the defense of the team's he coached. But Cervi is older at this point, and these Nationals appear to have only been pretty-good on defense, gaining more of an an advantage from offense, which I think everyone always agree was primarily about Schayes. I'd tend to see Schayes as the top POY candidate of the team followed by Cervi, with Schayes the potential OPOY candidate and Cervi the potential DPOY candidate.

Minneapolis - Mikan & Pollard are the big stars, and the guys scoring the most and assisting the most, but I'd be remiss not to also mention Vern Mikkelsen who will rise to great prominence in later years with a much stronger TS% than Pollard, and strong rebounding numbers. For the record, while I've seriously considered elevating Mikkelsen over Pollard generally based on these statistical indicators, I still side with Pollard. I think it's pretty clear that the way the Lakers played based on Mikan, the perimeter teammates ended up with crappy stats, and yet it's Pollard more than anyone else - even Mikan - that plays the big minutes all through the Laker champion runs. I think Pollard was doing a lot more than we can see from the box score. In terms of offense & defense, frankly I'd just side with Mikan as the candidate on both sides of the ball.

Rochester - Davies was the clear cut star of the team at this point. While teammate Arnie Risen is someone who I do at times have as a major candidate, he clearly is aa lesser focus at this time. Royals here, as in general, looks like a team led by a dominant offense, and Davies was the quarterback of that offense. Just regular season here (playoffs later), Davies has a pretty strong case for OPOY I think.

New York - How interesting is it that the only team I listed out with no All-NBA players is the Big Market? Carl Braun seems to be the guy worth considering here. Biggest numbers on the team this year, and we know going forward into the future that Braun really is the guard the team swears by (when he's not in the military) in the time to come. I should mention Harry Gallatin who is the other guy you can really argue the Knicks embraced as a franchise player. We know from future years that Gallatin was a hell of a rebounder...but we also know that the team sees their best years before they really hand Gallatin that primacy.

Fort Wayne - Fred Schaus is clearly the big scorer on his team, and a natural guy to think is the best player on that team. Data indicates that the team is good because of their defense though. Possibly there's a defender from the group I should be looking to identify from other articles.

Chicago - The final year of the Stags, and the final year of Zaslofsky looking like a superstar. He's the natural choice to consider here...although the estimate that the Stars were so weak on offense is concerning. Earlier in that BAA time, they really did appear to be an offensive powerhouse, but by this time they've faded. Zaslofsky fading as well with his first non +100 TS Add season, and after this season, he'll never post anything even this positive again.

Indianapolis - The great example of a college championship core then becoming a pro team. What they did this season seems largely to live up to the hype. This would be an appropriate time to point out that Groza topped the entire league with a massive +377.4 TS Add, about 80 above Mikan, and way more than double anyone else. Fellow former Wildcat Board was the clear 2nd banana of the group in perception, though as a facilitator it's always possible he was actually more valuable than the guy he was passing to. I'll stick with Groza as the top POY/OPOY candidate of the team.

Anderson - They like Chicago will cease to be an NBA team after the year. Brian was the guy getting accolades, is the lead scorer, and went on to be an all-star for another team after this...on the other hand the team's defense seems to have been the key to their success. I've seen that discussed some already and will look to evaluate from there. It's really weird with Howie Schultz changing from this Packer team to the Fort Wayne Pistons mid-way through the year - and also that each team ends up Top 2 by eminence's metric.

Alright, let's go back to the 1st team now with both team context and some stats in mind. 2 of the 1st Teamers have a massive lead in Win Shares over the entire rest of the league - Mikan & Groza. As mentioned, they also both have the lead by TS Add. Based on all of this, along with the hype surrounding Groza, I think if there were a regular season voting, we'd probably have Mikan 1, Groza 2.

Of the 3 elite regular season teams (Nationals, Lakers, Royals), they make up 3 of the 5 1st Team spots, and while I'd guess that Pollard as an MVP candidate would tend to slide due to Mikan's pre-eminence, Davies seems like a natural for a high spot. I'd guess #3, though honestly I could see him at 2.

The Nationals only have 2nd teamers, so there's something of an assumption that Pollard & Zaslofsky would be getting the final 2 ballot spots over Schayes. I do think it's possible that Schayes would have actually ended up ahead of Pollard, but for now I'll keep Pollard ahead.

So then, my guess at what the MVP of the time would have been:

1. Mikan
2. Groza
3. Davies
4. Zaslofsky
5. Pollard
HM: Schayes, Brian, Cervi, Schaus, Beard

What happens in the playoffs?

Well, the Lakers march through to the title going up against the Nationals in the final who seem like they earned their place as the 2nd best team in the league. Mikan is utterly dominant and a clear cut #1 POY guy with a case for OPOY & DPOY. Schayes is a bit spottier, but still I can't help but see him as proving more than Pollard at least (who seems to drop off with respect to Mikkelsen this year in the playoffs), so I expect to have him ahead of Pollard on the POY list.

Davies' Royals...what happened? Honestly, if anyone has a source explaining what happened, I'd love to hear it. The rivalry was pretty even in the regular season (3-3) so a possible "upset" was always in the cards, but man, when you lose to a lower seed in a sweep, that's a legit upset, and Davies scoring looks awful. Bizarrely, the elite-offense Royals still dominate by eFG% & FT/FGA which are the only of the 4 factors we have. Assuming the data is correct, it must mean that the Pistons dominated in at least one of TO% & OR%, but the funny thing is, while Davies' individual scoring looks bad, we can't really say that the Royals' offense got stopped. His POY & OPOY candidacies are definitely damaged, but maybe not to the point he won't be on any ballots. On the other hand, maybe we should be looking at teammate Bobby Wanzer who looks better statistically in that series. Had the Royals gone on to a great playoff run led by Wanzer instead of Davies it would be easy to elevate him at the lead Royals, but leading a team to exactly zero playoff wins isn't exactly a lot to go by to go against the wisdom of the time.

On the other hand, led the team in Win Shares in both the RS & PS, and was 4th in the whole league in TS Add trailing only Groza, MIkan & Ed Macauley, so maybe he should have always been the guy given the most credit. I think we do have to understand that Davies brought Wanzer to Rochester through their connection at Seton Hall, and they weren't just carbon copies. My understanding has always been that Davies was extraordinary playmaker, while Wanzer more score-first. And in '49-50, clearly this was a team that was built more around Davies than Wanzer, and hence it's quite possible that the reason why Wanzer looked better in the playoffs by the numbers is that he wasn't what the defense was focused on stopping.

The Olympians get upset by a single basket in the final winner-take-all-game in the second round by the second place team from their division (Packers). Not too damning in terms of the upset imho, super-close, and Beard was missing time and clearly not himself. I don't see this as something to really drag Groza down in general, though as I say that, Mikan and the Lakers seem to be a more dominant offensive team against the Packers than Groza and the Olympians. I'll also say that I'm not really sold on Brian leaping up over guys based on the playoffs.

Over to Zaslofsky? More big scoring numbers on a team that doesn't really go anywhere, but was technically more competitive than the Pistons or the Packers against their mutual opponent (Lakers). Still not seeing indicators that the Stags were being super-effective on offense, and knowing what I know about Zaslofsky's future, as well as the fact that he had a rather legendary point guard on this stag team next to him (Andy Philip), and that teammate despite being older would seem to fair a lot better in the NBA of the '50s.

Circling back to Schaus, it would really help his cause if he had obviously big numbers in the upset win over the Royals but he doesn't. He has big numbers against the Lakers subsequently...but not enough to make the series all that close.

I think the only guy here I've mentioned that I haven't really talked about at all is Macauley. He's known as one of the great offensive players of the early NBA. He's also not yet quite his best self yet and he's on a failing team that will fold when the season ends. He is a candidate here, but not a super-strong one to me.

Looking back over the guys I've talked about, I despair because I have so many issues with basically everyone but Mikan, Groza & Schayes, who feel like they've consolidated into a top 3 likely for both the POY & OPOY.

Makes sense to circle back to some #2's then aside from Wanzer (if he's even a mere #2). Pollard & Cervi are clearly critical to the success of their teams and I don't think can reasonably be said to have disappointed dramatically (as we might say of Davies). Of the two Cervi feels the more solid to me in terms of my confidence in his impact, despite his lesser scoring numbers, but part of that is impact that might be argued to be "coaching impact". How do we distinguish between playing impact and coaching impact for a player-coach? Hard to say, but I'll say that the idea that we would potentially count leadership as a plus for other players but not give a player-coach that same plus because we say it's coaching credit doesn't sit right. While Schayes is the talent of the team, he's also a kid here and there's no doubt that Cervi is the leader of the team in basically all capacities. That's no small thing.

So then, I think Cervi's making my 5, and Pollard may well make it. I'm thinking hard about both Davies & Wanzer. Zaslofsky is obviously someone not to dismiss easily, but I have to I'm not that enamored with what he was doing at this stage on a sinking ship even if it wasn't necessarily something you could reasonably say was "his fault".

Before I put them in some order though, I want to talk some about DPOY and read the thoughts of others because defensive players are necessarily easy to identify with the data we have.

First off, Mikan is a towering presence and a likely #1.

The top two defenses in the regular season, per eminence, were the Packers & Pistons, who have this strange throughline with Schultz. Really curious to try to learn more about who deserves credit for these teams doing what they were doing.

[Doctor MJ]

What are people's thoughts on Zaslofsky's RS numbers falling off at age 25 after the team folded?

1950 vs 1951-53 win shares
Zaslofsky: 8.4 vs 2.7, 1.7, 1.7* (missed half of the season)
Phillip: 7.7 vs 9.7, 4.8, 7.2

Different team situations obviously but Phillip's all in one number held up a lot better in later seasons when they went separate ways. Though if we look at the playoffs, Phillip falls off while Zaslofsky thrives (similar to the other backcourt duo of Davies/Wanzer). I would still rank Zaslofsky higher but the fact that Phillip is nowhere near this discussion makes me doubt whether the gap is large enough for Zaslofsky to make it into top 5 ahead of one of Cervi/Wanzer/Pollard.

Also not sure what is the board's rule on linking external forums but there is a lot of 50s info here if people are interested:
https://www.reddit.com/r/nbadiscussion/comments/shuo8m/resource_for_learning_about_50s_basketball_and/

It's a great question.

I think a starting point for me is that the early BAA starts very weak and then gets a lot better quickly, so when we see guys who are outliers early on seem to peak mysteriously early in their career, I think that part of the equation is generally that their individual scoring attack was better mitigated against by improving defense, relatively speaking.

The most glaring case here is Joe Fulks who goes from leading a team to the first BAA title to being a horrendously problematic chucker within just a few years.

With Zaslofsky it wasn't quite so dramatic, but I think what we're seeing is that by the end of his Chicago Stags run, it's not clear whether a quality NBA team should really want Zaslofsky to just Iverson his way through things any more...and in reality, they choose not to. While there was surely a lot of hype to Zaslofsky coming to the Knicks, and while he did play a pretty significant role while he was there, he was never bigger than the rest of the team. He was told to fit in, and eventually, he was allowed to leave as the Knicks chose Braun over him.

Re: Philip nowhere near this discussion. So, he probably should be discussed, because he was a big star in his own right coming into the pros. It noteworthy that he joined the Stags a year after they started, and after year in which Zaslofsky led the team to the finals. Particularly with Zaslofsky being score-first, and Philip being pass-first, it's pretty easy to see why Zaslofsky would remain the guy getting all the accolade love first, but also quite possible that the way each guy was paying against 1950 competition, Philip was already scaling better than Zaslofsky.

[Doctor MJ]

Also not sure what is the board's rule on linking external forums but there is a lot of 50s info here if people are interested:
https://www.reddit.com/r/nbadiscussion/comments/shuo8m/resource_for_learning_about_50s_basketball_and/

Oh I think sites that have done more work on deep history than RealGM need to be fair game to bring to light.

Traditionally that was APBR, but yeah, seems like it's probably some corners of Reddit now.

Here's link to a post from TringlePringle, who also happens to have just published about abook about the '49-50 season:

1949-50 Anderson Packers profile

I was looking at this as part of DPOY, so key things I noted there:

1. He provides stats that are estimations of RPG & MPG, so we need to be careful there, but note that centers Charlie Black and Milo Komenich are the guys who get a lot of estimated RPG.

2. When asked about the Packer defense, he really pushes back against them actually being an elite defense, and I have to question how he can know that. I mean, we can see they didn't have a big who could stop Mikan, so that limits how good they can be, but doesn't make their regular season data inherently suspect in general.

3. The two Packers he does single out for defense are forwards John Hargis and Bill Closs, of which Closs is the one he estimates to play more than 30 MPG. Neither guy does much after this season despite the fact they weren't that old, and he does emphasize that these guys weren't the best defenders in the league...raising the question of Who was?

4. Unexpected tidbit he gets into: Slater Martin emerging as an all-time great defender in the playoffs and utterly shutting down Brian, who averaged 5.0 PPG on 15.8% shooting. I was thinking it was early in time to be talking about Martin as a DPOY ballot guy, but maybe not.

[Doctor MJ]

Couple quick things just based on DPOY votes I've seen from people - with the caveat that I wasn't there either and don't want to be talking out my a** like I know everything:

If I were going to pick someone from the Nationals, I'd expect it to be Cervi rather than Schayes - who I don't think was ever a great defender - and Seymour - who at this point I think was still more of a back-up protege to Cervi.

If I were going to pick someone from the Royals, I'd expect it to be Arnie "The Bulldozer" Johnson - who was known for defense - rather than Risen. While Risen had length and this was surely helpful on defense, he was an offense-oriented guy.

[AEnigma]

Putting non-bigs on my DPoY ballot will be exceedingly rare, and even then I will likely limit them to third place. Certainly possible/probable that players like Cervi or “the Bulldozer” stood out more positionally, but nature of the game is that they will never be truly as involved in defensive possessions as the team’s primary big will be. We can see that in seasons like 1954, where neither the Nationals nor Royals seem to miss those “top team defenders” at all defensively.

Granted, Risen does not sparkle in 1956 when replaced by Maurice Stokes… but Maurice Stokes will be my DPoY favourite that year and will be my runner-up to Russell in 1957 and 1958. If he were an option this year, I may have placed him above Mikan. And while Stokes was a significantly better rebounder than Risen, I can hardly say the same for Johnson.

Questioning the Packers is more interesting to me. This bit stood out:

Komenich was the only starter on either team to fall to the second round, not just behind their sixth man Stanczak but also behind the Bombers' backup PF and backup C.

He appears to have been a miserable offensive player, so it does not eliminate his candidacy for DPoY, but league-wide disregard does make me pause. My initial inclination had been toward Harry Gallatin, and maybe I should revisit that comparison.

Another name is Charlie Black, who like Schultz was present on both standout defences that year. Black seems the more notable rebounder of the two, and while both teams were ultimately worse off for the swap — the Pistons declined from 23-13 with Black to 17-15 with Schultz, and the Packers declined from 21-14 with Schultz to 16-13 with Black — Black fared better than Schultz did. Then again, the 1949 Packers did not miss Black at all, and while neither started in the league after this year, of the two, Schultz made for the more successful bench player.