RealGM Top 100 List #22

[trex_8063]

So to confirm what others said, and add to it:

Mikan's made every Top 100 he was eligible for, and he's been in the 20s in previous lists.

Macauley never made a list
Johnston made one list (2008) in the 89th spot.
Schayes made every list somewhere between 60 & 90, though each time he's risen higher.

Of note: Paul Arizin has topped all of these guys ever time, and explaining why probably helps people understand more about Schayes.

Dolph Schayes was a 6 foot 7 guy weighing less than 200 pounds who played as a big man. His game was finesse with a set shot and his efficiency wasn't great.

I won't argue Schayes' efficiency from the field against Arizin; Arizin wins, plain and simple. Although I don't know that Arizin's ability to get to the line can be held over Schayes. Schayes could put it on the floor and get to the line as well: Arizin's Per 36 FTA is 8.2 (stat not available for his rookie season); Schayes' is 8.2 (stat not available for first two years). So while "finesse" may indeed be a somewhat accurate description of his style, not sure I agree with what it implies (shies from contact). And Schayes was a marginally better FT-shooter, too. At the rim he was good finishing with either hand, too.
Schayes was better than league average (often by a sizable margin) in TS% the first 12 years of his career in a row; he was in his twilight before he fell below (his career TS% is 3.3% above the cume avg over that same span).

Schayes may likely have been the better play-maker, too.

With his set-shot I think Schayes could at the very least function as a nice floor-spreading SF in the modern league who can put it on the floor if his outside shot was over-played. Not sure about his D, but pretty effective rebounder for his size: had a career avg of 12.3 rebounds Per 36 (again, stat not available for first two seasons). fwiw, George Mikan's Per 36 avg for '52-'54 and '56 was 13.8. Tom Heinsohn's (also 6'7" PF) was 10.7. So Schayes was marginally closer to Mikan than he was Heinsohn as a rebounder.
Schayes actually out-rebounded Mikan by 2.3 rpg (likely beat him in Per 36 rebounding, too) in '51, and out-rebounded Mikan on a Per 36 basis again in '52. Was nine times among the league's top 5 in rebounding.

So I still think Schayes has his merits.

At any rate, I don't think it can be denied that Schayes has a longevity argument over Arizin. Both guys deserve to be WELL inside the top 100 imo.

[Clyde Frazier]

Runoff vote for #22 - Ewing

- 17 seasons
- 7x all NBA (1 1st, 6 2nd)
- 3x all defensive 2nd team
- 6 top 5 MVP finishes
- Avg’d 20+ PPG, 10+ RPG, 2+ BPG for 9 straight seasons

http://www.basketball-reference.com/pla ... gpa01.html

Prime from 88-97:

REG SEASON
~24 PPG, 10.6 RPG, 2 APG, 1 SPG, 2.8 BPG, 3.3 TOPG
~52% FG, 75% FT, 56% TS, 108/99 OFF/DEF RTG, .172 WS/48

PLAYOFFS
~23 PPG, 11 RPG, 2.4 APG, 1 SPG, 2.5 BPG, 2.8 TOPG
~48% FG, 73% FT, 53% TS, 106/101 OFF/DEF RTG, .138 WS/48

I’m just going to address some of the themes (for the lack of a better word) that revolved around ewing during his career.

He came up in one of the best eras for centers the game has ever seen. There are the obvious all time greats such as hakeem, robinson, and towards the later part of his career shaq. Then you had his georgetown counterparts in mutombo and mourning as well as guys like parish, divac, willis, smits, sabonis, daugherty, etc. On top of competing with these guys for accolades like all NBA and all defensive team, he had the tall task of being the focal point on offense going up against them on a regular basis.

And that leads me to the story of ewing’s career: He never had a consistent all star caliber 2nd option in his prime. The knicks were essentially forced to run the offense through him as he was their only option. Starks was a talented player who would go to war for you, but for every few games he went off, you’d end up with a shot happy poor shooting night. Many times, the knicks would end up winning these games in spite of that due to ewing’s stellar play.

Was Ewing a hyper efficient elite offensive player? Not quite, but he would turn into a great offensive force with impressive athleticism for a guy his size. As his athleticism waned, he developed more of an outside game, and while his efficiency would decrease, you could still go to him late in games if you needed a bucket. You can also attribute his decrease in efficiency in the playoffs to defenses locking in even more on him due to the lack of other options.

I’m sorry, but the notion that he actually brought his teammates down offensively to the point where they would’ve had a significantly greater impact without him is irrational. If ewing was ever fortunate enough to play with another great player, he would’ve taken advantage of it just fine. When he finally got the opportunity to play for a championship in 94, he just so happened to face his ultimate match in hakeem. By no means am I guaranteeing a championship if he faced the likes of barkley, stockton and malone, or david robinson, but the outcome may have been different.

Ewing and the knicks played jordan’s bulls as well as anyone back then, but just couldn’t get over the hump. While teams from other eras certainly prevented players from winning championships, jordan had a major effect on those guys from the 90s. Those knicks teams were built on defense, and while there’s no question ewing had great defensive players around him, he was the anchor nonetheless. NY’s defensive RTG ranks from 92-99:

92 - 2nd
93 - 1st
94 - 1st
95 - 1st
96 - 4th
97 - 2nd
98 - 4th
99 - 4th

Top 5 defense for 8 straight seasons and best in the league for 3 straight? That’s damn impressive any way you slice it. 92 was riley’s first year as head coach, and he found a way to manage all these strong personalities (mason, oakley, mcdaniel, starks, harper, etc.) and help them channel that towards performance on the court.

As for mikan, as others have said, I really don’t know what to do with the guy. He’d certainly be in my top 50, and maybe even top 30, but I’d have to do more research. Regardless of era, I have issues with his longevity, where he played 7 seasons, and absolutely dominated in 5 of them. 5 is substantial in its own right, but i’d be a little more confident if he played a few more seasons. Then you look at the era he played in, and it’s hard to judge. The league was in its infancy, and the talent pool was much smaller.

I do take issue with people who think it’s rational to look at modern day players and claim they’d dominate in the 50s. So what? I don’t want to get too philosophical here, but the game these modern players learned wouldn’t exist if not for the progression of the game from its infancy until today. Backwards portability as I guess i’ll call it really isn’t relevant if you’re going back that far. It simply isn’t a 1 to 1 comparison.

As i’ve said in past threads, there’s no exact science to comparing eras. I try to take a combination of how a player performed relative to their era and how much I weigh the impact of that era. In mikan’s case, I don’t think he belongs in this slot.

[DQuinn1575]

Wow i've used weak era against Mikan, but i think the race thing is a little unnecessary.

Race is absolutely a factor. Blacks were simply not allowed in the game in Mikan's era and had low penetration in the Pettit era. Blacks are 75% of the best players in the world today. If 75% of the best players disappeared, the league would become weak. Its a huge factor and ignoring it wont change the fact that Mikan played in an era of no blacks

Let's just consider race then. Here are some elite white big men:

Dave Cowens
Bill Walton
Larry Bird
Dirk Nowitzki
Kevin Love

The best white big men did (and still do) very well in a integrated league.

We should apply a segregation discount to Mikan's achievements. But nonetheless, it's likely that he would have done well in the hypothetically integrated NBA of the 1950s.

MIkan completely dominated the best black team of the period - the Harlem Globetrotters.
It's not like there are some black players, like baseball's Josh Gibson or Satchel Paige, who matched Mikan's level and accomplishments.

Mikan is the best player of his era. Others may have been denied an opportunity, but especially with the story that Russell tells of Mikan encouraging a young Bill Russell, I don't think we can blame or penalize Mikan for that.

[penbeast0]

...

Of note: Paul Arizin has topped all of these guys ever time, and explaining why probably helps people understand more about Schayes.

Dolph Schayes was a 6 foot 7 guy weighing less than 200 pounds who played as a big man. His game was finesse with a set shot and his efficiency wasn't great.

Paul Arizin was a 6 foot 4 wingman who weighed as much as Schayes known for his jump shot and for racking up free throws (which lead to great efficiency relative to contemporaries at his best) along with tenacious defense.

So we're in this interesting position. They played in the same era and Schayes accomplished more, but it's hard to imagine draft Schayes over Arizin for later eras. Having a 6 foot 4 wingman who can drive & shoot while playing aggressive defense is basically still what you're hoping for. Having a 6 foot 7 finesse big hasn't made sense for decades.

If, on the other hand, you look at Schayes as a 6-8 to 6-9 in shoes, tough as nails, good rebounding, good defensive, stretch 4 (the weights are from his college days), that's something that has come back into vogue.

[penbeast0]

A thought experiment.

Let's say the NBA outlawed anyone taller than 6-7. How would that change the game?

-Jerry West could be argued as the #2 player all-time after Michael Jordan
-Allen Iverson would be one of the GOAT's because of no rim protection
-Instead of being one of the best small players ever, Isiah Thomas is one of the best players ever

Lets say the NBA then allowed 6-7+ guys to play. Wouldn't you question the impact of the small guys who didn't play in an era of big men? The best players in history are disproportionately 6-7+ so you would have to downgrade the small guys who never played with big guys because the competition level was weak.

That's how I view the race issue in regards to George Mikan. He benefited from a weak talent pool playing against him. That's a mark on his legacy.

And yet Jordan still comes out 1st or 2nd on almost every list. So, maybe Mikan is Jordan rather than West.

Oh, and poor judgement, selfish, gunners who don't play defense and publicly disparage coaching and going to practice are not ever going to be at the GOAT level. Iverson's main problem wasn't his size, it was a combination of his attitude and Katz's giving him free rein without strong coaching like John Thompson provided at Georgetown.

[penbeast0]

10 EWING -- ronnymac2, ShaqAttack3234, fpliii, magicmer1, 90sAllDecade, RayBan-Sematra, Basketballefan, RSCD3_, colts18, Clyde Frazier

6 MIKAN -- batmana, DQuinn1575, Warspite, Owly, Moonbeam, Jim Naismith

[Clyde Frazier]

9 EWING -- ronnymac2, ShaqAttack3234, fpliii, magicmer1, 90sAllDecade, RayBan-Sematra, Basketballefan, RSCD3_, colts18

6 MIKAN -- batmana, DQuinn1575, Warspite, Owly, Moonbeam, Jim Naismith

You missed my vote for ewing:

viewtopic.php?p=41001579#p41001579

[john248]

My vote would default to Patrick Ewing though I won't bold my selection since I know so little of George Mikan. I finally caught up reading the last couple threads and this one. I echo some of the hesitation in regards to Mikan in regards to his era. His longevity isn't too much of an issue with me due to the time period in regards to 1st retiring in 54. I do give him a ton of credit for dominating his era and although his leg fracture in 51 appears to have affected his game along with the lane widening and number of teams going from 16 to 10; he was still able to lead 3 more championship teams. However, he has just 4 years of peak play (50, 52-54...injured in 51 WCF) and really just 4 years total since his time with the Gears and the NBL Lakers do not count in this project which is NBA/ABA only. So it'd be tough for me to vote him in here with 4 years when there are others who have good peaks and more years unless Mikan's 47-49 seasons count. I'd probably start considering him around the time Kevin Durant's name starts to get traction.

[lorak]

A thought experiment.

Let's say the NBA outlawed anyone taller than 6-7. How would that change the game?

-Jerry West could be argued as the #2 player all-time after Michael Jordan
-Allen Iverson would be one of the GOAT's because of no rim protection
-Instead of being one of the best small players ever, Isiah Thomas is one of the best players ever

Lets say the NBA then allowed 6-7+ guys to play. Wouldn't you question the impact of the small guys who didn't play in an era of big men? The best players in history are disproportionately 6-7+ so you would have to downgrade the small guys who never played with big guys because the competition level was weak.

That's how I view the race issue in regards to George Mikan. He benefited from a weak talent pool playing against him. That's a mark on his legacy.

Wilt Chamberlain was thinking the same before his team was beat in NCAA finals by a bunch of short white players. Heck, even modern USA nationals teams also were thinking the same, before they were beat several times by non black international teams.

[Texas Chuck]

The beautiful irony here is the constant pimping of Steve Nash, the epitome of the white guy who according to the logic being used here should be incapable of excelling against those large, athletic black men.....

[Doctor MJ]

I won't argue Schayes' efficiency from the field against Arizin; Arizin wins, plain and simple. Although I don't know that Arizin's ability to get to the line can be held over Schayes. Schayes could put it on the floor and get to the line as well: Arizin's Per 36 FTA is 8.2 (stat not available for his rookie season); Schayes' is 8.2 (stat not available for first two years). So while "finesse" may indeed be a somewhat accurate description of his style, not sure I agree with what it implies (shies from contact). And Schayes was a marginally better FT-shooter, too. At the rim he was good finishing with either hand, too.
Schayes was better than league average (often by a sizable margin) in TS% the first 12 years of his career in a row; he was in his twilight before he fell below (his career TS% is 3.3% above the cume avg over that same span).

Schayes may likely have been the better play-maker, too.

With his set-shot I think Schayes could at the very least function as a nice floor-spreading SF in the modern league who can put it on the floor if his outside shot was over-played. Not sure about his D, but pretty effective rebounder for his size: had a career avg of 12.3 rebounds Per 36 (again, stat not available for first two seasons). fwiw, George Mikan's Per 36 avg for '52-'54 and '56 was 13.8. Tom Heinsohn's (also 6'7" PF) was 10.7. So Schayes was marginally closer to Mikan than he was Heinsohn as a rebounder.
Schayes actually out-rebounded Mikan by 2.3 rpg (likely beat him in Per 36 rebounding, too) in '51, and out-rebounded Mikan on a Per 36 basis again in '52. Was nine times among the league's top 5 in rebounding.

So I still think Schayes has his merits.

At any rate, I don't think it can be denied that Schayes has a longevity argument over Arizin. Both guys deserve to be WELL inside the top 100 imo.

Some good points.

Regarding the rebounding, well, this is another one of those things were I end up pointing to era difference. The two key things from before:

1) I believe competition got far fiercer as it went from the early '50s to the '60s.

2) Pace seriously inflates stats in the '60s.

Look at Dolph Schayes' rebounding stats in comparison to Bob Pettit's. Schayes is only 4 years older, yet his rebounding peak came a full decade before Pettit. That happens because as the '50s go on, even with the rapid increase in pace, it's still not enough to overcome Schayes falloff in rebounding.

As far as him being better at rebounding than Mikan...well, I would take that back and apply what we know about Schayes to better judge Mikan.

[colts18]

Wilt Chamberlain was thinking the same before his team was beat in NCAA finals by a bunch of short white players. Heck, even modern USA nationals teams also were thinking the same, before they were beat several times by non black international teams.

I never said that white players can't play at all with black players. I just said that Mikan never played against the 75% of the best players in the world (85-90% when you include internationals) so that is a mark against him. His stats look better than they should be because he plays a lot of players who probably wouldn't start on a good NCAA team today.

Considering that team USA with Coach K is 62-1, I think they are doing fine with the teams they bring to the tournaments.

[FJS]

If i have to choose one i rather Ewing.

Why?

[SactoKingsFan]

Run-off vote: Patrick Ewing

As others have mentioned, Ewing played against tougher competition, has a significant longevity edge and was a legit two-way player that anchored historically great defenses. I also prefer Ewing's skill set and think he's the more portable player.

sent from my G2 using RealGM Forums app

[Doctor MJ]

If, on the other hand, you look at Schayes as a 6-8 to 6-9 in shoes, tough as nails, good rebounding, good defensive, stretch 4 (the weights are from his college days), that's something that has come back into vogue.

Well that's one way to look at it I suppose. My wet blanket perspective:

Schayes was measured as 6-7, and by the time he retired the average player measured as 6-6. Do we typically talk about guys 1 inch taller than average as Stretch 4 material?

The weight was his rookie weight...but it isn't normal for a 4-year college PF to come into the league at league average weight, which is what he did. Forget about era, it's not normal. It means he's got a skinny build.

You combine those things, and that doesn't sound like a Stretch 4 to me, it sounds like a 3.

I'll go back to that set shot also. The natural comeback is that he'd simply learn the jump shot, and maybe he would, but Schayes is another one of these guys who didn't scale as the league progress. As league efficiency improved and improved, Schayes basically stayed the same, and this was despite the fact that his literal shooting improved (look at his FT%). This wasn't a guy adjusting and thriving as things got tougher, this was a guy who seemed to fall back toward the middle as his career progress. This is a concern for all players of course, but when you see a guy whose physical dimensions seem questionable they seem like a red flag to me.

I think if Schayes were to make it today, he'd have to have a fundamentally new approach to things. I'm not saying it's impossible by any means, but when I look at guys from back in the day, the guys I'm most confident in are the one's who seem most plausible to succeed doing roughly what they did before.

[Doctor MJ]

Vote: Patrick Ewing

So yeah, I gotta go with Ewing here. I really don't know how to even look at it the other way. I can't fathom Ewing going back to Mikan's era and NOT dominating, can you?

If we go and look at Ewing's progression, for those who remember, the dude was dominant in college and would have been the #1 pick in 1984 over Olajuwon. He stayed another year, then went pro, and then he proceeded to get better and better over the next half decade in the NBA.

We look at Mikan, and to say the least he peaked a lot earlier and fell off a lot sooner. Was it because the league just got better? Was it because of longevity issues? Well c'mon, it was one of the two. Either one, how can you have that and not prefer Ewing?

[90sAllDecade]

Honestly, the more I research those Ewing & Riley Knick defenses, the more I really appreciate them:

Knicks' image as bruisers is leaving a lasting mark Physical play poses problem for Bullets
March 12, 1993|By Alan Goldstein | Alan Goldstein,Staff Writer

Despite mounting criticism of the Knicks' intimidating style of play, coach Pat Riley says his team won't turn soft and reminds people of the days when New York was considered a pushover.

The controversy has intensified since New Jersey Nets star Kenny Anderson suffered a season-ending injury against the Knicks on Feb. 28.

Riley, whose Atlantic Division-leading Knicks (40-18) play the last-place Washington Bullets (16-42) at the Capital Centre tonight, was analyzing NBA games for NBC two years ago when the Knicks were manhandled in the playoffs by the championship-bound Chicago Bulls.

"Everyone back then referred to the Knicks as a gutless team that would allow people to drive the lane, have lunch, get a car wash and cash a check before anyone would step up and defend," he said. "So now we're playing hard, and we're hearing complaints from the same people who called the Knicks heartless. But we'll never play soft again, not as long as I'm here."

Knicks president Dave Checketts added: "The reality is we're holding teams to an all-time defensive low (95.8 ppg). I'm not trying to create a conspiracy theory, but I believe other teams resent us, and the NBA is buying into this."

The criticism, which Riley labels, "fashionable, thus lacking substance," began early this season when Bulls coach Phil Jackson accused New York of playing "bully-ball" with intent to hurt his star players, Michael Jordan and Scottie Pippen.

This brutish image of the Knicks intensified last month when guard John Starks decked Anderson at the Meadowlands. Anderson fell heavily on his left wrist and is out for the rest of the season.

Starks, who was fined $5,000 but not suspended, has since apologized to Anderson.

"You never want to see another player get hurt," he said, "but I'm not going to change how I play. I've studied that play over and over, and to me it was a common foul. Kenny hurt himself by the way he landed."

Rod Thorn, the NBA's vice president of operation who doles out fines and suspensions, viewed the situation the same way, reading no malicious intent by Stark's flagrant foul.

Asked if he believed the Knicks have legitimately earned the nickhave legitimately earned the nickname "Broadway Bullies," Thorn said, "It is not my position to categorize the style of teams. But I've reminded people that the (4-54) Dallas Mavericks have been charged with more flagrant fouls this season than the Knicks. Read whatever you want into that."

There is a difference of opinion among rival players concerning whether Knicks' strongmen Charles Oakley and Anthony Mason play hard or go beyond the bounds of propriety in flexing their muscles.

Jordan says the Knicks are overly aggressive in protecting the lane. "Their whole game is intimidation," said Jordan, who was repeatedly knocked to the floor in last season's seven-game Eastern Conference semifinal series with the Knicks.


Charles Barkley, the Phoenix Suns' physical forward, said: "They're not dirty. They're just big and ugly."

All-Star guard Joe Dumars, who was the most mild-mannered of the Detroit Pistons' "Bad Boys" in the 1989 and 1990 championship seasons, said: "New York is rough, tough and physical. If they knock me down, I don't think that's dirty. It's what you have to do to win. I understand that."

The Knicks' powerful front line of Patrick Ewing, Oakley and Mason poses problems for the Bullets, who have been out-muscled all season, particularly since losing starting center Pervis Ellison to a knee injury.

In recent games, rookie forward Tom Gugliotta has been forced to go against bigger, more physical centers, but Bullets coach Wes Unseld has few options left.

Here's video when the Knicks, a team on the rise, became bigger Bad Boys than the Isiah & Daly Pistons; beating them in the 1992 playoffs at Madison Square Garden. Two tough, physical all time great defensive teams, with the younger one taking the mantle from the aging one.

It was probably like watching a physical, hard hitting, NFL game between a prime and aging Steelers and Ravens defense.

And yes, things got chippy

Nobody played well offensively in this series, as to be expected; but Ewing turns it on in the second half:

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bvaeu3lSoxg[/youtube]

[magicmerl]

Looks like Ewing has this one going away.


13 EWING -- ronnymac2, ShaqAttack3234, fpliii, magicmer1, 90sAllDecade, RayBan-Sematra, Basketballefan, RSCD3_, colts18, Clyde Frazier, FJS, SactoKingsFan, Doctor MJ

6 MIKAN -- batmana, DQuinn1575, Warspite, Owly, Moonbeam, Jim Naismith

Through post #177

[lukekarts]

Vote: Patrick Ewing

A little bit torn on this one, seeing as I don't really feel either should be here on the list, but of the two, I have to side with Ewing, particularly because I can't really work out how to evaluate Mikan.

[Ryoga Hibiki]

Just a thing about pioneers like Mikan. To excel in a young sport you need different skills than the ones you need in a mature one, it works both ways.
Mikan was among the other things an innovator, a lot of the moves later big men used came from him. He didn't have the teachers others after him had, he had to perfect his training routine themselves.
After 60 years it's easy to underrate the importance of this, when we see tons of players doing what Mikan was doing just better, but would those players have been able to learn that on their own?