RealGM Top 100 List #22

[Ryoga Hibiki]

I have a doubt now about Durant's ranking.
MVP + multiple times scoring champion with historical efficiency + several All NBA 1st team nomination + 1 final, 2 WCF, WCSF...
How is this resume any worse than the one of Nash, who doesn't have the rings of Frazier and Wade?

[trex_8063]

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

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

I cast my run-off vote for Ewing (post #137).

[lorak]

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

Why you think black players are better? What exactly is correlation between being black and quality of play?
Also, do you penalize Russell too?

PS
USA teams lost several times before Coach K - and they were much more black than their opponents.

[Ballerhogger]

I wonder when people will start making an argument for Durant

I would bet he starts getting serious mentions between 25 and 30 though where he ends up is beyond my prognostication since there are a lot of outstanding players coming up. Even as a SF, do you rank him ahead of Baylor, Pippen, Havlicek, Barry?

probably over Pippen. But not Baylor and the others you mentioned.

[DannyNoonan1221]

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

Why you think black players are better? What exactly is correlation between being black and quality of play?
Also, do you penalize Russell too?

PS
USA teams lost several times before Coach K - and they were much more black than their opponents.

I don't think it's necessarily a correlation between being black and quality of play. I think he is referring to the fact that black players are a majority of the league now that there are not any racial barricades blocking entrance into the league. Whether you want to argue "basketball is a black dominated sport" (in no way am I taking either side on this argument) is different- Mikan wasn't competing against the entire population of people who could physically play basketball. He was only playing against the guys society allowed to play.

[PCProductions]

Vote: Patrick Ewing

Arguments for Ewing are pretty strong and I think he's an underrated player for a lot of reasons that have already been stated here. I'm pretty impressed with his long prime and longevity and he led his teams to numerous strong playoff runs. Who's to know how his career looks without Jordan around, who I think knocked him out an absurd 7 times in his career.

Mikan is just simply from an era I'm not certain translates very well to post 60's basketball, and I'm more certain about Ewing's ability in any period more than Mikan.

[lorak]

I don't think it's necessarily a correlation between being black and quality of play. I think he is referring to the fact that black players are a majority of the league now that there are not any racial barricades blocking entrance into the league.

But aren't there any "social" barricades? So maybe blacks are majority, because of social factors, not because they are really better than white players?

Mikan wasn't competing against the entire population of people who could physically play basketball. He was only playing against the guys society allowed to play.

Ok, I got your point, but I want to say just one thing: Mikan did play against black players in the NBA and he also dominated black only teams of his times - with Harlem as the most know example.

I also want to point out that during Mikan's era 12 other players as big or bigger (there was even one 7-1 player) than Mikan played in the NBA and no one was even close to being as good as George.

[Doctor MJ]

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?

This is a good point. I've talked about before the value of independent thinking and the importance of spearheads.

With the former I emphasized it in the sense that I'd much rather have Magic leading my offense than Jordan unless I have a really, really smart coach & GM.

With the spearhead aspect I talked about it with Russell, although there part of what I emphasized is that he was both the spearhead and the guy who won out after a decade plus of guys emulating what he did. It's the matter of him continuing to dominate again and again that makes clear how awe-inspiring he was. I don't have the same confidence with Mikan.

Also, this got me looking at some historical things that are interesting.

As we've talked about '51-52 is when Mikan's dominance started waining. He want from 28.4 PPG on 50.9% TS to 23.8 PPG on 45.9% TS and the Lakers went from being a 1.3 points above average on offense to 1.6 below average.

'51-52 was also when the league widened the lane from 6 to 12 feet, specifically to get in Mikan's way. So I suppose it worked. (Remember also the lane is now 16 feet) I would be inclined to say that this is more evidence that there's no reason at all to think MIkan could be an offensive focal point today, but y'all know my bias on this.

Interestingly here's Mikan's take on the rule change:

http://www.nba.com/history/season/19511952.html

Actually, it opened up the lane and made it more difficult for them to defense me," Mikan said. "Opposing teams couldn't deter our cutters going through the lane. It moved me out and gave me more shot selection instead of just short pivots and hooks. I was able to dribble across the lane and use a lot more freedom setting my shot up.

So yeah it would seem he has no concept of how much less effective he was, though perhaps he was simply bluffing.

Regardless though, in the end it should be all about defense when people look at Mikan. If you're voting for him now, you should probably be thinking he's on the short list of GOAT defenders.

[DannyNoonan1221]

I don't think it's necessarily a correlation between being black and quality of play. I think he is referring to the fact that black players are a majority of the league now that there are not any racial barricades blocking entrance into the league.

But aren't there any "social" barricades? So maybe blacks are majority, because of social factors, not because they are really better than white players?

Mikan wasn't competing against the entire population of people who could physically play basketball. He was only playing against the guys society allowed to play.

Ok, I got your point, but I want to say just one thing: Mikan did play against black players in the NBA and he also dominated black only teams of his times - with Harlem as the most know example.

I also want to point out that during Mikan's era 12 other players as big or bigger (there was even one 7-1 player) than Mikan played in the NBA and no one was even close to being as good as George.

Look, i am not going to discuss sizes. I was just interpreting the racial aspect of this. I don't want to get into a social justice discussion either. I used social barricades as my explanation as to why Mikan was not playing the full population. I think, while certainly people would argue, it would be difficult to defend any belief that today's nba players aren't playing against the best players in the world, or very near.

Yes, resources aren't distributed evenly anywhere in the world and some people aren't given the chance that others are to develop their basketball skills. But as a whole, the NBA is MUCH closer to fielding 100% of the top guys in the world than Mikan's league was. And that is an argument that a lot of people use to bring Mikan down.

[Doctor MJ]

Ok, I got your point, but I want to say just one thing: Mikan did play against black players in the NBA and he also dominated black only teams of his times - with Harlem as the most know example.

I also want to point out that during Mikan's era 12 other players as big or bigger (there was even one 7-1 player) than Mikan played in the NBA and no one was even close to being as good as George.

The issue isn't a negro league thing, it's that guys back then just weren't playing basketball seriously, whatever their race.

Y'all have heard me mention a couple times that the top center of the '30s was Tarzan Cooper who was 6 foot 4.

Well a few years ago my grandpa died and I saw his high school yearbook. There's my grandpa on the basketball team, all 6 foot 3 of him, and there are two guy next to him even bigger. That's one white high school in Minnesota in the '30s. While I doubt any of them were as talented as Cooper, you can imagine how much sheer size talent wasn't going in to pro basketball in earlier eras.

I'll tell you also, they wanted my grandpa for other sports in college and offered scholarships, but it was the expectation back then where he was that you get a job when you graduate high school not go to more schoolin'. Different world.

[Doctor MJ]

I have a doubt now about Durant's ranking.
MVP + multiple times scoring champion with historical efficiency + several All NBA 1st team nomination + 1 final, 2 WCF, WCSF...
How is this resume any worse than the one of Nash, who doesn't have the rings of Frazier and Wade?

Well first thing, I don't think you should fixate on the rings here. Frazier and Wade could very easily not have any titles. They have them because they had fortunate situations. I don't see them as having any clear cut edge over Nash on that reason alone, and hence I don't think you should give them that edge over Durant either. (Fine if your evaluation of their more two-way games gives them the edge, but if that's what it is, leave the rings out of it.)

However, as I said relating to Durant vs Paul, Durant got some serious longevity issues here. Go look at really any all-in-one stat, and you'll see it even next to these guys with shortened primes.

That doesn't mean I don't see a case for Durant if you weigh peak extremely heavily though. Up to you. Just for point of reference though, I'll note that Durant wasn't even in the Top 100 last time.

[ShaqAttack3234]

Pre shot clock era is just a different game to me. I'm fine with either, but it's really difficult to compare them as players meaning offense, defense ect., so I'll go with Ewing.

[lorak]

I don't think it's necessarily a correlation between being black and quality of play. I think he is referring to the fact that black players are a majority of the league now that there are not any racial barricades blocking entrance into the league.

But aren't there any "social" barricades? So maybe blacks are majority, because of social factors, not because they are really better than white players?

Mikan wasn't competing against the entire population of people who could physically play basketball. He was only playing against the guys society allowed to play.

Ok, I got your point, but I want to say just one thing: Mikan did play against black players in the NBA and he also dominated black only teams of his times - with Harlem as the most know example.

I also want to point out that during Mikan's era 12 other players as big or bigger (there was even one 7-1 player) than Mikan played in the NBA and no one was even close to being as good as George.

Look, i am not going to discuss sizes. I was just interpreting the racial aspect of this. I don't want to get into a social justice discussion either. I used social barricades as my explanation as to why Mikan was not playing the full population. I think, while certainly people would argue, it would be difficult to defend any belief that today's nba players aren't playing against the best players in the world, or very near.

Yes, resources aren't distributed evenly anywhere in the world and some people aren't given the chance that others are to develop their basketball skills. But as a whole, the NBA is MUCH closer to fielding 100% of the top guys in the world than Mikan's league was. And that is an argument that a lot of people use to bring Mikan down.

I see, but the same argument can be used against for example Russell and I see some inconsistency in some people's argumentation. Sure, in Russell's era league was closer to "fielding 100% of the top guys in the world" than in Mikan's, but the difference isn't that big (for sure smaller than between 60s and XXI century), people in late 50s and 60s could chose better sports than NBA if they wanted to earn much money, not to mention that international part of "feelding 100%..." is in play only since late 90s. And that double standard is something that I don't understand, especially in light of some evidence presetned (small drop off in production of '54 players in later seasons - probably mostly explained by age; Mikan's per36 production just one season before Russell and after year and a half away from basketball; Mikan's skillset seen on limited tape; how much better he was than other players of his size in his era - so that means he wasn't great because he was big).

[lorak]

Ok, I got your point, but I want to say just one thing: Mikan did play against black players in the NBA and he also dominated black only teams of his times - with Harlem as the most know example.

I also want to point out that during Mikan's era 12 other players as big or bigger (there was even one 7-1 player) than Mikan played in the NBA and no one was even close to being as good as George.

The issue isn't a negro league thing, it's that guys back then just weren't playing basketball seriously, whatever their race

Yeah, tell that to all these guys from the 50s - Mikan included - who played with broken bones and casts on their hands.... they were more serious about the game, than any player today.

Y'all have heard me mention a couple times that the top center of the '30s was Tarzan Cooper who was 6 foot 4.

And I ignored that, because we are talking about 50s NBA, not about some other leagues from the 30s.

[The Infamous1]

I have a doubt now about Durant's ranking.
MVP + multiple times scoring champion with historical efficiency + several All NBA 1st team nomination + 1 final, 2 WCF, WCSF...
How is this resume any worse than the one of Nash, who doesn't have the rings of Frazier and Wade?

Well first thing, I don't think you should fixate on the rings here. Frazier and Wade could very easily not have any titles. They have them because they had fortunate situations. I don't see them as having any clear cut edge over Nash on that reason alone, and hence I don't think you should give them that edge over Durant either. (Fine if your evaluation of their more two-way games gives them the edge, but if that's what it is, leave the rings out of it.)

However, as I said relating to Durant vs Paul, Durant got some serious longevity issues here. Go look at really any all-in-one stat, and you'll see it even next to these guys with shortened primes.

That doesn't mean I don't see a case for Durant if you weigh peak extremely heavily though. Up to you. Just for point of reference though, I'll note that Durant wasn't even in the Top 100 last time.

That's not a fair criticism because you can say that about any player voted on this list with titles. And Nash has had very favorable team situations when it comes to talent

[Doctor MJ]

Ok, I got your point, but I want to say just one thing: Mikan did play against black players in the NBA and he also dominated black only teams of his times - with Harlem as the most know example.

I also want to point out that during Mikan's era 12 other players as big or bigger (there was even one 7-1 player) than Mikan played in the NBA and no one was even close to being as good as George.

The issue isn't a negro league thing, it's that guys back then just weren't playing basketball seriously, whatever their race

Yeah, tell that to all these guys from the 50s - Mikan included - who played with broken bones and casts on their hands.... they were more serious about the game, than any player today.

Are you purposefully interpreting my statement wrong or what?

I'm not saying that Mikan didn't play hard, I'm saying that much of the talent growing up at the time never seriously entertained devoting themselves to it.

Y'all have heard me mention a couple times that the top center of the '30s was Tarzan Cooper who was 6 foot 4.

And I ignored that, because we are talking about 50s NBA, not about some other leagues from the 30s.

So, you ignored it as if I talked about something completely unrelated to the topic at hand rather than thinking about what the connection is.

Why do I even bother?

[Doctor MJ]

I have a doubt now about Durant's ranking.
MVP + multiple times scoring champion with historical efficiency + several All NBA 1st team nomination + 1 final, 2 WCF, WCSF...
How is this resume any worse than the one of Nash, who doesn't have the rings of Frazier and Wade?

Well first thing, I don't think you should fixate on the rings here. Frazier and Wade could very easily not have any titles. They have them because they had fortunate situations. I don't see them as having any clear cut edge over Nash on that reason alone, and hence I don't think you should give them that edge over Durant either. (Fine if your evaluation of their more two-way games gives them the edge, but if that's what it is, leave the rings out of it.)

However, as I said relating to Durant vs Paul, Durant got some serious longevity issues here. Go look at really any all-in-one stat, and you'll see it even next to these guys with shortened primes.

That doesn't mean I don't see a case for Durant if you weigh peak extremely heavily though. Up to you. Just for point of reference though, I'll note that Durant wasn't even in the Top 100 last time.

That's not a fair criticism because you can say that about any player voted on this list with titles. And Nash has had very favorable team situations when it comes to talent

That's the point.

[Texas Chuck]

Re: Rings

One of the things I forced myself to do in this project is to really examine as many players as I could playoff series by playoff series. And one thing that kept coming up to me was the sometimes dramatic differences in how certain guys played in series in which their team was eliminated compared to other guys. I'd urge everyone to go look back and watch some video and read some game coverage and read some box scores. Some of it is illuminating.

I'm not looking to pick a fight with anyone's sacred cow and since I did almost no "selling" on my guy Dirk in the project because I don't feel like that's what this should be about, I'll use him as an example. In almost every single series the Mavs were eliminated in his career, you really can't blame him for the team's loss because of how well he played. Obviously the 07 GSW series, the 14 SAS series stand out. In the 14 series if he plays up to standard Dallas wins that series in 5 or 6 games. In 07 Dirk really only has two diasterous games and I'm not sure Dallas pulls it out if he plays up to par, but maybe. 06 Finals is maybe another one I suppose with the foul on Wade and the key missed FT. But that's really it. Other than that when the Mavs lost it was because the other team was flat better and/or the rest of his team didn't play well.

But some other guys I won't highlight here, I found that over and over they were a big part of the reason their team was being eliminated. Not playing up to their own standards. Getting outplayed constantly by the other guy at their position or the other team's star. And thus in those specific cases I think you can make the argument that "no rings" is really a negative for them especially in comparison with a guy like Dream who was an overwhelming reason behind his team's two.

I think people are too quick to swing both directions---overrating a guy based solely on ring count, but also being too quick to excuse the lack of team success without diligently examining that player's specific role in the elimination series.

[Sports Realist]

Sorry haven't been here for a while... Good to see the discussion is still up. Good stuff.

I would NEVER consider Mikan at this spot... Never.

I won't pick someone, as I haven't given it much thought yet and I don't have a vote anyway, but I'd lean towards Elgin Baylor by now...

About Mikan:

Based on playing in a time where the majority of other professional players had other jobs as well and basketball was just an activity done on the side.

Based on playing in an era that wasn't fully integrated yet, and 80+% whites...

Based on playing in the weakest era in basketball history.

But most importantly: Mikan didn't survive the SHOT CLOCK ERA. Once the shot clock was introduced, Mikan's play fell off to mediocrity, leading to his retirement.

The most significant rule change in Basketball history.

The main point against the NBA is that it wasn't integrated, leaving out many potential competitors. (Similar argument against the NBA in the 1970s, with the ABA having a lot of the competitors weakening the NBA's depth and making players look better than they would be in a fully integrated league.)


Mikan is a tough one. Bob Pettit is the player of the 1950's.


Put the 1950's version of Mikan in todays game, he might come off the bench... Therefore, I think a Pioneer's list would be appropriate for a guy like him. Then again, he's like the only pre-shotclock era star. Appreciate him for what he did in his time, a different one.

[Sports Realist]

And the "What about the 60's players then" doesn't work.

I generally like to follow a rule of thumb that views players dominance against their OWN era; but in the case of the 1950's you cannot overlook the obvious lack of skill. Mikan would get beat against stars from the 60's, by natural skill and ability.

Its hard to rate Mikan but at the same point in time he can't be taken the same as other players in way tougher more developed eras.

Mikan just fell apart when the league introduced the shot clock and especially when players equal his size, strength started to play in the NBA.

His reliance on set shorts and playing against short white guys (He really did) can't be ignored. Wouldn't work in any other decade.

His dominance was gone, and he retired at age of 31... Which is not old. He couldn't hang with Russell/Wilt/Pettit.

It's also notable that offensive goaltending was introduced in 1958 and the lane was 6 feet until 1952, so it was easier for him to camp in the paint.

I mean, we have obvious proof of his game not translating to other eras, and in fact, already falling apart in the 1960's.

Like I said, appreciate him for what he did.

I would either put him to some arbitrary spot in the 30's, ignore the pre-shotclock era, or create a pioneer's list for him.