RealGM Top 100 List #22

Post #81 » by **trex_8063** » Sat Aug 23, 2014 11:22 pm

fpliii wrote:
trex_8063 wrote:
Chuck Texas wrote:why in the world would Dwight or Zo get consideration before Deke? If we are talking about the best defensive big man of the modern era left on the board, he' s got to be the guy. And while he's not the scorer the other 2 are, neither of them should be drawing consideration based on their offense.

I agree Dikembe is the best defender PERIOD left out there. However....

Just saw this. Doc and I had a brief exchange early in the project over the value of largely stationary rim protectors in today's league, and we were wondering whether the prototype for a super elite defender has changed.

Absolutely. Or at least I think the potential defensive impact of the largely stationary rim-protector has gone down as result of rule changes, higher usage of 3pt shot, etc. They may or may not still be the default best prototype for super elite defender possible (though I kinda think not). But even if they are, I don't think their impact/value is quite as much as it was 20 years ago.

Post #82 » by **trex_8063** » Sat Aug 23, 2014 11:30 pm

Lot of people withholding their votes in the early goings (me included). fwiw, I think the quick tally at this point is:

3 votes for Ewing, 2 votes each for Frazier, Wade, and Mikan. 1 vote each for Nash and Stockton. Pretty wide open at this point (though I'd expect Ewing at least to again be one of the two in the run-off).

Owly · Post #83 » by **Owly** » Sat Aug 23, 2014 11:58 pm

DQuinn1575 wrote:
penbeast0 wrote:
I agree that his 75 run was one of the most impressive carry jobs of all time. My issue is that outside 75, I just didn't see impact beyond what you would get from any high volume scorer. Maybe I'm wrong, but he wasn't as impressive in the ABA as guys like Billy Cunningham and outside of 75, I would easily take Alex English over him as well. So . . . what can you show me outside of 1975 that says that he's more than a high usage, selfish, no defense scorer that generates a lot of points and assists without particularly making his team better?

Willing to be convinced.

Rick Barry had a few more things than just 75 - He's on my radar for somewhere in the top 30-

Rick Barry highlights

Finals MVP
Regular season finished 4,4,5,7 in MVP voting
5 time first team all-NBA, 4 time first team all-ABA

1967

Swept Lakers in PO (no Jerry West)

Beat Hawks (Hudson,Wilkens,Beaty,Bridges,Caldwell - very solid lineup)

Lost to super team in 6 games averaged 40+ ppg versus 67 Sixers

1976

Best player on best team in RS

Lost in PO to Suns (who lost to Celtics in classic series) - with a double OT loss and 1 point loss

1973

Beat Jabbar and Oscar in PO - leading scorer on balanced team

1975

Took team to title
Led league in steals

1969

Best WS/48 for any ABA player in history with 1,000 minutes

Better than Erving, Gilmore, Connie Hawkins, and Billy Cunningham

http://bkref.com/tiny/2mCOe

1969-1970

Led ABA in TS% 2 years while scoring 34.0 and 27.7

He lost a year due to sitting out in jumping leagues, and with injuries only played 146 games from ages 23-26.

Great passing forward with great shooting range - Bird was compared to Rick Barry coming into the league.

I get that this is a "more than '75" post but some of these things ... I'd have quibbles

- 4 times all-ABA 1st team, okay you can only finish ahead of what's there but take a look at the 2nd team forwards he was beating out. And then he didn't collar an MVP in the ABA when it was the distinctly weaker league. Part of that is misfortune with injuries, how much people will let that go I don't know. That top WS/48 season looking at that and PER he's basically even with Hawkins except Hawkins best season he was healthy in the playoffs and took his team to a title (and played much more minutes and had another season of a similar calibre). His third ABA season (2nd highest in minutes played) is just barely on that top 100 in ws/48 (87th) and his fourth season (and only near-full season) isn't on it at all.

I'm not sure that not playing much in that young span helps him unless you're big into what might have beens (in which case Walton, Hawkins, McGrady, Groza, Penny, McGill etc could leap up). And so those TS% crowns don't mean too much in terms of actual impact.

For 40 ppg in the '67 finals, sure but look at his percentages. Admittedly this is different to say Kobe '04 because he was shooting at iirc, a similar efficiency to his teammates (I think perhaps slightly better), but still it's not what you imagine when you think of 40ppg finals.

Regarding the team achievements it might be underselling his teammates. I think Nate Thurmond might have had quite a lot to do with beating "Jabbar and Oscar".

And then in '75 its worth noting that in the playoffs that team won with it's defense, an area where Barry, despite his steals, was not a standout. cf: http://www.basketball-reference.com/pla ... ml#misc::9

'76 might reveal issues too, PER and WS/48 have Phil Smith as a better per minute player as Barry wasn't effectively able to trade usage for efficiency (his ts% actually dropped nearly 2%). Now maybe this is a case like penbeast(?) theorised where a guy with high usage, shooting, and passing is creating an optimal or near optimal offense despite seemingly dubious individual efficiency. Anyhow despite the individual drop-off the Warriors get quite a lot better, and whilst there are certainly other substantial factors (a young team getting better with one more year of development and the addition of rookie Gus Williams) it might suggest that the thing Barry does best (high usage, adequate efficiency) isn't that useful to a good team.
I don't particularly buy into this but Bill Simmons suggested (well stated) that Barry refused to shoot in the 2nd half out of spite.

The quintessential Barry story: when he threw away Game 7 of the ’76 Western Finals because his teammates never defended him in the Ricky Sobers fight.67 Barry probably watched the highlights at halftime and confirmed his own suspicions that his teammates sold him out; the second half started and Barry simply stopped shooting. During the last few minutes, coach Al Attles probably threatened him because Barry suddenly became Barry again; even with a late surge, the defending champs ended up falling at home to an inferior team. You won’t find a more indefensible playoff defeat in a deciding game.

This isn't an original Simmons idea http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1 ... 16,1929178

Ultimately for me that means a lot hinges on valuing volume scoring and being the superstar (though again, note that they won with D) on a champ. Advanced metrics don't love him (apart from the two first short ABA seasons), defensive reviews aren't particularly special, and intangiables are considered poor too.

Post #84 » by **penbeast0** » Sun Aug 24, 2014 12:24 am

The other problem with that ABA season where he had big numbers . . . . when he went down, his team went ahead and won the ABA championship without him. Doesn't make him a problem but compare it to when Walton or other top 30 GOAT players go down for the second half of a season. Does anyone other than Barry or (post-prime) Elgin Baylor have their team just shrug it off and go win the title anyway?

For an ABA comparison, see Connie Hawkins's second season in Pittsburgh.

Post #85 » by **trex_8063** » Sun Aug 24, 2014 2:20 am

I suspect most spots are going to be kinda scattered and wide open voting like this from now on. So I'll just go with my gut/heart.....

I'll restate the reasons I brought up in the previous thread:

Spoiler:

I like the word FJS used to describe the records he holds in assists and steals: "unbreakable". They're basically as unlikely to be broken as Wilt's 50 ppg season, but were not obtained through gimmick or gaudy stat-padding. They occurred naturally while he was, as Doc put it:

Doctor MJ wrote:.......doing everything in fundamentally sound ways.

And our resident biggest proponent of impact data also had this to say:

Doctor MJ wrote:I think that if you take the RAPM at face value, no concern for minutes-based bias or noise, and add in how long he played, to be honest it's hard not to pick right this moment (or earlier). I'm still not so sure, but with some of the uncertainty fading away, he has gone up in my list.

So anyway, I'll make it official. My vote for #22: John Stockton.

DQuinn1575 · Post #86 » by **DQuinn1575** » Sun Aug 24, 2014 2:26 am

Owly wrote:
DQuinn1575 wrote:
penbeast0 wrote:
I agree that his 75 run was one of the most impressive carry jobs of all time. My issue is that outside 75, I just didn't see impact beyond what you would get from any high volume scorer. Maybe I'm wrong, but he wasn't as impressive in the ABA as guys like Billy Cunningham and outside of 75, I would easily take Alex English over him as well. So . . . what can you show me outside of 1975 that says that he's more than a high usage, selfish, no defense scorer that generates a lot of points and assists without particularly making his team better?

Willing to be convinced.

Rick Barry had a few more things than just 75 - He's on my radar for somewhere in the top 30-

Rick Barry highlights

Finals MVP
Regular season finished 4,4,5,7 in MVP voting
5 time first team all-NBA, 4 time first team all-ABA

1967

Swept Lakers in PO (no Jerry West)

Beat Hawks (Hudson,Wilkens,Beaty,Bridges,Caldwell - very solid lineup)

Lost to super team in 6 games averaged 40+ ppg versus 67 Sixers

1976

Best player on best team in RS

Lost in PO to Suns (who lost to Celtics in classic series) - with a double OT loss and 1 point loss

1973

Beat Jabbar and Oscar in PO - leading scorer on balanced team

1975

Took team to title
Led league in steals

1969

Best WS/48 for any ABA player in history with 1,000 minutes

Better than Erving, Gilmore, Connie Hawkins, and Billy Cunningham

http://bkref.com/tiny/2mCOe

1969-1970

Led ABA in TS% 2 years while scoring 34.0 and 27.7

He lost a year due to sitting out in jumping leagues, and with injuries only played 146 games from ages 23-26.

Great passing forward with great shooting range - Bird was compared to Rick Barry coming into the league.

I get that this is a "more than '75" post but some of these things ... I'd have quibbles

- 4 times all-ABA 1st team, okay you can only finish ahead of what's there but take a look at the 2nd team forwards he was beating out. And then he didn't collar an MVP in the ABA when it was the distinctly weaker league. Part of that is misfortune with injuries, how much people will let that go I don't know. That top WS/48 season looking at that and PER he's basically even with Hawkins except Hawkins best season he was healthy in the playoffs and took his team to a title (and played much more minutes and had another season of a similar calibre). His third ABA season (2nd highest in minutes played) is just barely on that top 100 in ws/48 (87th) and his fourth season (and only near-full season) isn't on it at all.

I'm not sure that not playing much in that young span helps him unless you're big into what might have beens (in which case Walton, Hawkins, McGrady, Groza, Penny, McGill etc could leap up). And so those TS% crowns don't mean too much in terms of actual impact.

For 40 ppg in the '67 finals, sure but look at his percentages. Admittedly this is different to say Kobe '04 because he was shooting at iirc, a similar efficiency to his teammates (I think perhaps slightly better), but still it's not what you imagine when you think of 40ppg finals.

Regarding the team achievements it might be underselling his teammates. I think Nate Thurmond might have had quite a lot to do with beating "Jabbar and Oscar".

And then in '75 its worth noting that in the playoffs that team won with it's defense, an area where Barry, despite his steals, was not a standout. cf: http://www.basketball-reference.com/pla ... ml#misc::9

'76 might reveal issues too, PER and WS/48 have Phil Smith as a better per minute player as Barry wasn't effectively able to trade usage for efficiency (his ts% actually dropped nearly 2%). Now maybe this is a case like penbeast(?) theorised where a guy with high usage, shooting, and passing is creating an optimal or near optimal offense despite seemingly dubious individual efficiency. Anyhow despite the individual drop-off the Warriors get quite a lot better, and whilst there are certainly other substantial factors (a young team getting better with one more year of development and the addition of rookie Gus Williams) it might suggest that the thing Barry does best (high usage, adequate efficiency) isn't that useful to a good team.
I don't particularly buy into this but Bill Simmons suggested (well stated) that Barry refused to shoot in the 2nd half out of spite.
The quintessential Barry story: when he threw away Game 7 of the ’76 Western Finals because his teammates never defended him in the Ricky Sobers fight.67 Barry probably watched the highlights at halftime and confirmed his own suspicions that his teammates sold him out; the second half started and Barry simply stopped shooting. During the last few minutes, coach Al Attles probably threatened him because Barry suddenly became Barry again; even with a late surge, the defending champs ended up falling at home to an inferior team. You won’t find a more indefensible playoff defeat in a deciding game.

This isn't an original Simmons idea http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1 ... 16,1929178

Ultimately for me that means a lot hinges on valuing volume scoring and being the superstar (though again, note that they won with D) on a champ. Advanced metrics don't love him (apart from the two first short ABA seasons), defensive reviews aren't particularly special, and intangiables are considered poor too.

Just pointing out highlights of Barry and what else he has on the resume - definitely not promoting him at this spot - I think I'll have him higher than you and Penbeast. He got a lot of steals, and overall was decent on defense.

We've got a lot of interesting players here, so I'll wait until I think Barry is a candidate

Post #87 » by **penbeast0** » Sun Aug 24, 2014 3:17 am

trex_8063 wrote:Lot of people withholding their votes in the early goings (me included). fwiw, I think the quick tally at this point is:

3 votes for Ewing, 2 votes each for Frazier, Wade, and Mikan. 1 vote each for Nash and Stockton. Pretty wide open at this point (though I'd expect Ewing at least to again be one of the two in the run-off).

I'd say, other than Nash, those are probably my top 5 candidates at the moment. Nice.

Basketballefan · Post #88 » by **Basketballefan** » Sun Aug 24, 2014 3:31 am

Can somebody please come up with legitimate reasoning as to why Mikan should be considered over guys like Wade, Ewing, Nash, Hondo, Baylor, stockton etc? With biases and nostalgia aside i don't see the argument, at all. And arguments such as "the original big man" and "the first superstar" aren't logical reasoning to put him in the top 25. I mean this is a top 100 for nba players am i correct? How can somebody with 6 Nba seasons be this high on the list? I also don't think the fact that he was the best player in the game for multiple seasons really means much i mean what good players were in the league in the 50s? Competition matters.

I don't mean to disrespect anyone's opinion but i just don't think he has a case to be this high. It seems a little discrediting to those other guys i mentioned.

magicmerl · Post #89 » by **magicmerl** » Sun Aug 24, 2014 4:38 am

I'm gonna go with Ewing here. I think he actually got voted in in the last thread if the votes had all been tallied, so I'm expecting this to be an easy win for him.

Post #90 » by **penbeast0** » Sun Aug 24, 2014 4:41 am

Basketballefan wrote:Can somebody please come up with legitimate reasoning as to why Mikan should be considered over guys like Wade, Ewing, Nash, Hondo, Baylor, stockton etc? With biases and nostalgia aside i don't see the argument, at all. And arguments such as "the original big man" and "the first superstar" aren't logical reasoning to put him in the top 25. I mean this is a top 100 for nba players am i correct? How can somebody with 6 Nba seasons be this high on the list? I also don't think the fact that he was the best player in the game for multiple seasons really means much i mean what good players were in the league in the 50s? Competition matters.

I don't mean to disrespect anyone's opinion but i just don't think he has a case to be this high. It seems a little discrediting to those other guys i mentioned.

He dominated the league statistically more than prime Michael Jordan relative to his peers. This domination translated into championships every year in his prime except one where he was injured. If you translate what seems to be a typical prime Mikan year (the first one we have rebounding numbers for) into 2000 numbers (simple ratios to translate impact including relative efficiency) you get:

2000 Mikan 32.8pts 12.3reb 3.2ast .578efg with strong defense

Then you are left asking a different question; why hasn't he been voted in already. That's when you get all the qualifiers like white only league, difficulty adjusting to rule changes designed to limit his impact, shot clock issues, etc.

DQuinn1575 · Post #91 » by **DQuinn1575** » Sun Aug 24, 2014 5:13 am

Basketballefan wrote:Can somebody please come up with legitimate reasoning as to why Mikan should be considered over guys like Wade, Ewing, Nash, Hondo, Baylor, stockton etc? With biases and nostalgia aside i don't see the argument, at all. And arguments such as "the original big man" and "the first superstar" aren't logical reasoning to put him in the top 25. I mean this is a top 100 for nba players am i correct? How can somebody with 6 Nba seasons be this high on the list? I also don't think the fact that he was the best player in the game for multiple seasons really means much i mean what good players were in the league in the 50s? Competition matters.

I don't mean to disrespect anyone's opinion but i just don't think he has a case to be this high. It seems a little discrediting to those other guys i mentioned.

Where do you think Mikan should be rated?
I voted for him, but am open to where he should be slotted.

The #1 guy in 1952 = ?

drza · Post #92 » by **drza** » Sun Aug 24, 2014 5:38 am

I'm gonna be honest...no clue what to do with Mikan. I'm one that didn't want pre shot clock involved almost specifically because I don't know what to do with Mikan. I'm unlikely to vote for him at all, to be honest. ,,most likely I'll let the rest of you decide when he gets in.

As for my actual vote...it's wide open. I think back to something I saw/repeated around the 12th thread...I think the best analysis comes from comparisons. So instead of just talking up one guy then voting for him ( or conversely talking down only about the guy you don't want in), I'd love it if folks started doing some comprehensive 1 on 1 comps and seeing what shakes out.

I'm probably not going to get to do one tonight, but for example I'd love to see Walt vs Wade or Ewing vs Mikan ( if anyone can figure out a way to do that). But I think we'd get more out of detailed comps like that than we do out of just resume recaps

ceiling raiser · Post #93 » by **ceiling raiser** » Sun Aug 24, 2014 6:08 am

drza wrote:I'm one that didn't want pre shot clock involved almost specifically because I don't know what to do with Mikan. I'm unlikely to vote for him at all, to be honest. ,,most likely I'll let the rest of you decide when he gets in.

I feel the same way, but in his discussion with Doc, lorak raised a legitimate point:

lorak wrote:
Doctor MJ wrote:
ushvinder88 wrote:In terms of actual ability I doubt Bill Russell is any better than George Mikan. It is kinda funny that mikan is viewed as a player of his times, while people feel russell is comparable to modern greats like olajuwon and shaq.

So, to me this is a post clearly written by someone seeing things right now and then looking back into time and seeing the '50s and '60s as the dark ages.

As I've written in this project, from what I see, the shift between the '50s and the '60s is bigger than the cume shift from the '60s until now.

Whether it be a sports league, a business, a population, whatever, things tend to follow S-curves:

I'm sorry Doc, but you are brining s-curve here like some sort of deus ex machina. Sure, things tend to follow s-curves (however not always!), but we have to first make proper diagnosis - so evaluate when "infancy" and other stages started and ended (for example in my opinion NBA's infancy stage lasted until three point line was introduced). Because right now it's just your "eye test" with height/weight and being more black as only evidence (and do we really know what exactly is correlation between weight/height/skin's color and level of play?). What we should focus is actual level of play (because that's what we are talking about), so how player's performance changed over time. And so far I didn't see any evidence suggesting that between 50s and 60s difference was bigger than between 60s and now.

Presently I don't feel very comfortable evaluating players who played prior to the late 60s/early 70s much at all, and even then, I think it's a continuum. The further back we go, the more questions there are to ask. There are some concerns about guys in the late 90s/early 00s, let alone guys 30 years prior.

I do think there are guys we can find who would succeed to day from prior eras, but there is a lot more legwork to be done if we're looking at players from that far back.

But as lorak said, what if the sudden changes in some of the mentioned factors we're considering didn't have as profound an impact on level of play/competition as we're figuring they did, and the infancy of the game spanned a longer period after all?

Warspite · Post #94 » by **Warspite** » Sun Aug 24, 2014 6:09 am

Vote=Mikan

Simply the best player of his generation. Best of his era and the player WIlt, Shaq, KAJ and everyone else emulates. Mikan invented most big man drills and most of the time when you see a player play with his back to the basket he is doing what he learned from Mikan.

Mikan has the stats, the titles and the awards to place him here for me.

Post #95 » by **tsherkin** » Sun Aug 24, 2014 6:44 am

Just FYI, I have not yet voted, so please don't count my earlier post as a pro-Ewing vote for the moment. I've been avidly reading the various posts as I try to form an opinion on this spot.

Owly · Post #96 » by **Owly** » Sun Aug 24, 2014 9:06 am

Basketballefan wrote:Can somebody please come up with legitimate reasoning as to why Mikan should be considered over guys like Wade, Ewing, Nash, Hondo, Baylor, stockton etc? With biases and nostalgia aside i don't see the argument, at all. And arguments such as "the original big man" and "the first superstar" aren't logical reasoning to put him in the top 25. I mean this is a top 100 for nba players am i correct? How can somebody with 6 Nba seasons be this high on the list? I also don't think the fact that he was the best player in the game for multiple seasons really means much i mean what good players were in the league in the 50s? Competition matters.

I don't mean to disrespect anyone's opinion but i just don't think he has a case to be this high. It seems a little discrediting to those other guys i mentioned.

Well firstly implying the reasing already offered is illegitimate is dangerously close disrespecting others opinions.

As far as competition mattering at his position he had Risen, Johnston, Foust, MaCauley (and beneath them Groza was great for a couple of years, Lovellete was good but Mikan relegated him to a backup role, Charlie Share, Bob Houbregs, Ray Felix, Eddie Miller and Noble Jorgensen had productive years metric wise) and yet Mikan clearly stood out.

Just six NBA years is misleading, he was always playing in the best basketball league and in the main body of the year that led to 7 championships in 8 years. Given the obvious impact (see his first season - where when he went on hiatus because the Gears tried to cut his salary, the fell to sub-.500, he came back, they won the title; see his impact on the Detroit Gems/ Min. Lakers people bought a crummy franchise basically because they believed they'd get first dibs on Mikan and the decision was justified and then even though he had declined see his last full year winning a title and how they dropped off by almost 2 SRS (in an era when I believe there was a usually a much smaller standard deviation in SRS) despite having one of the best 50s centers (Lovellette) as his replacement.

I don't see how, if you acknowledge that not everyone will share your exact criteria, putting the most dominant player left, at a team and individual level is somehow a slap in the face to whomever you think should get in.

I'm still wavering on a possible Stockton vote but I think I'll make this a tentative vote for ...

George Mikan

Post #97 » by **penbeast0** » Sun Aug 24, 2014 1:24 pm

ronnymac2 wrote:...
Guys like Willis Reed, Dave Cowens, Artis Gilmore, Nate Thurmond, and Patrick Ewing never showed any of this arrogance as far as I can tell. Thurmond's terrible FG% is more era-related than anything else. Cowens is more about a jump-shooting style. Reed was pretty efficient.

For me, Reed just lacks longevity. Very good prime player.

Thurmond vs. Howard, defense only: that's a good argument.

The problem with Thurmond is that his offense was just abysmally bad for a big center even for his era. Thurmond chose, or was forced by his coaches, to play like an offensive hub. He shot 15-20 shots/game through his prime for a career TS% of .470 (not FG%, that includes free throws as well). He had one season over .500ts% at .501 . . . once . . . and that's in the late 60s, early 70s when the league is averaging 75-100 points higher. Add to that he wasn't a particularly good passer and you see why, despite his reputation, Golden State only won their ring when they traded him for underrated journeyman Cliff Ray. This isn't a George Mikan situation.

Hayes is similar, also averaging under .500ts% (.491 which is 21 points higher than Thurmond) though he did have one 3300 minute plus season of around .544

Post #98 » by **penbeast0** » Sun Aug 24, 2014 1:33 pm

Into the 2nd day, the votes look like this:

EWING -- ronnymac2, ShaqAttack3234, fpliii, magicmer1
MIKAN -- batmana, DQuinn1575, Warspite, Owly

WADE -- Basketballefan, JordansBulls
FRAZIER -- penbeast0, GC Pantalones
STOCKTON -- FJS, trex_8063
NASH -- colts18

Basketballefan · Post #99 » by **Basketballefan** » Sun Aug 24, 2014 1:43 pm

DQuinn1575 wrote:
Basketballefan wrote:Can somebody please come up with legitimate reasoning as to why Mikan should be considered over guys like Wade, Ewing, Nash, Hondo, Baylor, stockton etc? With biases and nostalgia aside i don't see the argument, at all. And arguments such as "the original big man" and "the first superstar" aren't logical reasoning to put him in the top 25. I mean this is a top 100 for nba players am i correct? How can somebody with 6 Nba seasons be this high on the list? I also don't think the fact that he was the best player in the game for multiple seasons really means much i mean what good players were in the league in the 50s? Competition matters.

I don't mean to disrespect anyone's opinion but i just don't think he has a case to be this high. It seems a little discrediting to those other guys i mentioned.

Where do you think Mikan should be rated?
I voted for him, but am open to where he should be slotted.

The #1 guy in 1952 = ?

I'm not sure, he would probably go in the lower end of my top 50.

lorak · Post #100 » by **lorak** » Sun Aug 24, 2014 2:16 pm

One more thing about Mikan. Some people hold '56 season against him. But is it really that surprising that after year and a half away from basketball superstar would play worse? Especially back then, when training and medicine was at much lower level. In fact, we can compare how his production changed after such big break with another superstar - Michael Jordan himself.

The thing is Mikan in '56 played only about 20 MPG. Mostly because of many injuries (for example he had bones broken 10 times during his playing days before first retirement), but also because medicine and training methods back then were way worse, thus so long time away from sport was more impactfull than in 90s. That's why I think per 36 minutes comparison would tell us more.

Code: Select all

Jordan   PPG   RPG   APG   R_eFG
1993   29,8   6,1   5,0   2,4
1995   24,6   6,3   4,9   -6,9
            
            
Mikan   PPG   RPG   APG   R_eFG
1954   19,9   15,7   2,7   0,8
1956   18,4   14,5   2,5   0,8

So we see that Mikan didn't decline more than prime Jordan in similar situation. In fact he declined much less, because his R_eFG stayed the same in allegedly superior league. And remember, that was just one year away from first Bill Russell's season. So once again - why some of you guys think prime and healthy Mikan wouldn't be able to be a superstar in Russell's era?

I really encourage everyone to watch tape with Mikan. I think you all would be positively shocked how quick and agile he was, what shouldn't be surprising, because in college his coach even ordered him to take dancing lessons, because he wanted him to be complete athlete. And it worked, it's seen on the game film, there are even several plays when he is dribbling the ball from backcourt to frontcourt and there's nothing awkward in that, it's actually pretty impressive for guy of his size (I'm talking not only about height, but also a weight).

And there's also (seen on the game tape available) his GREAT passing, in fact he was one of the best passing big men ever. His 2.8 APG average might not look impressive, but keep in mind it was in a time, when assists were counted differently and in pre shot clock era, when players with +6 APG were very rare (only 9 such results pre shot clock).

I'm still not sure, but the more deeply I look into Mikan, the more I'm leaning towards saying that Mikan > Walton. And I'm VERY big fan of Bill's game.