RealGM 2017 Top 100 List: #24

[Joao Saraiva]

Been giving it a lot of thought.

1st vote George Mikan

People can talk whatever they want about the era he played in. That's not his fault. He dominated his era at tremendous level and from the best players from each era only Mikan is missing. So I think it's about time we include him. Even if his era was weaker and he deserves less credit for playing in it, enough is enough.

Dude has the stats, the team success. The peak, the prime. Longevity is not tremendous but it's not that bad either. So I think he deserves some recognition.

From the 10s we already have LeBron in it. Kevin Durant and Curry should be coming soon.
From the 00s we have LBJ, Tim Duncan, Kobe, Shaq etc.
90s with MJ, Stockton, Malone, Barkley...
80s with Bird, Magic..

And so on.

The best player pre 60s deserves to be represented.

2nd vote Kevin Durant

[therealbig3]

I think Ewing is getting underrated, but I probably would have gone with Paul after him.

Ewing is one of the elite defensive anchors in NBA history. That right there puts him in rarified air. Now, I think his offense definitely falls short of guys like Robinson, Duncan, and Garnett, so he's a clear level below them, but was he not still a very good offensive center? He had a sweet midrange jumper, and he was a really good finisher around the rim. He didn't have the best hands in the world, and his passing was pretty mediocre, but still a very useful offensive big, with GOAT-level defensive impact. Was in prime form for a decent amount of time too. I think he's a better version of Dwight Howard, personally.

Speaking of which, it'll be very interesting to see where Dwight Howard goes this time around, considering he was 39th in 2011, and I'm pretty sure most people at the time thought he was only going to go up and that top 30 was a foregone conclusion in a few more years, while top 25 all-time was also a lock by the time he retired...but then he actually dropped in the 2014 list to 43rd, and I don't see him getting a lot of momentum for a while in this project tbh.

Bringing it back to Paul, I'm actually surprised that picking him over Nash is considered blasphemous by some. I thought that it was a consensus opinion to have Paul over Nash.

[mikejames23]

Well, thought I’d post something for Nash since he strangely slipped out of real discussion.

List of Team offenses by B-R

2002: #1
2003: #1
2004: #1
2005: #1
2006: #2
2007: #1
2008: #2
2009: #2
2010: #1
2011: #9
2012: #9

Doesn’t unravel until his supporting casts get bad in ‘11. That and he finally slipped some on his overall attacking prowess, but at any rate was thought of as an offensive great. BTW, 05, 07 and 10 O Rating are off the charts and Top 10 all time type level.

Various shifts in career:

So 02-04 he’s not Steve Nash the MVP yet. He’s more of an all NBA 3rd team type of player. Nellie ball, etc. 03 Mavs were a strong title contender. Limited offensive freedom during this era and I suppose Nellie was no Nash believer - which sucks. Nash may already have been at a level to impact the O on a much higher level.

05-07 - Peak Nash. He’s a strong MVP candidate every year. Competition is good too. Shaq, LeBron, Kobe, Dirk, KG, are all having good to great years. Winning twice in this era is something special. Lost in the playoffs to injury and suspension out of his control (07 Suspensions, 06 Amare out for year, 05 Joe Johnson). He’s been thought of in a context that basically is only worthy of candidates much higher than ~Top 25 all time.

08-09 - Steve Kerr basically does some weird moves. Should’ve stuck to coaching. Dinosaur Shaq for Marion. Terry Porter, etc. By the way, Dinosaur Shaq had a good year on O with Nash, made the all star team etc. That being said lack of team success caused a drop off in Nash’s overall perception. Otherwise Nash is still Top player offensively in all O-Rating/+/- type studies.

2010 - Made a run for it, but lacked a little something. Another Top 5 year.

2011 - 2012 - Graceful decline type seasons. He was still easily All NBA material. Often had mediocre casts, etc.

2013 - Laker fiasco. How did people feel about Nash in the 50 games or so he did play with the Lakers?

Overall I am thinking you have 3 MVP type seasons, 5 All NBA type seasons, 2 Top 10 type seasons. This is pretty strong value in my eyes. His MVP award shares rank ahead of Chris Paul and Steph Curry. He beats guys to MVP’s that are significantly ahead of him all time. Peak, prime, etc. are all stellar and he has just enough seasons to have a good argument for the ~Top 21 spot.

Defense - +/- has him at +.3 in a 10 year study from 02-11. Basically he’s neutral. Why would that be the case? Teams don’t hurt with him on the floor because they can successfully hide him. So in spite of Nash’s lack of individual tools, etc. he appears to not hurt his teams as much as is believed. Looking at team construction Amare’s bad defense at the PF position would hurt the Suns more. This is why the Suns best team is in 07 with Kurt Thomas to complement Amare - there is finally a man that can body up Duncan. Otherwise, you’re in for a significant disadvantage due to Amare’s mediocre defense and rebounding. Nash’s lack of defense hurts his team as much as Tony Parker does to the Spurs in your average year - this can be covered without giving your coaching staff real trouble.

Team Construction - 06 is a great example of how Nash can do more with less. With Amare out, this team was not supposed to be nearly as great as it was. This team went on to win an unexpected 54 Games with Tim Thomas, Boris Diaw, Raja Bell, James Jones, Eddie House. Barbosa, Kurt Thomas etc. both miss significant playing time and yet Nash practically wills this team throughout the year and then the playoffs against both LA teams before finally losing in the WCF to Dallas. You can generally round off solid roleplayers across the league (some injury prone) and create a strong team. Proven this repeatedly. The only criticism is in 09 when he was once more asked to change his style for a new gameplan - oh yes, Terry Porter. Suns did fine anyway on offense, but it takes a significant amount to undo a team where Nash has free reign as your MVP. Amare slips without Nash. Marion slips without Nash. Players are resurrected with Nash. It’s no coincidence.

Eye test/General Thoughts -

- Combined spontaneous dribble creation with All Time Great shooting comparable to Reggie Miller, etc. makes it deadly. Only Curry has been able to emulate this offensive impact and we all see what’s happening on a stacked team. This is an incredibly rare skill combination.
- Don’t just list the assist stats because his passing is genuinely on another level from all other PG’s listed. His ability to run circles around the defense and consistently find the best look is unmatched. It is spontaneous and in being so extremely, extremely, difficult to game plan. This is what makes Nash deadly. He is mentally more agile than the rest of the league and his spatial awareness is truly GOAT - worthy.
- Scoring uptick. This can be expected from Nash when necessary. He has proven in the playoffs he can take it up to ~ 30 a game as necessary - see 05 vs Mavs
- Pretty much guaranteed Top O. At first it was Dirk who was at a Top 10 level, but then he pulled off something unimaginable with Marion, Diaw and injury ridden no depth type team.
- Bad Luck is pretty much only reason why he didn’t win a title. And this bad luck was completely out of his control - 03 Dirk injury, 05 Joe Johnson, 06- Amare, 07 - Suspensions. Literally something stood in the way every. Single. Time. You can even argue Nash as best player in playoffs in 07 the way he withstands the Spurs dirty tactics/hip check, etc. and still delivers stunning performances.
- PnR Magician. He can barrage ANY team with this all day. See Amare vs Spurs 05. He dropped 37 PPG on Duncan. It was the most frustrating thing to see as a SA guy.

Sooo basically we need more Nash talk but it really should’ve started at ~19 when Barkley was being discussed. Nash’s only weakness is easily hidden by any decent coach.

[mikejames23]

I would just toss Mikan in the list, for what it's worth. It's been crazy watching Penbeast vote him in for the last 10 threads, Lol.

[euroleague]

Well, thought I’d post something for Nash since he strangely slipped out of real discussion.

List of Team offenses by B-R

2002: #1
2003: #1
2004: #1
2005: #1
2006: #2
2007: #1
2008: #2
2009: #2
2010: #1
2011: #9
2012: #9

Doesn’t unravel until his supporting casts get bad in ‘11. That and he finally slipped some on his overall attacking prowess, but at any rate was thought of as an offensive great. BTW, 05, 07 and 10 O Rating are off the charts and Top 10 all time type level.

Various shifts in career:

So 02-04 he’s not Steve Nash the MVP yet. He’s more of an all NBA 3rd team type of player. Nellie ball, etc. 03 Mavs were a strong title contender. Limited offensive freedom during this era and I suppose Nellie was no Nash believer - which sucks. Nash may already have been at a level to impact the O on a much higher level.

05-07 - Peak Nash. He’s a strong MVP candidate every year. Competition is good too. Shaq, LeBron, Kobe, Dirk, KG, are all having good to great years. Winning twice in this era is something special. Lost in the playoffs to injury and suspension out of his control (07 Suspensions, 06 Amare out for year, 05 Joe Johnson). He’s been thought of in a context that basically is only worthy of candidates much higher than ~Top 25 all time.

08-09 - Steve Kerr basically does some weird moves. Should’ve stuck to coaching. Dinosaur Shaq for Marion. Terry Porter, etc. By the way, Dinosaur Shaq had a good year on O with Nash, made the all star team etc. That being said lack of team success caused a drop off in Nash’s overall perception. Otherwise Nash is still Top player offensively in all O-Rating/+/- type studies.

2010 - Made a run for it, but lacked a little something. Another Top 5 year.

2011 - 2012 - Graceful decline type seasons. He was still easily All NBA material. Often had mediocre casts, etc.

2013 - Laker fiasco. How did people feel about Nash in the 50 games or so he did play with the Lakers?

Overall I am thinking you have 3 MVP type seasons, 5 All NBA type seasons, 2 Top 10 type seasons. This is pretty strong value in my eyes. His MVP award shares rank ahead of Chris Paul and Steph Curry. He beats guys to MVP’s that are significantly ahead of him all time. Peak, prime, etc. are all stellar and he has just enough seasons to have a good argument for the ~Top 21 spot.

Defense - +/- has him at +.3 in a 10 year study from 02-11. Basically he’s neutral. Why would that be the case? Teams don’t hurt with him on the floor because they can successfully hide him. So in spite of Nash’s lack of individual tools, etc. he appears to not hurt his teams as much as is believed. Looking at team construction Amare’s bad defense at the PF position would hurt the Suns more. This is why the Suns best team is in 07 with Kurt Thomas to complement Amare - there is finally a man that can body up Duncan. Otherwise, you’re in for a significant disadvantage due to Amare’s mediocre defense and rebounding. Nash’s lack of defense hurts his team as much as Tony Parker does to the Spurs in your average year - this can be covered without giving your coaching staff real trouble.

Team Construction - 06 is a great example of how Nash can do more with less. With Amare out, this team was not supposed to be nearly as great as it was. This team went on to win an unexpected 54 Games with Tim Thomas, Boris Diaw, Raja Bell, James Jones, Eddie House. Barbosa, Kurt Thomas etc. both miss significant playing time and yet Nash practically wills this team throughout the year and then the playoffs against both LA teams before finally losing in the WCF to Dallas. You can generally round off solid roleplayers across the league (some injury prone) and create a strong team. Proven this repeatedly. The only criticism is in 09 when he was once more asked to change his style for a new gameplan - oh yes, Terry Porter. Suns did fine anyway on offense, but it takes a significant amount to undo a team where Nash has free reign as your MVP. Amare slips without Nash. Marion slips without Nash. Players are resurrected with Nash. It’s no coincidence.

Eye test/General Thoughts -

- Combined spontaneous dribble creation with All Time Great shooting comparable to Reggie Miller, etc. makes it deadly. Only Curry has been able to emulate this offensive impact and we all see what’s happening on a stacked team. This is an incredibly rare skill combination.
- Don’t just list the assist stats because his passing is genuinely on another level from all other PG’s listed. His ability to run circles around the defense and consistently find the best look is unmatched. It is spontaneous and in being so extremely, extremely, difficult to game plan. This is what makes Nash deadly. He is mentally more agile than the rest of the league and his spatial awareness is truly GOAT - worthy.
- Scoring uptick. This can be expected from Nash when necessary. He has proven in the playoffs he can take it up to ~ 30 a game as necessary - see 05 vs Mavs
- Pretty much guaranteed Top O. At first it was Dirk who was at a Top 10 level, but then he pulled off something unimaginable with Marion, Diaw and injury ridden no depth type team.
- Bad Luck is pretty much only reason why he didn’t win a title. And this bad luck was completely out of his control - 03 Dirk injury, 05 Joe Johnson, 06- Amare, 07 - Suspensions. Literally something stood in the way every. Single. Time. You can even argue Nash as best player in playoffs in 07 the way he withstands the Spurs dirty tactics/hip check, etc. and still delivers stunning performances.
- PnR Magician. He can barrage ANY team with this all day. See Amare vs Spurs 05. He dropped 37 PPG on Duncan. It was the most frustrating thing to see as a SA guy.

Sooo basically we need more Nash talk but it really should’ve started at ~19 when Barkley was being discussed. Nash’s only weakness is easily hidden by any decent coach.

I'm a big fan of Nash's organization, and think his teams for sure got robbed by those suspensions in 07. beat the spurs, and it's a sweep vs LBJ and the cavs. instead, it looks like his MVPs were just empty awards to many people - and it wouldn't if they won the rings.

However, I can't put him above Curry or Isiah Thomas in dominance. Also can't put him over Cousy. Discussing him near Barkley is not bad, but should barkley really be 19?

[Pablo Novi]

Permit me to add: the selectors are IDEALLY suited - it was/is their job to report on the sport; and COLLECTIVELY, there are enough of them to override pretty much any and all personal, "homerist" biases. Imo, their selection process TRUMPS all stats or combinations of them. I'd also note, that over the last 58 years of NBA-NBL-ABA "rabidity", I've never once had a MAJOR objection to their selections.

Further, there are only 22 players in total who even accumulated at least 6 1st-Team ALL-League selections - showing just how difficult getting TEN is.

Can you discuss your thoughts on the number of teams and plays in the league over time and how that impacts the perception of all nba and more importantly the first team? It seems after all easier to be first team in a league of 8 teams vs a league of 20 or 30. I'm just interested in how you look at that. I certainly weigh all nba's here, a lot, but I'm concerned I might over weight it for early eras where there just weren't as many players.

A "Unique" Old Man Writes A Book About GOAT List Building (lol)
Thanx for asking, I appreciate it. Imo, in a GOAT discussion, there could hardly be a better question raised.

Please permit me to use quite a few words to respond? Why so many? Because: a) there is so much controversy over this GOAT question; and b) I have a relatively very unique position on it.

INTRO: Here’s the short version: Sure there were decidedly fewer teams; but less teams means more concentration of talent per team. One can easily counter that point by pointing out that the general level of play and player has been constantly improving, decade by decade; so clearly, the level of play n the 1950s was a good deal inferior to today’s NBA; and the level of play in the 1940’s. YIKES! But I counter THAT one be saying that, while it is certainly true (I address this very specifically below); ALL any ALL-Time Great player can ever do is DOMINATE HIS POSITION DURING HIS CAREER.

Another way to put this is: imagine it’s 50 years from now. There are 40 teams in the League, the “Asian-Wave” and “African-Wave” of players have further pushed up the general level of play. In that future, our kids or grandkids might be saying that the 2010s were weak because there were only 30 teams and far less Asian-African players.

Basically, either we give such as: Mikan, Pettit, Cousy and Schayes (to name the four mainly-pre-‘60’s All-Time Greats) credit for dominating THEIR positions during their careers – or we’ve got an AHISTORICAL result. IF we set that kind of example; what’ll stop these young whippersnappers from “erasng” most of our current GOAT list players?

52 YEARS OF HEAVY-DUTY PEACE-JUSTICE ORGANIZING: WHY PABLO CLAIMS TO BE TRULY “UNIQUE”
Starting in 1965, when I attended my first peace-justice demonstration (Pro-Palestinian); I came to realize that UNITY (based on some necessary-minimum set of good moral principles) should be: FIRST, LAST & ALWAYS. That very day I was so shocked by all the stuff I should have learned in school – but such truths were not even discussed … so shocked that I dedicated ALL the free time of my entire adult life to being a heavy-duty peace-justice activist. You can’t get anything worthwhile done as such an activist if you don’t understand that EVERYTHING depends on POPULAR UNITY.

By 1967, I had moved from the East Coast (New Jersey) to San Diego, California, US. I was co-founder of an activist group, Social Action Group (SAG) (we focused a lot of our attention on trying to make the police more accountable to the community – good luck with THAT!). Representing SAG, I then helped co-found the “Saturday Coalition” (we met on Saturdays, duh! Lol). Seemingly I had good enough people skills plus dedication plus working incredibly hard, so that, I went from being a not only a co-founder to pretty quickly becoming one of the top leaders in the Anti-Vietnam War Movement in San Diego. Even though San Diego was THE most ultra-conservative large city in the US (with over a dozen military bases, etc.) … even though the San Diego “branch” of the Anti-War Movement was a good decade behind most other major US cities; we DID have well over FIFTY SEPARATE Anti-War groups there.

Of course, as you might expect, overcoming the MSM (Main Stream Media)’s pro-war propaganda was never going to be easy. Moreso, helping to stop the US war machine – that was gonna be incredibly difficult. And, we were ALWAYS “helped” by pro-war agents, sent into / entering our ranks to disrupt things.

Why would I address all of this in a NBA-GOAT thread? Because, what I learned (was forced to learn) back then, was that UNITY (based on some minimum-necessary set of good moral principles) must be FIRST, LAST & ALWAYS – or else we’d never help end the war. (A war that saw the US Gov slaughter 2-3 MILLION innocent people!)

Circa 1970, I had been working 40+ hours a week, 50+ weeks a year for 5 whole years of voluntary labor – trying to help end the war. But despite Newsweek magazine declaring that there were 2-3 million “revolutionaries” within the U.S.; instead of UNITE, EFFECTIVE UNITY – we had (dis-)organized chaos.

As a member of the Steering Committee (leading body) of the San Diego Convention Coalition (SDCC) (what the “Saturday Coalition” converted itself into, once the Republican Party announced that they would hold their (VICTORY in ‘NAM) US Presidential-Nominating Convention in San Diego) … one of my most important tasks was as “liason”. It was my job to meet out-of-town activists (they stayed at my house). It was my job to receive and review the weekly / monthly publications of literally 100s of Anti-War organizations across the US & world. And it was my job, as part of the leadership of the SDCC, to help the SDCC be as effective as possible in mobilizing people (particularly San Diegans).

I met with leaders of the Vietnamese revolution, with leaders from France, with leaders from several other countries including from Canada & Mexico – forcing me to “perfect” my Spanish asap.

I met with 100s and 100s of US peace-justice activists (including: Democratic Party “Mobe” (Anti-War Mobilization) leaders; a scattering of Republican Party members; Black Panther Party leaders; other “Black Liberation” Movement leaders; Brown Berret leaders / Chicano / Mexican-American leaders; Native-American Indian Movement (AIM) leaders; Asian-American Movement leaders; labor leaders; “Women’s Liberation” Movement leaders; “Gay Liberation” Movement leaders; GI-organizers; etc. etc.

Just in San Diego alone, WITHN the SDCC, we had over FIFTY participating separate (but barely united together) groups. Keeping all of the “locals” and the “rest of the world” working together was extremely challenging, time-consuming AND EDUCATIONAL. I started off a neophyte; but to have any chance at success, I had to LEARN fast and hard. I was exposed to the best and to the worst of the leaders of literally hundreds of popular movements. (I might have learned more from their weaknesses than I did from their strengths – because, as I started off this post mentioning – AVOIDING PAST MISTAKES IS KEY!

The flaws of those leaders (sometimes being more interested in gaining personal fame (or “chicks”) than in actually organizing the “masses” so as to end the War; sometimes being just selfish – my wife and I housed them, fed them, drove them around town, responding to their every need – sometimes some of them acted like it was no effort, no big deal on our part – as if, THEY deserved an easy life because they “were LEADERS”. It was THEY who (without intending to) taught me: deep humility & the utter priority of UNITY-building.

In addition to working for a living and all that organizing in San Diego, I was constantly traveling (to Anti-War demonstrations & meetings around North America; usually giving speeches & presentations). In 1967, when I first joined the San Diego Anti-War “Movement”; at our monthly demonstrations we had EIGHT people! YES, EIGHT! The same 8 people month after month for the first half-year. (And those eight people had BIG problems even tolerating each other – that’s how divided our ranks were!)

To indicate just how backwards the situation in San Diego was, during that same period, they were having demonstrations of 250,000 people in Los Angeles, and up to 1,000,000 in San Francisco, D.C. & New York (many of which I attended). (At one demonstration in San Fran., the march route was about 8 miles long – from one side of the city to the other side of the city. The first of us arrived at our destination point, Golden Gate Park (for a humongous rally) BEFORE the last of us even started walking on the other side of the city. It’s really something amazing to be an integral part of ONE MILLION DEDICATED PEOPLE, sacrificing their time & effort for a worthy (THE most worthy of) cause(s)!

Yours truly ended up playing a quite important role in the world-wide Anti-War Movement – because I came up with a couple of ideas (one being: A “People’s Petition” which I wrote in 1970) that soon became widely accepted WITHIN our Anti-War Movement – and, once we united around them, our UNITY and our EFFECTIVENESS went “thru the roof”. In 1975, “ONLY” 5 years after the People’s Petition was first written, the US and World Anti-War Movement had helped the Vietnamese finally end that US slaughter of millions of innocents.

Hopefully, this personal-political background adds some depth of understanding to why I approach NBA-GOAT discussions the (unique) way I do (putting UNITY-building & avoiding flame-warring FIRST).

PERHAPS WHAT TO AVOID IN BUILDING A GOAT LIST?
Perhaps the best way to APPROACH the question of how to compare players across: 8 decades (starting with the 1937-38 season, the NBL's 1st), 3 separate Leagues (NBL, NBA-BAA, ABA) & 5 different positions ... perhaps the best way to approach this KEY question is to start off by trying to use the "opposite" approach?

Though there is nothing close to universal acceptance of what GOAT criteria SHOULD BE; almost all GOAT-raters/analyzers do agree that there ARE BIASES - biases that produce incorrect results. Why not try to identify the main biases, historically speaking? But what might we mean by "main biases" - perhaps the biases that either/or: have the most influence (quantitative problems) or must incorrectly warp the analysis/results (qualitative problems). Another way to think about this might be: IS THERE ANY POSSIBLE WAY TO ESTABLISH / RECOGNIZE ENOUGH COMMON GROUND so that we are all (or most of us) in the same general "ball park" with our thinking / starting assumptions? Perhaps, again, by starting off by identifying the classic pitfalls - and deliberately trying to avoid repeating them (or similar ones) we can both: produce a (much) more productive discussion AND prevent (much) flame-warring?

So what might the most important biases (in GOAT-analysis) be?

Permit me to suggest that they are these:
1. MY FAVORITE PLAYER / TEAM … (“HOMERISM” (in general))

a) MY FAVORITE PLAYER/TEAM HOMERISM: (this hardly needs explanation - a GOAT-analyzer warps their analysis / presentation so "their HOME team player" comes out too high (and/or opposing teams' players come out too low). MJ's recent comments about Kobe being greater than LeBron because Kobe has more rings - that's a great example of "homerism". Another example: ALMOST universally, players and fans of one "decade", overrate the bulk of the All-Time Great: Plays, Players, Teams, Coaches, Rules ... from THAT decade; or, vice-versa, underrate other All-Time Great: Plays, Players, Teams, Coaches, Rules etc from OTHER decades. Players (& fans) of the 1960s tend to claim that THAT was the “Golden Age” – with the best players & teams and the toughest rules. Likewise, the “MJ-generation” of players (& fans) tend to make the same claim about the 1990s as the “true” “Golden Age” (often referring to the large number of “Great Teams” then, based on their very good Won-Loss records. They just as often fail to remember and/or mention that those very good Won-Loss records were due to the expansion of the League by SIX TEAMS in only EIGHT YEARS – that’s a ton of pretty-easy extra victories per season!)

b) MY OWN-OWN COUNTRY / REGION / STATE / CITY / SCHOOL HOMERISM: It should be noted that this particular ideological problem is absolutely HUGE; especially for people born/raised in a Top Dog country like the U.S. - where, along with our mother's milk, we are "indoctrinated" from before we'll old enough to reason things out for ourselves, that OUR: COUNTRY (is the greatest, even the GREATEST EVER "Land of the free, home of the brave" - like no other people/country even has earned the right to make such claims - they are therefore INFERIOR to us - and, despite whatever problems we face (in the US, for example), and despite whatever problems the US Gov causes around the world (like bombing country after country back to the stone ages IN OUR NAME, in the name of "DEMOCRACY" and "justice" and "freedom").

The US has been the Top Dog country for the past 70-100 years. JUST LIKE for the UK (Great Britain for the 1800s), AMERICAN ARROGANT-SECTARIAN is pervasive, vicious & destructive as all get out.

Though not quite as strong in most cases, more “local” biases run deep and wide too. “My state’s the best state.” “I’m from the ____; and WE are the best”. “I wish they all could be California girls”. “Be True To Your School”.

c) HOMERISM FOR MY IDEOLOGICAL BELIEFS (RELIGION, OTHER CULTURAL BELIEFS)

Ever notice how almost all Christians are 100% “Sure” that THEIR religion is the “one & only true religion”? Same as for the Muslims and virtually every other religion? Logically speaking, they can’t all be correct. In fact, again logically speaking, AT BEST, all of them but one MUST be wrong about their most fundamentally-held belief! (Sound familiar for Wilt-fans, Kareem-fans, Magic/Bird fans, MJ-fans, Shaq/Kobe fans, LeBron-fans …?)

Ever notice the “race-solidarity” (“My / our ‘color’ over everybody else’s!” – boy was that truly HORRIBLE back when I grew up and was a youth in the 1950s and 1960s!). Men vs women? Straights vs non-straights? (It’s all so much “Divide & Conquer” in my eyes).

“My favorite sport(s) is/are better than yours!”. The list is truly endless.


2. MY FAVORITE DECADE (& set of rules) / LEAGUE / POSITION (custom-tailored “HOMERISM”)

a) My Favorite Decade (and/or set of rules): Most sports fans have a BELIEF that their favorite period / era / decade was better than those before or since then.

b) My Favorite League (If they pay any attention ever at all, most NBA fans belittle the NBL and ABA. Heck, the NBA itself does so too!).


c) My Favorite Position (PG, SG, SF, PF, Center OR PG, Wings & Bigs). Most NBA fans BELIEVE that the Center position has been FAR more important than any of the others (at least until the 2000s with its PG-friendly rules).

3. MY FAVORITE (GROUP OF) STAT(S) (“objective” measuring sticks used for subjective agendas?)
We’re all TOO familiar with the (intense) arguments about which stat (or group of stats) “REALLY” is the most “objective” one(s) for defining player All-Time greatness.
-----
So, in my opinion, to even begin to approach a much-improved methodology for building GOAT lists; we NEED to try to avoid all the above (ideological) pitfalls as much as possible.

But what then might be GOAT criteria that is (much) less biases and much fairer?

And here’s my quite unique position:

FIRST CRITERIA / MEASURING “UNIT”: INDIVIDUAL REGULAR-SEASON-LONG PERFORMANCE

The length of the Reg. Season is 82 games, The average length of the Post-Season, per team that qualifies, is 11 games (based on an average of about 5.5 games per series; with half the teams being eliminated after each round). But given that almost half of the teams (and their players) don’t even qualify for the Play-Offs, the AVERAGE number of Post-Season games PER the 30 teams is only 5.5 games. 5.5 games is a good deal less than 10% of the Regular Season – a tiny fraction.

Another, near-universally recognized “problem” with heavily-weighing the Post-Season is that in a TEAM sport, better PLAYERS don’t always advance (much less win the Chip that year). Much more so than during the Reg. Season, during the Play-Offs, injuries and team-vs-team and player-vs-player match-ups mean much more). So there are BIG problems with: All-Time Player X is better than All-Time Player Y because he has more Chips.

So in “my” system, the Regular Season is not only the FIRST criteria; but (though NOT the ONLY one) the most important criteria.

But we’re not quite finished with the discussion of Reg. Seasons. What “measuring unit” should we use vis-à-vis Reg. Season play? Should it be the CAREER totals of each player? Their PEAK YEAR(s)? Their PRIME?

MY answer for this is that our basic “measuring unit” for player-comparisons should be: How many “Great YEARS” (Reg. Seasons) they accumulated. So, we’re not using ½-seaons stretches, or stretches of consecutive triple-doubles or 20 or 30 points per game, etc. We’re using ENTIRE seasons / YEARS.

One last point. No one can really hope to accurately compare different players across different: decades, Leagues and positions. Another way to put this is that comparing such players fairly is very difficult. BUT, the one thing we are already presented with is how each player’s performance compared to other players of his POSITION during his/their career(s). This is what the yearly ALL-League selections “measure” / indicate. And I place my PRIMARY (but not ONLY) emphasis on it – because, while still difficult, it is easily the least-difficult of the factors to be considered in comparing players’ careers. AND, for my GOAT list, I’m NOT comparing PEAKS (1 or 2 or 3 years) or just PRIMES (5+ years); but ALL of each player’s CAREERS, particularly focusing on their “Great Years” (and a little-less-than-Great-Years as defined by 3rd-Team selections).

Logically, the next question is: But HOW BEST to comparatively evaluate players competing in the same years?

THE ALL-LEAGUE (ALL-NBL, ALL-ABA, ALL-NBA) LEAGUE Selections:
The ALL-League selectors are a LARGE NUMBER of people whose very job it is is to report on how the players (and teams and League) are doing. They see more games (LIVE or on TV) than most everybody else does; they TRY HARDER TO OBJECTIVELY ANALYZE those games (and players) than most everybody else does. In other words, THEY are in THE BEST POSITION of anyone to JUDGE the comparative quality of play of each player each “year”.

Additionally, because there are SO MANY, the collective-voting process itself does a terrific job of canceling out “homerist” and other biases. Much like in Olympic diving, where the high and low votes are thrown out, and the average of the remaining votes is the “score”; the COLLECTIVE vote totals of the ALL-League selectors are very highly reflective of what really went on. I maintain that relying on their VOTING RESULTS is CLEARLY better than relying on the INDIVIDUAL thinking / analysis of any fan (no matter how well informed) or any group of fans; AND better than any “objective” stat or group of them.

Again, imo, the RESULTS speak for themselves – those results DO more accurately reflect the players’ individual seasonal / yearly comparative performance than any other measure. (And are decidedly superior to the MVP voting – which is so much less-inclusive as to not be nearly as good a general description of comparative player-value across all positions and teams each year; AND has historically been decidedly more faulty (“voter fatique”; homerist & other biases, etc); than has been the ALL-League selection process.

As a “proof” of this concept; I’ve followed the ALL-League selections for some 58 years; and have RARELY disagreed with those selections. To me that is quite impressive.

Given that, my #1 Criteria for GOAT ranking is: the number of “Great Years” each player accumulated during their career. By “Great Year” I mean the number of times they were selected to ALL-League: 2nd-Teams, or, more importantly, 1st-Teams. (I correspondingly value less 3rd-Team selections. In fact, “my” point system is as follows (for the last few decades) 1st-Team = 5 “Points”; 2nd-Team = 3 “Points” (i.e. 60% the value of 1st-Team selections); 3rd-Team rising, decade to decade, from very little up to 1.8 “Points” (again 60% of the value of 2nd-Team selections).

THE THREE (NEAR-) “EQUALITIES” (NEAR-“EQUALITY” OF: DECADES, LEAGUES & POSITIONS)
There still remain a number of important questions to address. THE most important of these, imo, is NOT such as: individual special attributes / skills, stats, and/or Post-Season performances; but, instead, how much to comparatively value the (8) different decades, (3) different Leagues, and (5) different positions.

BASIC ASSUMPTIONS:
1. RELATIVE “EQUALITY” OF “GREAT YEARS” AND DECADES: Starting with the 1960’s (what I consider to be the beginning of the “Modern Era” due to such as: integration and Wilt’s individual dominance), in my book a 1st-Team selection in any year is ESSENTIALLY EQUAL to a 1st-Team selection any other year. Same for 2nd-Team (and 3rd-Team) selections. This removes “ALL” the “My Decade” biases; placing the ALL-Time Great PLAYERS on a relatively even footing. In other words, imo, almost all All-Time Greats from any one decade can be assumed to have done virtually as well in any other decade (again, from the ‘60’s onwards; the period, 1938-1959 I pro-rate downwards based on the inferior level of play and players and the lower number of games per season.

I use the words, “RELATIVE ‘EQUALITY’” because, while I DO consider any 1st-Team selection relatively equal to any other (and similarly for 2nd-Team and 3rd-Team selections); I also acknowledge that the general level of play and players keeps improving, decade by decade. To reflect the “relative ‘equality’” of 1st-Teamers, since the 1960s they all get 5 “Points”. To reflect the improving overall quality of play/players, the 2nd-Teamers & 3rd-Teamers have been getting any ever-rising number of “Points” (peaking at 60% of the number of “Points” awarded to the next higher level). In other words, players in the 2010’s get more “Points” for 2nd-Team and 3rd-Team selections than do players from earlier decades.

2. RELATIVE “EQUALITY” OF LEAGUES: The NBL had existed for 8 years before the BAA was first established. CLEARLY, the general level of play, of the players and of the teams was decidedly superior in the NBL (as compared to those of the BAA) in the FIRST TWO YEARS of Dual-League existence. To reflect this, for those first two years, I allot my COMBINED 1st-Team (5 “Points”) ranking to the NBL’s 1st-Teamers; and my COMBINED 2nd-Team (3 “Points”) ranking to the BAA’s 1st-Teamers. (For the remaining 5 ALL-League selectees from each League – this leaves them with zero “Points”; i.e., they don’t credit for “Great Years” in those years.

For the 3rd Dual-League (NBL-BAA) year, I reverse this process; because by then, BAA play had improved generally AND most of the best NBL teams and players had joined the BAA.

Bare in mind that, as I indicated above, I PRORATE DOWNWARDS the “Points” value of those super-early “Great Years” – so 1st-Teamers don’t actually get 5 “Points” – they get less.

Likewise, for the 9 years of the Dual-League (ABA-NBA) years; I use a similar process;
In a decidedly more-complicated process, I’ve tried to pick the yearly “COMBINED” ALL-League 1st-Team players & 2nd-Team players. The basis upon which I did this was based primarily on three factors: the three sets of 3 successive years each (with the ABA’s comparative level rising from low the first three years to about equal by the last 3 years); the fact that the ABA was a “Forwards’ League” – so everything else being equal, I rank ABA 1st-Team Forwards higher than NBA 1st-Team Forwards); and an actual player-by-player comparison based on what I remember / read about those players those years.

(This was EASILY the most difficult part of “my” GOAT-ranking system to do; both in terms of figuring out the general guidelines necessary; and in terms of ranking of particularly players (in the ABA-NBA period).

3. “RELATIVE ‘EQUALITY’” OF POSITIONS: One of my most controversial unique positions is in regards to this question. I “recognize” two separate but competing “claims”. a) Historically Centers have been the most influential position generally (not so since circa 2000); yet b) The smaller the player/position, the more: running, cutting, stop-and-starting, passing, dribbling, etc. they do. This MUST COUNT for something too; something that TENDS to somewhat counterbalance the Centers’ historical advantage.

My solution to this “two-fold” challenge is “two-fold”.
First, I make a GOAT list PER POSITION ONLY. Once I have that, for each descending set of FIVE GOAT spots, I include ONE PLAYER PER POSITION. (So for GOAT #s 1-5, I have: KAJ, Magic, MJ, LBJ & TD; for GOAT #s 6-10: Wilt, Dr J, Kobe, “O” and Karl Malone. Etc. )

Second, in each descending set of 5 GOAT spots, the Center always ranks first (So KAJ is my GOAT #1, and Wilt is my GOAT #6, Shaq my GOAT #11, etc.)

Going back to my initial AIM, of building UNITY (based on some minimum-necessary good moral principles) FIRST, LAST & ALWAYS – my HOPE would be that MOST of NBA GOAT-list builders might someday accept / agree with this general system – so we’d all be in the same general ball-park INITIALLY! (And, naturally, the massive flame-warring would greatly subside – thus we might finally be able to have civilized discussions of this issue).

All of the above represents the FIRST, INITIAL step in my GOAT-list building system. I consider that what has been produced so far is both: quite FAIR (vis-à-vis: Years, Decades, changing Rules, Leagues, Positions, etc.) Decidedly more fair than any other system I’ve ever seen (and I’ve been making GOAT lists since the end of the 1960 season – Mikan was my GOAT #1 back then; but Wilt was already an Honorable Mention – it seemed clear that if he didn’t get injured, he’d pass him).

2ND STEP: FACTOR IN THE OTHER FACTORS: Post-Season Play/Results; Stats; Special Good / Bad Skills; etc
If we assume that what we’ve done so far is establish a relatively OBJECTIVE INITIAL GOAT list; in Step 2, we finally come to the “subjective” part. How much each GOAT list evaluator values all these other factors.

Post-Season Play/Results AND Stats need no expanded explanation. But permit to address “Special Good/Bad Skills”. Imo, the two best TEAM-mates ever have been: Magic and LeBron. Because it IS a TEAM sport, I value TEAM-work higher than anything else in this 2nd-Step phase (and, overall, only surpassed in value by the cumulative totals of “Great Years” for each player.

This is the MAIN reason why in my OVERALL GOAT list I have Magic as GOAT #2 and MJ as GOAT #3 – the superiority of Magic’s TEAM-work over MJ’s (often times glaring lack thereof), for me, trumps MJ’s otherwise more-dominant career. Likewise, given that LeBron’s career is not yet finished, the MAIN reason I would have him over a Kobe is likewise, imo, because LeBron’s been a better TEAM-mate.

So, during Step 2, I recommend that each NBA GOAT list builder, evaluate, player by player, all these “secondary” factors (secondary as compared to the “Great Years” factor).

As one can see, this allows each GOAT list builder a large amount of “say-so” in comparatively evaluating players.

3rd-STEP: I / YOU ONLY GET TO MOVE A PLAYER UP OR DOWN ONE POSITIONAL GOAT SPOT:
Were a system to allow full “free reign” during Step 2; Step 1 would, in the main, be overridden. To prevent that, and help all of us be more “objective”; I SUGGEST that each GOAT list builder only be “allowed” to alter the Step-1 INITIAL list in relatively small ways.

For example, at the SG position, my “Points” system ranks Kobe over MJ (Kobe DID have more Great Years). Their “Points” totals: Kobe = 63.9 “Points”; MJ -= 53 “Points”. That’s a BIG GAP! (About 20.5%). BUT, taking into account the other factors, particularly Play-Off performances, I BARELY move MJ ahead of Kobe. Position-wise, SG-wise, Kobe goes from my GOAT #1 SG to my GAOT #2 SG. (By the way, Jerry West, who I treat as a SG – has almost exactly the same number of initial “Points” as MJ (West = 55 “Points”, MY = 53 “Points”); so this allows me to shift MJ from APPROXIMATELY GOAT #2 SG to GOAT #1 SG.)

One other consideration in this 3rd-Step. Remembering my “Relative ‘EQUALITY’” of decades, I review my tentative final GOAT list to see if all the decades are “fairly” represented. Because I DO penalize the pre-1960 years, my tentative final GOAT list wouldn’t have hardly any pre-1960s players. But, remembering that Bob Pettit and Bob Cousy both had TEN 1st-Team ALL-League selections; though neither is one of my All-Time favorite players; I feel they EARNED a place in anybody’s GOAT Top 25. After all, in all these 80 years, ONLY TEN PLAYERS have ever racked up 10 1st-Team selections!

In terms of MY OWN GOAT list, I have Pettit with 44.5 “Points” and Cousy with 40.5 “Points”. This places each as the GOAT #3 at their respective position. Based on my system of one-position per descending set of 5 GOAT spots, I therefore have both of them in my range: GOAT #s 11-15; with Pettit as GOAT #14 and Cousy as GOAT #15. (So my concern for my own observance of the “Relative ‘Equality’ of Decades” “rule” is fully satisfied vis-à-vis the 1950s / early 1960s. That leaves only George Mikan.

In Mikan’s contra, his era was super-weak due to both its segregationism and the general poor level of play. In his favor, he dominated 7.4 or so years. His “Points” total is: 19; his overall INITIAL GOAT RANK is 45th or GOAT #11 Center. How I resolve this very contradictory appeals about his ranking is that I give him rank him PERMANENTLY as GOAT #50 (never to be lower than that). Btw, this would translate to him passing the GOAT #10 Center, Artis Gilmore (really a minor adjustment – sorry “A-Train”.

On the other hand, screw my principles, I think I’ll vote Mikan for GOAT #25 in these threads! lol

A couple of final thoughts:
A) Having a “Great Years” based initial GOAT list, like mine, is super-convenient – in ONE PLACE, you have MOST (but not ALL) of what you need. You take a quick look at it; and you MOSTLY know how my/your GOAT list will look.

B) Compared to most serious GOAT lists, my GOAT list is not all that dissimilar!

BILL RUSSELL & RED AUERBACH:
Bill Russell was my fifth favorite player of the 1960s (after: Baylor-West, “O” and Wilt, in that order). I got to see him LIVE a number of times; and, aside from his great play, his ABSOLUTE DIGNITY in the face of “his own” barbarically racist fans (constantly shouting out the “N” word at him and the other Black Celtics) – that historical level of dignity endeared me to him “forever”.

But, in terms of the similarity between my GOAT list and most others, Bill Russell is the one GLARING EXCEPTION - I have him decidedly lower than just about every other list I’ve ever seen. But again, in HIS OWN ERA at HIS OWN POSITION, another player, Wilt, DOMINATED Russell in the Regular Season to the tune of: Wilt = 7 1st-Team selections to Russell’s 2 1st-Team selections (in the 9 years in which they both were selected to either 1st or 2nd-Teams). For me, this says that Russell can not be in my GOAT Top 20. No player who was DOMINATED at their OWN POSITION during their OWN period can be in my GOAT Top 20.

This raises the HUGE question of: Pablo, how can you ignore Russell’s 11 Chips in 13 years? My answer to that is this: ERA-WISE, no coach was ever greater compared to the other coaches than Red Auerbach (who, because of his arrogance, I didn’t like; but otherwise always respected). Likewise, Red was the GOAT General Manager (at least ERA-WISE if not ALL-Time). The combination of his extraordinary coaching and General Managing means something one would think. Now remember that the Celtics won several series in 7 games and/or by 5 points or less (or in overtime). How much was Red’s influence worth in those games/series? I’d say EASILY: 3+ points a game. Imo, he was the real “MVP” of the GOAT Major League Dynasty. This, implies that Russell’s role, IMO, was decidedly less than just about everybody else gives him credit for.

[dhsilv2]

An interesting read for sure. I'm not sure I can agree that 3rd team should be lesser than a 2nd team when talking about a league with 3-4x the players, but an enjoyable look into one's thought process.

[Doctor MJ]

Vote: Bob Pettit
Alt: Steve Nash

As I said in the other thread, pretty dang unexpected for Paul to take that one, and the moment something like that happened there was bound to be some dissatisfaction. Stuff like that happens with the system we've chosen. Other stuff people don't like happens with other systems. Try not to get too bent out of shape about it.

I feel the need to address a specific thing here with regards to Pettit and Baylor:

Baylor in 1961: 35ppg 20rpg
Pettit in 1961: 28/20

Apologies up front for chopping other stuff out. I don't want to pretend this is all of euroleague's argument, but clearly it in and of itself was presented as if it was an argument. Baylor scoring a bunch more than Pettit.

Here's the thing: That Laker offense was not effective. The Hawks frankly weren't great either, but there's a fundamental issue in my mind:

If a guy jacks up tons of shots on an offense that's not very effective, it's important not to look at his scoring volume as if every point he scored is an accomplishment.

It's worth noting also that the Laker offense took a major leap forward the following year...when Baylor missed almost half the season and West was allowed to take on a more central role. All part of the recurring them of Baylor just not seeming to be as effective as folks thought he was.

Before I leave this though, I should fully acknowledge that when I look at the Hawks offensive ratings, they aren't that great in general in Pettit's waning years. I didn't recollect this, and perhaps someone can make an argument that I've been overrating Pettit. Part of what I like about Pettit though is that his case isn't based on him scoring tons and tons of points. He volume scored, but did so in more balance with his team, and continued to work to become more efficient with time. This along with his peak accomplishments and general reputation for fundamentals tend to make me have little reason to doubt his historical standing the way I do with others (Mikan, Cousy, Baylor, etc)

Alright, on to the 2nd spot. Guys I've been thinking about:

Ewing - I was surprised to find that Nash actually has more Win Shares than Ewing. The stat very much underrates Nash in my opinion, so it's difficult for someone lower than him in the stat to get placed ahead of him. Ewing by contrast while I respect him, it is pretty clear to me that his standing at times was overestimated.

Mikan - I just can't make the argument effectively for him over Ewing.

Curry - Here I largely sided with Nash on a tiebreak. I can make great arguments for Nash over Curry, but I can also make arguments for Curry over Nash. I think in the end the thing for me is that while I consider Curry a Rushmore type player in terms of historical relevance, I also consider Nash that. Nash to this point has a major longevity edge which allows him an argument for GOAT offensive player, and Curry to this point really is only relevant in a peak debate.

Durant - I'm pretty firmly Curry over Durant right now.

Guys I haven't talked about so much that are looming on my horizons:

Walt Frazier, Pippen, Barry, Hondo...and Reggie Miller

[JoeMalburg]

Kevin Durant
10 seasons (2007-2017)
7 healthy prime seasons
2014 NBA MVP
7x All-NBA (5x first team)
4x scoring Champion
Prime RS averages of 29-8-4 on .621 TS%
Prime RS PER of 27.0
119.8 Career Win Shares (48th all-time)
3.119 Career MVP Shares (14th all-time)
.219 career win shares per 48
6x top 5 MVP
3x second place in MVP voting
7 playoff appearances
29-8-4 on .588 TS% in 106 postseason games
14-6 team record in playoff series
Played in 2 NBA Finals
1 Championship (2017)
1 Finals MVP (2017)

Win Shares per/48
2010: 3rd
2011: 12th
2012: 3rd
2013: 2nd
2014: 1st
2015: injured - missed 55 games
2016: 3rd
2017: 1st

PER
2010: 3rd
2011: 7th
2012: 4th
2013: 3nd
2014: 1st
2015: injured - missed 55 games
2016: 2nd
2017: 2nd







Bob Pettit
11 seasons (1954-1965)
10 healthy prime seasons
2-time MVP; 1955, 1959
11x All-NBA (10x first team)
2x scoring Champion
Prime RS averages of 27-17-3 on .510 TS%
Prime RS PER of 25.5
136.0 Career Win Shares (33rd all-time)
.213 career win shares per 48
2.671 Career MVP Shares (18th all-time)
8x top 5 MVP
2x second place in MVP voting
9 playoff appearances
26-15-3 on .501 TS% in 88 postseason games
8-8 team record in playoff series
Played in 4 NBA Finals
1 Championship (1958)
1 Finals MVP (1958, award wasn’t given out yet, but he had 50 in the closeout game and averaged 29-17-3 in Finals)

Win Shares per/48
1955: 6th
1956: 3rd
1957: 2nd
1958: 5th
1959: 2nd
1960: 8th
1961: 2nd
1962: 8th
1963: 4th
1964: 5th

PER
1955: 2nd
1956: 1st
1957: 1st
1958: 1st
1959: 1st
1960: 3rd
1961: 4th
1962: 5th
1963: 3rd
1964: 4th

[Pablo Novi]

An interesting read for sure. I'm not sure I can agree that 3rd team should be lesser than a 2nd team when talking about a league with 3-4x the players, but an enjoyable look into one's thought process.

Gracias (thanx).
That post "only" took me 3+ hours - yikes ! lol

Hey, seeing as how I was born "half-calculator / half-boy"; and have ALWAYS paid lots of attention to any and all numbers; I just noticed that you joined shortly before I did and have a little more than 20% more posts than I do. OTOH, I have more and1s so far.

IF and1s = All-RealGM 1st-Team selections (5 "Points" each); and
Total number of posts = All-RealGM 2nd-Team selections (3 "Points" each)
then ...
We're even closer to each other; call it co-RealGM All-Stars! lol

[mischievous]

Yeah so, i knew that Mikan had bad longevity, but i didn't realize how bad it was until I actually looked into it. Basically 6.5 seasons and only 439 games total. He'd have to basically be performing at a Jordan/Lebron level in all those games for him to be a top 25 player. I'm just not seeing it guys.

[wojoaderge]

Yeah so, i knew that Mikan had bad longevity, but i didn't realize how bad it was until I actually looked into it. Basically 6.5 seasons and only 439 games total. He'd have to basically be performing at a Jordan/Lebron level in all those games for him to be a top 25 player. I'm just not seeing it guys.

https://www.basketball-reference.com/nbl/players/m/mikange01n.html

[JoeMalburg]

Yeah so, i knew that Mikan had bad longevity, but i didn't realize how bad it was until I actually looked into it. Basically 6.5 seasons and only 439 games total. He'd have to basically be performing at a Jordan/Lebron level in all those games for him to be a top 25 player. I'm just not seeing it guys.

You need to look deeper and/or read these threads more carefully. It's been discussed, Mikan has 8 full seasons of pro basketball from 1946-1954 and then a short-lived return from retirement in 55-56.

And the reason you're not seeing it is because you don't want to. Like Jordan and LeBron he was clearly the best among his peers and like them his team was always a contender. So if you're not seeing it, that's on you, not on Big George or the events that actually happened.

[mischievous]

Yeah so, i knew that Mikan had bad longevity, but i didn't realize how bad it was until I actually looked into it. Basically 6.5 seasons and only 439 games total. He'd have to basically be performing at a Jordan/Lebron level in all those games for him to be a top 25 player. I'm just not seeing it guys.

You need to look deeper and/or read these threads more carefully. It's been discussed, Mikan has 8 full seasons of pro basketball from 1946-1954 and then a short-lived return from retirement in 55-56.

And the reason you're not seeing it is because you don't want to. Like Jordan and LeBron he was clearly the best among his peers and like them his team was always a contender. So if you're not seeing it, that's on you, not on Big George or the events that actually happened.

This being the best among peers reasoning doesn't make sense when your competition is pretty nonexistent. If i go to the basketball court in my town and dominate some 14 year olds at a level never seen before does that make me some sort of legend?

That example is hyperbolic but the point should be taken.

[mischievous]

Yeah so, i knew that Mikan had bad longevity, but i didn't realize how bad it was until I actually looked into it. Basically 6.5 seasons and only 439 games total. He'd have to basically be performing at a Jordan/Lebron level in all those games for him to be a top 25 player. I'm just not seeing it guys.

https://www.basketball-reference.com/nbl/players/m/mikange01n.html

So that's 81 more games, basically a full season today in a league nobody actually knows anything about other than from possible hear say.

[JoeMalburg]

This being the best among peers reasoning doesn't make sense when your competition is pretty nonexistent. If i go to the basketball court in my town and dominate some 14 year olds at a level never seen before does that make me some sort of legend?

That example is hyperbolic but the point should be taken.

There is a huge difference which renders the point moot. There weren't better collections of basketball talent anywhere in the country than the competition George faced. You could find better comp than a group of 14 year olds in one small town.

[wojoaderge]

Yeah so, i knew that Mikan had bad longevity, but i didn't realize how bad it was until I actually looked into it. Basically 6.5 seasons and only 439 games total. He'd have to basically be performing at a Jordan/Lebron level in all those games for him to be a top 25 player. I'm just not seeing it guys.

https://www.basketball-reference.com/nbl/players/m/mikange01n.html

So that's 81 more games, basically a full season today in a league nobody actually knows anything about other than from possible hear say.

This top 100 list is to comprise the greatest in all of BAA/NBA/ABA history (EDIT: where Mikan is concerned, you may also consider NBL as far back as '47).

[Doctor MJ]

This being the best among peers reasoning doesn't make sense when your competition is pretty nonexistent. If i go to the basketball court in my town and dominate some 14 year olds at a level never seen before does that make me some sort of legend?

That example is hyperbolic but the point should be taken.

There is a huge difference which renders the point moot. There weren't better collections of basketball talent anywhere in the country than the competition George faced. You could find better comp than a group of 14 year olds in one small town.

While I don't disagree with the statement, now would be a good time for people to look up Bob Kurland.

http://www.hoophall.com/hall-of-famers/bob-kurland/

Basically these were the two top players from 1940s college ball (Kurland's team won 2 national championships, Mikan's none, and they played once for the title, Mikan went pro, Kurland instead played for the Phillips 66 Oilers, basically playing for his company's team, and his company undoubtedly giving him some cushy benefits.

Here's another article in which Kurland talkes about playing against Mikan:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/sports/1982/12/09/kurland-mikan-the-start-of-something-big/0b192110-3ed3-41e1-86c2-0da98df67e2d/?utm_term=.7ec02382a638

So yeah, in addition to the players of the day being amateurs, many top talents undoubtedly never even playing the game, and Mikan not playing very long, the other guy we know of who was considered a talent up with MIkan chose to play in a different league.

[JoeMalburg]

This being the best among peers reasoning doesn't make sense when your competition is pretty nonexistent. If i go to the basketball court in my town and dominate some 14 year olds at a level never seen before does that make me some sort of legend?

That example is hyperbolic but the point should be taken.

There is a huge difference which renders the point moot. There weren't better collections of basketball talent anywhere in the country than the competition George faced. You could find better comp than a group of 14 year olds in one small town.

While I don't disagree with the statement, now would be a good time for people to look up Bob Kurland.

http://www.hoophall.com/hall-of-famers/bob-kurland/

Basically these were the two top players from 1940s college ball (Kurland's team won 2 national championships, Mikan's none, and they played once for the title, Mikan went pro, Kurland instead played for the Phillips 66 Oilers, basically playing for his company's team, and his company undoubtedly giving him some cushy benefits.

Here's another article in which Kurland talkes about playing against Mikan:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/sports/1982/12/09/kurland-mikan-the-start-of-something-big/0b192110-3ed3-41e1-86c2-0da98df67e2d/?utm_term=.7ec02382a638

So yeah, in addition to the players of the day being amateurs, many top talents undoubtedly never even playing the game, and Mikan not playing very long, the other guy we know of who was considered a talent up with MIkan chose to play in a different league.

Had the argument been approached from that background, as it has been by some here, it's fine. It's valid, there is a worthwhile discussion to be had about the degree to which applying punitive perspective is productive.

Instead the argument was presented in a dismissive way, without enough time/thought being given as to just read the posts within the last five threads by other users here. No additional research.

The only thing I directly disputed in my retort was his/her specific analogy.

To your point though, do we give the same type of "not playing against ALL the best players" criticism to the centers of the late 80's and 90's who never saw a prime Sabonis?

Or the dozens of other potential NBA guys who were not allowed to play here?

I'm not asking to be argumentative, I'm just curious if this is a perpetual self-invalidating form of evaluation that we're setting up as the game continues to grow in terms of popularity and the talent pool and sophistication of strategy, training, skill development and nutrition enivrtsbly evolve as well.

Largely I admit it's my own razor slicing off as much complication as I can to simplify the process and maintain a definable/defendable consistency. But I do find it helpful to just measure the guys versus who they played when they played them.

[Lou Fan]

This being the best among peers reasoning doesn't make sense when your competition is pretty nonexistent. If i go to the basketball court in my town and dominate some 14 year olds at a level never seen before does that make me some sort of legend?

That example is hyperbolic but the point should be taken.

There is a huge difference which renders the point moot. There weren't better collections of basketball talent anywhere in the country than the competition George faced. You could find better comp than a group of 14 year olds in one small town.

I disagree. This is exactly how I feel about Mikan. As he said the example is hyperbolic but what he means to convey with the analogy is on point. You think his point is moot because you choose not to see it.