RealGM Top 100 #35

[penbeast0]

Fast break offense predated Cousy; he invented the ball dominant PG in the NBA (basically Marques Haynes for white boys).

[ElGee]

Ha - apparently you didn't see where I was going with that.

Kareem's sky hook was the greatest weapon in history arguably. Yet no one copied it. Why should that devalue it? I also think Wilt used offensive goaltending as a weapon but they changed the rules...

[Fencer reregistered]

Fast break offense predated Cousy; he invented the ball dominant PG in the NBA (basically Marques Haynes for white boys).

No doubt. But it's my impression that Cousy took it to a whole other level.

[Fencer reregistered]

Kareem's sky hook was the greatest weapon in history arguably. Yet no one copied it. Why should that devalue it?

Because it's evidently not something many other people can do.

Nifty dribbling and passing on the break IS something many other people can do, so figuring out how (or whether) to do it is a much more important contribution.

Kareem gets full marks for what HE did with the sky hook, but he doesn't get credit for influencing others to use it -- because, um, he DIDN'T influence others to use it.

[Doctor MJ]

I don't see why it's orthogonal at all.

Boston scored the most points in the league, for many years, and was top 3 all the way to the end of Cousy's career. Boston also was the best team in the league. If we stopped the analysis there, it would seem that Boston probably had one of the best offenses.

Yet you say that Boston had the WORST offense in the league. I'm suggesting that your assessment of the quality of Boston's offense might be rather off the mark.

What I mean is that I don't see the point in saying something like "Yes Cousy and the offense were inefficient, but the team tried so much harder on defense" without also saying "and Cousy's efforts on the offensive end is what allowed his teammates to focus on defense - without him the team would have been far less successful". And we have direct evidence on that, and it doesn't hold true.

Re: assessment off the mark. Fencer I'm bit taken aback here. When you say that you basically see problems of efficiency and seem to favor raw scoring numbers, seems like the chasm between our thoughts is so wide I don't even no where to begin. It's a big enough of a deal that to me the debate about Cousy seems minor in comparison.

[Doctor MJ]

Kareem's sky hook was the greatest weapon in history arguably. Yet no one copied it. Why should that devalue it?

Because it's evidently not something many other people can do.

Nifty dribbling and passing on the break IS something many other people can do, so figuring out how (or whether) to do it is a much more important contribution.

Kareem gets full marks for what HE did with the sky hook, but he doesn't get credit for influencing others to use it -- because, um, he DIDN'T influence others to use it.

You're breaking down the details here where ElGee is pointing out a far more fundamental concern:

When comparing all-time greats, how can it make any kind of sense to break a tie by choosing the guy whose skillset is easier to replace?

[Fencer reregistered]

When comparing all-time greats, how can it make any kind of sense to break a tie by choosing the guy whose skillset is easier to replace?

I like progress. I like giving to others. I like improving the game of basketball.

If you do not, then I understand why you don't favor innovators with impact.


Don't get me wrong -- I admire beautiful, unique skills as well. (E.g. KAJ, Hakeem, or McHale.) But the greatest genius is to invent something that many people overlooked, yet see as obvious AFTER you have shown them the way. Because if you do that, you've out-thought -- or out-created -- a whole lot of other people.

[Doctor MJ]

First let me thank you for your thoughtful response
Now I'm try to show why we disagree A LOT
Mikan is unquestionably a top 10 player of all-time
here's a list of three reasons why, I'll try to make them rhyme:

1) SECOND GREATEST WINNER EVER: Seven Championships inside of eight years, forget the era, you can only beat your peers. To assume he wouldn't do it inside another era is not fair, because Ewing and the like simply were not there. How can Mikan be held to a standard that didn't exist. If I were him and you ranked me that way, I'd be effing pissed.

2) MOST IMPORTANT NON-INTEGRATION PIONEER - Excluding the leagues first stars, is a giant freaking mystery. Why make a list like this if you don't care about the history. With that thought in mind, Mikan is a uber-pioneer, without him it's quite possible none of us would be here. The NBA changes mightily, the shot clock and goal-tending are delayed, not to mention the stars he brought in because of the extra money they'd be paid.

3) CLEAR BEST PLAYER OF HIS ERA - That can only be said about three fellas in all, Kareem, Michael Jordan is the original tall. Russell had Wilt, Shaq had Duncan, even Snoopy's Red Baron had to out-do their great pumpkin. Mikan distinguished himself to a whole other degree. The best player in the game from '47 to '53. Who cares what you think about Ewing being more suited for glory. He had his chance and failed, Mikan won, end of story.

There are three reasons which you can not oppose without making up numbers and disrespecting those, who came long before and watched the damn era, not on some black and white feed, but instead they were there-ah. Where is Schayes, were is Cousy, where are Davies and Fulks. How bout' Johnston and Arizin and Zaslofsky and Stokes. Shall we ignore Pollard and his dunks from the free throw line and Mikkelsen and Martin and Yardley! well fine.

Now certainly they don't all belong in the top 50, but four or five do and guess is they'll all get the zippy. I'm sure once again though it'll fall on deaf ears, but you can only fairly judge a player by what they did against their peers.

The idea of context, which I can appreciate, is fine to give your opinion, but doesn't carry much weight.
It's wholly subjective, I can combat it with a "No Way." That's the end of your argument, what else can you say?
I'll go back to it a third because I can't believe what I read, Mikan not clearly better are you out of your head?
One guy made one all-NBA first team, the other guy owned the spot annually.
One guy never won a title, but choked one away, the other guy won seven that would have been eight (if he didn't break his leg and only average 20+ on it)
One guy was the best at what he did for his the time, the other was third at best, that was an easy rhyme.
Now sure the center position was deeper when Pat and them were being seen. But I'm pretty sure none of them own a time machine.
So Mikan was okay, but what if he faced them? Who is to say he not raise his game and totally disgrace them?
The point is we don't know and we won't ever either. If you want to talk make believe, go to a theater.

In 50 years time when the standards are changed, when new stats exist and few current remain. When guys like Malone and Nash are forgotten and some young guys make a list without them, won't you feel rotten. The point of this undertaking is to tell a historical story through the sharing of players who achieved great glory. Ignore facts for opinions and you'll surely be defeated. Fail to study history and you're doomed to repeat it.

Well I'm not going to tell you your rubric is wrong, but mine is obviously quite different.

Were I asked to name the 10 most important players in basketball history, Mikan would certainly be high on that list. I just don't really believe though in a "greatest" ranking that doesn't factor in the level of competition in a particular era.

Let's also note that we've already had 3 players from the 50s voted in and in Mikan a 4th player that would have made it. It's not so distorted as you think.

WOW THREE!!!!!!!

BTW since one or two years counts as being a player of that decade dude
you've also voted in seven players from the 2010's...oops!

A good point. I'm fine with that though. Understand that I see most sports leagues as having talent levels that fit on an S curve. When a sport reaches a new level of attractiveness to athletes, the talent involved skyrockets. Basketball's major change came in the 40s & 50s. Some anecdotes to hammer it home:

-Tarzan Cooper was arguably the best player of the 30s, and called at the time the best center in history. He was 6'4".
-In the 40s Mikan and Bob Kurland basically invented the modern big man. Before them, it was simply assumed that guys that today we would call power forwards and centers were too slow and uncoordinated to be athletes. Shocking considering that these guys revolutionized the game basically by standing by the basket and hitting the ball as it came down toward the hoop. You really don't need much athleticism for that when you're tall.
-Kurland of course never played in the NBA because he could make more money selling insurance. We live in a time where it's hard to imagine any superstar-level player not joining the NBA, but back then literally one of the 2 most talented known players in the world wasn't going to be offered enough money to drive him away from middle class work.
-In '46-47, the first year of the BAA, the average FG% was 27.9. We saw a bigger jump in FG% from '47 to '57 than we have from '57 to 2011.

Last, consider this: One of the great counterarguments to people who think athletes of previous times couldn't compete with those of now is the fact that veterans always seem to thrive. What we'd expect if there was a serious revolution in talent is that a new crop of youngin' to come in make the vets look like amateurs, and yet we never really see this.

We came closest though in the NBA I'd say, with the generation arriving after Cousy. Consider how in the "flagship" year of 60's statistics, '61-62, there isn't a single player in the Top 10 in Win Shares who is in his 30s.

[Doctor MJ]

I like progress. I like giving to others. I like improving the game of basketball.

If you do not, then I understand why you don't favor innovators with impact.


Don't get me wrong -- I admire beautiful, unique skills as well. (E.g. KAJ, Hakeem, or McHale.) But the greatest genius is to invent something that many people overlooked, yet see as obvious AFTER you have shown them the way. Because if you do that, you've out-thought -- or out-created -- a whole lot of other people.

Basketball is a competition though, don't you see the inherent contradiction with that?

If you're a great scientist or philosopher, part of your goal is build society, and hence influence is a reasonable part of your legacy.

A basketball player's job is to help his team win. The idea that he should let his style of play be dictated in any way by wanting future opponents to be able to be more capable by their ability to emulate him is just so wrong.

[Lever2Beaver]

First let me thank you for your thoughtful response
Now I'm try to show why we disagree A LOT
Mikan is unquestionably a top 10 player of all-time
here's a list of three reasons why, I'll try to make them rhyme:

1) SECOND GREATEST WINNER EVER: Seven Championships inside of eight years, forget the era, you can only beat your peers. To assume he wouldn't do it inside another era is not fair, because Ewing and the like simply were not there. How can Mikan be held to a standard that didn't exist. If I were him and you ranked me that way, I'd be effing pissed.

2) MOST IMPORTANT NON-INTEGRATION PIONEER - Excluding the leagues first stars, is a giant freaking mystery. Why make a list like this if you don't care about the history. With that thought in mind, Mikan is a uber-pioneer, without him it's quite possible none of us would be here. The NBA changes mightily, the shot clock and goal-tending are delayed, not to mention the stars he brought in because of the extra money they'd be paid.

3) CLEAR BEST PLAYER OF HIS ERA - That can only be said about three fellas in all, Kareem, Michael Jordan is the original tall. Russell had Wilt, Shaq had Duncan, even Snoopy's Red Baron had to out-do their great pumpkin. Mikan distinguished himself to a whole other degree. The best player in the game from '47 to '53. Who cares what you think about Ewing being more suited for glory. He had his chance and failed, Mikan won, end of story.

There are three reasons which you can not oppose without making up numbers and disrespecting those, who came long before and watched the damn era, not on some black and white feed, but instead they were there-ah. Where is Schayes, were is Cousy, where are Davies and Fulks. How bout' Johnston and Arizin and Zaslofsky and Stokes. Shall we ignore Pollard and his dunks from the free throw line and Mikkelsen and Martin and Yardley! well fine.

Now certainly they don't all belong in the top 50, but four or five do and guess is they'll all get the zippy. I'm sure once again though it'll fall on deaf ears, but you can only fairly judge a player by what they did against their peers.

The idea of context, which I can appreciate, is fine to give your opinion, but doesn't carry much weight.
It's wholly subjective, I can combat it with a "No Way." That's the end of your argument, what else can you say?
I'll go back to it a third because I can't believe what I read, Mikan not clearly better are you out of your head?
One guy made one all-NBA first team, the other guy owned the spot annually.
One guy never won a title, but choked one away, the other guy won seven that would have been eight (if he didn't break his leg and only average 20+ on it)
One guy was the best at what he did for his the time, the other was third at best, that was an easy rhyme.
Now sure the center position was deeper when Pat and them were being seen. But I'm pretty sure none of them own a time machine.
So Mikan was okay, but what if he faced them? Who is to say he not raise his game and totally disgrace them?
The point is we don't know and we won't ever either. If you want to talk make believe, go to a theater.

In 50 years time when the standards are changed, when new stats exist and few current remain. When guys like Malone and Nash are forgotten and some young guys make a list without them, won't you feel rotten. The point of this undertaking is to tell a historical story through the sharing of players who achieved great glory. Ignore facts for opinions and you'll surely be defeated. Fail to study history and you're doomed to repeat it.

Well I'm not going to tell you your rubric is wrong, but mine is obviously quite different.

Were I asked to name the 10 most important players in basketball history, Mikan would certainly be high on that list. I just don't really believe though in a "greatest" ranking that doesn't factor in the level of competition in a particular era.

Let's also note that we've already had 3 players from the 50s voted in and in Mikan a 4th player that would have made it. It's not so distorted as you think.

WOW THREE!!!!!!!

BTW since one or two years counts as being a player of that decade dude
you've also voted in seven players from the 2010's...oops!

A good point. I'm fine with that though. Understand that I see most sports leagues as having talent levels that fit on an S curve. When a sport reaches a new level of attractiveness to athletes, the talent involved skyrockets. Basketball's major change came in the 40s & 50s. Some anecdotes to hammer it home:

-Tarzan Cooper was arguably the best player of the 30s, and called at the time the best center in history. He was 6'4".
-In the 40s Mikan and Bob Kurland basically invented the modern big man. Before them, it was simply assumed that guys that today we would call power forwards and centers were too slow and uncoordinated to be athletes. Shocking considering that these guys revolutionized the game basically by standing by the basket and hitting the ball as it came down toward the hoop. You really don't need much athleticism for that when you're tall.
-Kurland of course never played in the NBA because he could make more money selling insurance. We live in a time where it's hard to imagine any superstar-level player not joining the NBA, but back then literally one of the 2 most talented known players in the world wasn't going to be offered enough money to drive him away from middle class work.
-In '46-47, the first year of the BAA, the average FG% was 27.9. We saw a bigger jump in FG% from '47 to '57 than we have from '57 to 2011.

Last, consider this: One of the great counterarguments to people who think athletes of previous times couldn't compete with those of now is the fact that veterans always seem to thrive. What we'd expect if there was a serious revolution in talent is that a new crop of youngin' to come in make the vets look like amateurs, and yet we never really see this.

We came closest though in the NBA I'd say, with the generation arriving after Cousy. Consider how in the "flagship" year of 60's statistics, '61-62, there isn't a single player in the Top 10 in Win Shares who is in his 30s.

A fantastic response filled with thought and reason
I'd rather discussion not discuss rubrics, I don't find them pleasin'
But I will say that I respect a difference in opinion most times
especially when you can show understanding of of mine
You're spot on with your assessment of the games evolution
WWII as a cut off is my solution
Bobby McDerrmott is the last star I cut of my list
One year carry over once Mikan exists

The one place where I think we still have some contention
is that I can't separate the player from era as I mentioned
It's not fair and far to subjective
people use it as an excuse to be favorite player selective
We've seen international teams demolish NBA filled rosters of late
despite a major stylistic difference and a talent gap so great
How do we know which era is better than another
we can assume or hypothesize but in the end we must wonder
So I'll subscribe to simplicity and humility I hope too
I'll defer to those who know more than me and leave the conjecture to folks like you.

[Fencer reregistered]

The idea that he should let his style of play be dictated in any way by wanting future opponents to be able to be more capable by their ability to emulate him is just so wrong.

Nobody proposed that.

I'm just staying that Ulysses Grant, who won a war with a strategy that would become US doctrine for the next 150 years, after many generals had failed in his place, deserves to be in the "great general" discussion alongside Robert E. Lee, who lost the same war despite remarkable success in various individual battles.

[penbeast0]

We had to start somewhere. Instead of starting in the 1920s and have people voting on the barnstormers; including Euroleague and international play; looking at the 1 year of the ABL (Connie Hawkins 19 year old MVP) before George Steinbrenner destroyed the league in one of his early moves, etc., we chose to focus on the NBA.

Then there is the quesiton of BAA/NBA/NBL and when you start and we decided to start when the shot clock was put in and the "modern" game of basketball started -- which excludes all of Mikan's peak years. We could have started at a few different places as we have before, this year we started then.

[Lever2Beaver]

We had to start somewhere. Instead of starting in the 1920s and have people voting on the barnstormers; including Euroleague and international play; looking at the 1 year of the ABL (Connie Hawkins 19 year old MVP) before George Steinbrenner destroyed the league in one of his early moves, etc., we chose to focus on the NBA.

Then there is the quesiton of BAA/NBA/NBL and when you start and we decided to start when the shot clock was put in and the "modern" game of basketball started -- which excludes all of Mikan's peak years. We could have started at a few different places as we have before, this year we started then.

The easiest and best place to start would have been 1946
By then the War was over and the Nation needed a new sports fix
That year coincides with the formation of the BAA
and the resurgence of the NBL behind Mikan, oh Happy day
You get the full career of George and miss just one year of Davies
all of Fulks and Zaslofsky and most of Cervi's after the Navy
Instead there is a mental asterisk put next to guys from the first decade
assuming the are inferior than their counterparts who play the game
But that's just my two cents and I'm too late to change the game
So I'll go on judging it as it is, but I'll probably still complain.

[Dr Positivity]

Well, for me pre shot clock is a different game. It's not about the talent level or athleticism, it's the rules. The real NBA started for me post shot clock

@ the Malone, Nash forgotten in 50 years comment. I vastly disagree. First off, we have a lot of love given to the 60s players Russell, Wilt, West, Oscar, Havlicek, etc. despite that being 50 years ago and very shortly after the shot clock. Secondly, you can see in other sports that have been around longer than the modern NBA - MLB and NHL, that the players 50 years ago are given a lot of respect. Nobody doubts baseball players from about the last 100 years, nobody doubts hockey players from about the last 80, and those two sports have had more changes than the NBA will in 50 years time, IMO

I think it's clear that it is the gap between non shot clock and all white to post shot clock and integrated that makes the difference, not simple time spent

[Lever2Beaver]

If Baseball took the same approach as you have here in truth
this list would exclude Cobb, Gehrig and Ruth
And anyone who played before integration
but what of Branch Rickey and his constant frustration
And the many like him who opposed the social norm
Athletes are tied to their era and for this should not receive scorn
By the standard you set Mikan never has a chance
like being the only girl at the prom left not asked for a dance
I agree the game is different, but that doesn't mean better
You can't call the Model T and the Corvette equal competitors

I'm becoming redundant and for that I apologize
But I don't feel a lot of support for my perspective amongst you guys
I simply believe that you are what you are and you've done what you've done
and presuming "what ifs" and "if nots" is fruitless, though fun
The game will always evolve and bias will never cease to exist
Presuming all eras are equal but different is simply the easiest

There is no perfect solution, least of all mine
But I feel it's important to understand all, if you can take the time

[ronnymac2]

If Baseball took the same approach as you have here in truth
this list would exclude Cobb, Gehrig and Ruth
And anyone who played before integration
but what of Branch Rickey and his constant frustration
And the many like him who opposed the social norm
Athletes are tied to their era and for this should not receive scorn
By the standard you set Mikan never has a chance
like being the only girl at the prom left not asked for a dance
I agree the game is different, but that doesn't mean better
You can't call the Model T and the Corvette equal competitors

I'm becoming redundant and for that I apologize
But I don't feel a lot of support for my perspective amongst you guys
I simply believe that you are what you are and you've done what you've done
and presuming "what ifs" and "if nots" is fruitless, though fun
The game will always evolve and bias will never cease to exist
Presuming all eras are equal but different is simply the easiest

There is no perfect solution, least of all mine
But I feel it's important to understand all, if you can take the time

I don't want to forget their contributions, and I don't think anybody else does either.

Forget about integration...what about the game? I don't think a game without a shot clock is similar to a game with one. You most likely aren’t going to have scores like 19-18.

If teams are allowed to hold the ball and stall for minutes at a time, how does that affect players? Do the stalling tactics reduce a defense’s energy because they are frantically running around trying to get the ball from ball-handlers, or do they simply allow the ball-handler to dribble at halfcourt because they need a blow.

An offense’s strategy could range from Seven Seconds or Less to “Slow the game down, pass the ball around, and score in about one minute of clock time.” Bill Russell, Bob Lanier, Sidney Moncrief, Clyde Drexler, Kobe Bryant, and Russell Westbrook have all been confined to working to help get their team a good shot within 24 seconds. They didn’t have that broad range of offensive strategies.

That rule change affects the game a lot. I know they instituted it to make faster-paced games and to make scoring higher; I take no issue making the game different that way. But in order to make pace faster and scoring higher, they instituted a rule that affected every single basketball decision of every basketball possession since. Players had to think differently because of that rule. Not even the 3-point shot had such a powerful effect.

I do think pre-shot clock is a little too far removed from the game for those reasons.

I’m sure everybody in this project would enjoy learning more about pre-Mikan players and Mikan’s peers.

[ElGee]

Kareem's sky hook was the greatest weapon in history arguably. Yet no one copied it. Why should that devalue it?

Because it's evidently not something many other people can do.

Nifty dribbling and passing on the break IS something many other people can do, so figuring out how (or whether) to do it is a much more important contribution.

Kareem gets full marks for what HE did with the sky hook, but he doesn't get credit for influencing others to use it -- because, um, he DIDN'T influence others to use it.

You seem to be missing the point.

Why does it devalue someone's move if others can't emulate it? (And I'd argue people can do the sky hook, they just choose not to.)

In other words, why value form over function...especially when your appreciation of the form is whimsical? Someone may emulate it, or maybe not...there are many factors that play in to whether that happens or not I don't see what the heck they have to do with how good someone was at basketball.

[Fencer reregistered]

I don't see what the heck they have to do with how good someone was at basketball.

"Good" and "great" are not the same thing. More precisely, "great" encompasses a little more than just "good", as per the official criteria for this project.

To repeat a question I've asked you and like-minded folks before -- on what basis do you conclude that the "Criteria" listed at the top of each thread are not, in fact, the criteria on which we are to base our selections?

I was a fairly late entry into this project; was there perhaps some earlier discussion that I overlooked? If so, could you please link me to it?

[Fencer reregistered]

Why does it devalue someone's move if others can't emulate it? (And I'd argue people can do the sky hook, they just choose not to.)

Do you regard this choice as wise or unwise? If unwise, what's your theory as to why they make it? If wise -- well, then I'd say the emulation they can do would not be very effective.

[Dr Positivity]

One thing I suggested when the project started is that after we're done with the top 100, we could make a seperate top 5 or top 10 for the pre shot clock era to post it below the big list. To give them their due, plus it would be interesting to discuss those guys. And also it helps eliminate the shoddy feeling of having a top 100 list with George Mikan not getting a mention