The Forgotten Superstar - George Mikan

[italianleather]

Led the Minneapolis Lakers to 5 titles, yet no mention of Mikan in almost all of the top 10 list.

Is there any reason why?

In terms of accolades, he should be pushing the top 6, let alone top 10.

Also , I remember reading that he is the 1st true center in pro basketball and he revolutionize the center position. Oh, the league changed the rules in attempt (and succeeded) to make him less successful as well.

http://www.nba.com/history/players/mikan_bio.html

[singlepurposeac]

Mikan wouldn't even make it in today's NBA, he'd be a car salesman for novelty automobiles and SUVs. That's why he's not in the top 10, it's not about accolades, or shouldn't be. It's about worth as a player.

[italianleather]

It's about the worth as a player during his era. He dominated his era.

[singlepurposeac]

I don't agree, and thankfully most others don't either. Anyone who puts Mikan in their top 20, let alone their top 10, needs serious counselling. He wouldn't make my top 100.

[ahonui06]

Mikan was an all-time great and he should be recognized.

[XuDa]

Mikan's a great in the same way Wilt is a great.

He put up numbers and dominated in his era, even though his era happened to be comically weak.

[singlepurposeac]

No, Wilt is an all-time great. Mikan played in a segregated, barely professional, poorly trained NBA with comically outdated rules and style of play. An NBA where the next best big man after Mikan opted to be a car salesman instead of an NBA player. The mid-60's-70's have nothing in common with the time Mikan played.

Pettit is also totally overrated, he shouldn't be in anyone's top 20 either.

[italianleather]

Actually Wilt had better competition.

It is not their fault that they are more physically imposing than the rest of the league.

[J~Rush]

Actually Wilt had better competition.

It is not their fault that they are more physically imposing than the rest of the league.

http://www.italianleathernet.com/

This is such a strange website.

[The Main Event]

The game was in its most infant stages when Mikan played. True, it's not his fault for having been born during that era and yes, he does deserve recognition for pioneering the game during that time. That said, his era was too primitive in terms of game structure and basketball skills for us to compare stats and achievements from future eras. It's universes apart from what we see today.

To compare Mikans era with that of Wilts (mostly late 60's onward) is laughable, really.

[ChuckTheD]

Mikan doesn't get remembered because he dominated in the pre-shot-clock era. It was a really boring and ugly era for basketball. Plus everybody was white.

[The Main Event]

Mikan doesn't get remembered because he dominated in the pre-shot-clock era. It was a really boring and ugly era for basketball. Plus everybody was white.

BYU says hi.

[SaveOurBullets]

It's true, he gets unfairly trashed because of an era that he couldn't control. It's a disgrace that his legacy has been overrun by a chauvinistic smear campaign.

[Hilltop]

Mikan wouldn't even make it in today's NBA, he'd be a car salesman for novelty automobiles and SUVs. That's why he's not in the top 10, it's not about accolades, or shouldn't be. It's about worth as a player.

Worth as a player? You're well aware that Rafer Alston would destroy Bob Cousy right?

A player should always be judged on how he performed against his peers. It doesn't matter how he would fare in a completely different league 30 years later or how he stacks up with someone who wasn't even born at the time.

[singlepurposeac]

No, that's not right. A player should be honoured for how they played against their peers. But this is about where he ranks as a player all-time. Saying context doesn't matter is like arguing that because I was by far the greatest hoops player in the history of my streetball game, that I must have some similar claim to Mikan to be recognised overall. Nonsense.

[Point forward]

Fundamental question 1: great <=> good?
Fundamental question 2: being timeless <=> dominating your era?

Some beliefs ppl held about bball and society back then:

"Tall people are too clumsy to play bball"
"Black people are too dumb to play bball"
"Stay flatfooted at all times, even during the shot"
"Shot blocking is impossible, nobody can and should have that reach"
"The best perimeter shot is the flat footed set shot"
"Layups are two handed shots which are released at hip level"
"Be happy if you can earn $1000 per year"

Things invented or forced by Mikan:

Low post play
Ambidextrous hook shot ("Mikan Drill")
Shot blocking / Goal tending
Widening the lane TWICE
Shot clock
ABA (Mikan was the 1st commish) => Dr. J => dunking + dominant swingmen

If you go back in time and remove Mikan from the game, I honestly don't know if professional basketball survives long enough to introduce "money guys" like Cousy, Baylor or Pettit, let alone Oscar, West, Wilt or Russell. Just like every guard is a little Cousy, a forward is a little Baylor, every C is a little Mikan, and just like Doc legitimised the ABA, Mikan legitimised professional basketball as a whole.

FYI, Mikan died in poverty because of ill health and the fact that the NBA pays retirement fees relative to salary during NBA times, so Mikan was royally screwed. Shaq paid for his funeral and said: "Without Mikan, I would not exist." W/o Mikan, I doubt that the NBA as a whole would have survived long enough to be profitable. If MJ is Einstein, Mikan is Newton.

RIP Big George.

[singlepurposeac]

And he should be honoured for those things. But people trying to rank the best basketball players shouldn't bump him up because of warm fuzzy feelings about his historical context!

[Point forward]

If you evaluate Mikan straight up as a player only, he is of course fundamentally flawed. He is slow and cumbersome and REALLY played against short unathletic white guys. But then, I value guys who advance the game (Mikan, Cousy, Baylor, Doc, even Earl Monroe) more than guys who "just" play the game well.

[ronnymac2]

And he should be honoured for those things. But people trying to rank the best basketball players shouldn't bump him up because of warm fuzzy feelings about his historical context!

Yeah, but if that's important to them, why can't they include that?

I'm actually like you in that I don't really include things like historical importance. I value peak performance that transcends eras over anything else. But as long as somebody else clearly tells me their criteria (which may include historical importance) on the all-time list, then I have no problem with anybody's list. That person is simply judging things differently than I do. Nothing wrong with that.

[singlepurposeac]

That sort of criteria will just lead to fanboys using it to game the system. I can hear it now, the new argument for Kobe/Pettit/whoever is their "historical importance". Ugh.