RealGM 2017 Top 100 List: #24

[wojoaderge]

other “Black Liberation” Movement leaders

United Slaves?

[THKNKG]

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.

These thoughts encompass much of what I feel about Nash. He is a superlative offensive player, and produced more cumulative "lift" to his team than any other player on the list has.

Vote: Steve Nash
2nd: Patrick Ewing

[dhsilv2]

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.

I don't know if we have as many extremes, but into the 60's we had professional level players choosing to go into professional work instead of going into the league, reducing the talent of benches, and possibly we had a decent number of potential all-stars that just needed a few more years that just never happened. It seems both accurate and wrong to penalize a player for being the best of the best professional basketball players and I'm not sure when we can officially say "95% of the best college players went pro".

I think to a degree we have to value what peopel did against their peers, but I think the size of the league should be reflected in the voting (3x players played in the 90's, 2-3x more players from the 90's should make a top 100 than say the 60's).

[Dr Positivity]

Also Mikan should NOT go here or anywhere in the 20s. Era usually isn't a huge deal for me but the weakness of Mikan's era really shouldn't be overlooked. I just don't think he was a good basketball player. I don't think he could play D-1 basketball today. I think I'm probably a better player than he was and my best scholarship offer was from Chicago State (I didn't go there I go to Duke University go Blue Devils). I don't think that about Russell or even Petit and I just don't feel like pioneer points put him over the likes of Ewing, Curry, Nash and others being discussed here. The game outgrew him by the time he was 30. He attempted a comeback at age 31 wasn't very good and then retired again.

To defend Mikan - he may not have played long after the shotclock, but he played against some other players who did. Cousy, Schayes, Arizin started their career in Mikan era and were still star level players in late 50s and early 60s. Some players like Johnston and Sharman had a few good seasons after shotclock as well. When he played against them Mikan was better. So I think that means something. If the league jumped 10 levels between 54 and 60 players enough to make a player of Mikan's level obsolete, his peers like Cousy, Schayes, Arizin should've suffered as much. Their careers however basically played out as you would expect them to, until they declined in their early 30s. There is an argument to be made to detract all these guys for not having integrated enough league yet though, even by late 50s and early 60s. As for his retirement/stats in his comeback year, Mikan was over 30, his body was a mess and rust would be a factor, probably even moreso than for Jordan in 95 who at least was in pro sports mode while he was gone. Mikan apparently was working hard and in shape as much as he could, they didn't pull him off the couch, but everyone knows there's a difference between regular person good shape and pro sports good shape and he may not have hit the latter in time. With all those factors working against him post comeback Mikan still wasn't a disaster, he had 17.8 PER, .098 WS/48, he was the best per minute rebounder on his team and 2nd in Pts/36, the biggest thing holding him back was inefficiency which could be explained by rust to some extent

I used to have the picture of Mikan as this big slumbering C, who then could barley make it up and down the court when the post shotclock pace kicked in. But I don't think it was the case. It sounds like Mikan was known for having great speed for his position and being a big guy who moved like a little guy. This would help him translate to post shotclock if he was healthier and younger

[JoeMalburg]

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.

I don't know if we have as many extremes, but into the 60's we had professional level players choosing to go into professional work instead of going into the league, reducing the talent of benches, and possibly we had a decent number of potential all-stars that just needed a few more years that just never happened. It seems both accurate and wrong to penalize a player for being the best of the best professional basketball players and I'm not sure when we can officially say "95% of the best college players went pro".

I think to a degree we have to value what peopel did against their peers, but I think the size of the league should be reflected in the voting (3x players played in the 90's, 2-3x more players from the 90's should make a top 100 than say the 60's).

It's a very fine line to walk. It's obviously not the fault of any given player, but just as obviously said player could benefit from it.

For me the requisite is critical thinking.

If you've taken the time to honestly consider the issue and can explain your reasoning with fact based conclusions, I have a hard time debating since it's such an incompletely excavated subject.

Lots of room for valid interpretation.

[euroleague]

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.

He clearly carried a bigger load for his team, pre- Jerry West. While the Lakers did well in Baylor's absence, part of that was the emergence of Jerry West as a star after he had the opportunity to have a bigger role.

Baylor carried the last place team to the finals OVER pettit's hawks - when pettit had hagan and legit other players on his team.



When MJ left, the Bulls did pretty well even without Rodman. Pippen may won without MJ in 94, if Rodman was on that team. They lost in 95 with MJ.
When Ewing was injured, the knicks did better than they did when he played.
When KD was injured last year, the warriors went on a great winning spree, only losing 1 game after that.
When Shaq was injured in 96, Penny and the Magic went 18-3 (or so), better than when he was in the game.
When Kareem was injured in 80, the Lakers won the championship.

When there is a legit second star with limited responsibility, removing the first option can create more oppurtunity and the team doesn't take a 'huge' step back. Jerry West clearly has team-building skills, as we can see from his time as the primary option for the Lakers and his time in the front-office post-retirement.

[JoeMalburg]

A wonderful piece from 1985 discussing the expectations for Patrick Ewing in New York and the NBA writ large.

http://www.nytimes.com/1985/09/29/magazine/patrick-ewing-and-the-art-of-defense.html?pagewanted=all

[Narigo]

For anyone voting Steve Nash, how good was his defense?

If we looking at box score metrics, Nash is ranked 22nd all-time in career OBPM. https://www.basketball-reference.com/leaders/obpm_career.html Nash's overall BPM is brought down by his awful defense.

[Pablo Novi]

other “Black Liberation” Movement leaders

United Slaves?

A Super-Militant Demonstration In Oakland, Civil War In Mexico City
Simultaneously: Too funny yet not really off the mark.

US-national Black Organizations Go "To War" With Each Other (with FBI "help")
Actually, some of them were (important) leaders of Black Lib. organizations that didn't exactly get along at all with the Black Panthers - heck, they had a running series of armed shoot outs where several leaders of both got gunned down. (We later found out that thru the COINTELPRO FBI program, both organizations had been severely infiltrated with agents-provocateur whose main job it was was to spy and caused armed divisions - divide and conquer.

PUFO (People United to Fight Oppression) & the ALSC (African Liberation Support Committee:
I ended up being the #1 guy and representative of a coalition called, "PUFO (People United to Fight Oppression)" - we organized in the San Diego - Tijuana region: in support mostly of national-minority people (the "Camp Pendleton 14" - 14 Black soldiers who gpt set up by the military for standing up for their rights; other Black community leaders; a number of Mexican-American people; even some kids from Tijuana who got harassed (or even shot to death) by the "Migra" (INS).

We also did heavy solidarity work (including fund-raising, clothes-drives, etc) in support of the (armed) struggle in South Africa against the racist Apartheid regime (of the Afrikaners).

PUFO eventually became a chapter of the ALSC (African Liberation Support Committee) - a US-wide very-militant group of 10,000+ members. As the San Diego Chapter representative, I went to one of ALSC's National Congresses in D.C.; both participating in a march and participating in the actual Congress meetings - it was a HUGE hall, there were several hundreds of serious organizers / activists - I was one of the only white faces amongst everybody.

Black Panther Party Mass Demonstration In Oakland, California:
I also went from San Diego up to Oakland, California by invitation; to participate in, and speak at a Black Panther Party (BPP) rally.
That HAD to have been one of the 10 or so most militant demonstrations in the entire history of the US. (I count "everything" and while waiting up on the stage to give my small solidarity speech, I counted over 16,000 (almost all Black) people. The park was completely surrounded by police (armed to the teeth) but they didn't dare try to enter the park - they would have been routed.

While I was up on stage, two of the three TOP BPP leaders, Bobby Seale and Huey P. Newton (the third, Eldridge Cleaver, was serving one of his stints behind bars) came up to me and actually shook my hand; thanking me and San Diego for all our work. I was so stunned, that when it was my turn to speak I had trouble, at first, getting my mouth muscles to work.

THE highlight of that rally was when, at the very end of their last speech, they screamed out, "The Only Solution To This Pollution Is Revolution!" and the crowd erupted in a ROAR that echoed in my head for weeks. Wow.

One thing that struck me as so weird about the BPP was that they simultaneously organized: Kindergartens & Food-Drives with the selling of "Chairman Mao's Little Red Book" (of quotes). What one had to do with the other I never had any idea - but they worked very hard at both. They also rode, 4 shotguns to a car, behind all the cop cars in the city - ensuring no more Blacks there would be gunned down by the cops.

A TOTALLY PEACEFUL MEXICO CITY DEMONSTRATION OF 1,000,000 PEOPLE TURNS INTO A POLICE-RIOT & THEN CIVIL WAR:
Similar things happened when I was "on tour" in Mexico. To give you-all an idea of the differences in the level of struggle between the two countries; I attended a march-rally (and leadership Conference) in Mexico City. At the Conference, there were the heads of 16 individual self-proclaimed "revolutionary" Parties - in a coalition called UNIR (Union Nacional de la Izquierda Revolucionaria - National Union of the Revolutionary Left) - a very influential and ultra-radical "United Front". Amongst the things discussed there were the next-day's march.

One million plus people showed up in the very center of Mexico City, "El Zocalo", the National Plaza. The authorities decided that there were too many people, too peaceful, too united; and physically attacked en masse. Literally civil war broke out, eventually enveloping large swathes of that city of 20+ million people. I got swept up within the crowd as the police / army and other armed forces physically drove us out of the plaza. The section of people I went with ended up in the 2nd most important place in the City and country - "La Alameda Centra" (Central Park) in front of the most important monument, "El Hemiciclo Juarez" (The (great Mexican President) Benito Juarez's Semi-circle). There, the people decided they had enough and started fighting back. Bricks, rocks, Molotov Cocktails went flying. Bodies were falling everyone on both sides. The people eventually ROUTED the police/army and chased them thru the streets up thru the night. (Attempts at reprisals turned into more pitched battles over the following months).

So, compared to that Black Panther Party rally, what happened in Mexico City was 1,000s of times more radical.

"A Day In The Life".

[trex_8063]

Also Mikan should NOT go here or anywhere in the 20s. Era usually isn't a huge deal for me but the weakness of Mikan's era really shouldn't be overlooked. I just don't think he was a good basketball player. I don't think he could play D-1 basketball today. I think I'm probably a better player than he was and my best scholarship offer was from Chicago State (I didn't go there I go to Duke University go Blue Devils). I don't think that about Russell or even Petit and I just don't feel like pioneer points put him over the likes of Ewing, Curry, Nash and others being discussed here. The game outgrew him by the time he was 30. He attempted a comeback at age 31 wasn't very good and then retired again.

To defend Mikan - he may not have played long after the shotclock, but he played against some other players who did. Cousy, Schayes, Arizin started their career in Mikan era and were still star level players in late 50s and early 60s. Some players like Johnston and Sharman had a few good seasons after shotclock as well. When he played against them Mikan was better. So I think that means something. If the league jumped 10 levels between 54 and 60 players enough to make a player of Mikan's level obsolete, his peers like Cousy, Schayes, Arizin should've suffered as much. Their careers however basically played out as you would expect them to, until they declined in their early 30s. There is an argument to be made to detract all these guys for not having integrated enough league yet though, even by late 50s and early 60s. As for his retirement/stats in his comeback year, Mikan was over 30, his body was a mess and rust would be a factor, probably even moreso than for Jordan in 95 who at least was in pro sports mode while he was gone. Mikan apparently was working hard and in shape as much as he could, they didn't pull him off the couch, but everyone knows there's a difference between regular person good shape and pro sports good shape and he may not have hit the latter in time. With all those factors working against him post comeback Mikan still wasn't a disaster, he had 17.8 PER, .098 WS/48, he was the best per minute rebounder on his team and 2nd in Pts/36....

I'd also like to point out the '56 Lakers were 19-18 (.514) in the 37 games he played in, and were 14-21 (.400) in the 35 games without him.

[trex_8063]

Thru post #70:

Bob Pettit - 5 (dhsilv2, Dr Positivity, Doctor MJ, Pablo Novi, scabbarista)
George Mikan - 5 (Winsome Gerbil, wojoaderge, penbeast0, JordansBulls, Joao Saraiva)
Patrick Ewing - 3 (Clyde Frazier, Hornet Mania, trex_8063)
Kevin Durant - 2 (pandrade83, andrewww)
Stephen Curry - 1 (twolves97)
Steve Nash - 1 (micahclay)
Bob Cousy - 1 (euroleague)


Thread will be open about 16-18 more hours (tomorrow afternoon).

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

[oldschooled]

Damn. Chris Paul is your 23rd greatest player of all time gents. Cant believe he leapfrogged multiple MVP winners (Mikan, Pettit, Nash and Curry) and multiple champions. Just wow.

Paul is like one of the golden boys around here. He keeps failing and getting injured and yet somehow keeps moving up the list. I feel like he's one of those guys who people take over other players because they just like him more.

I know and its fckin nauseating. Someone said in the previous thread Paul's like the guard version of KG here in RealGM. Damn right.

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.

Ok i literally almost spitted my coffee after this. Cmon man All due respect to penbeast.

As from my previous post, i'll take Curry for my 24th.

Alt: Bob Pettit

[Pablo Novi]

Thru post #70:

Bob Pettit - 5 (dhsilv2, Dr Positivity, Doctor MJ, Pablo Novi, scabbarista)
George Mikan - 5 (Winsome Gerbil, wojoaderge, penbeast0, JordansBulls, Joao Saraiva)
Patrick Ewing - 3 (Clyde Frazier, Hornet Mania, trex_8063)
Kevin Durant - 2 (pandrade83, andrewww)
Stephen Curry - 1 (twolves97)
Steve Nash - 1 (micahclay)
Bob Cousy - 1 (euroleague)


Thread will be open about 16-18 more hours (tomorrow afternoon).

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

Thanx again for your continued fine work on these threads.
I note that, for the first time in my almost 20 GOAT threads, I might be backing the player who gets voted in. (Pettit in this case).

A thought for some time in the future? Someone else mentioned this too - perhaps our voting system should have a 3rd-place vote - so there'd be less "ghost" votes - and the results MIGHT even better reflect people's choices than our already-good current system?

[wojoaderge]

other “Black Liberation” Movement leaders

United Slaves?

A Super-Militant Demonstration In Oakland, Civil War In Mexico City
Simultaneously: Too funny yet not really off the mark.

US-national Black Organizations Go "To War" With Each Other (with FBI "help")
Actually, some of them were (important) leaders of Black Lib. organizations that didn't exactly get along at all with the Black Panthers - heck, they had a running series of armed shoot outs where several leaders of both got gunned down. (We later found out that thru the COINTELPRO FBI program, both organizations had been severely infiltrated with agents-provocateur whose main job it was was to spy and caused armed divisions - divide and conquer.

PUFO (People United to Fight Oppression) & the ALSC (African Liberation Support Committee:
I ended up being the #1 guy and representative of a coalition called, "PUFO (People United to Fight Oppression)" - we organized in the San Diego - Tijuana region: in support mostly of national-minority people (the "Camp Pendleton 14" - 14 Black soldiers who gpt set up by the military for standing up for their rights; other Black community leaders; a number of Mexican-American people; even some kids from Tijuana who got harassed (or even shot to death) by the "Migra" (INS).

We also did heavy solidarity work (including fund-raising, clothes-drives, etc) in support of the (armed) struggle in South Africa against the racist Apartheid regime (of the Afrikaners).

PUFO eventually became a chapter of the ALSC (African Liberation Support Committee) - a US-wide very-militant group of 10,000+ members. As the San Diego Chapter representative, I went to one of ALSC's National Congresses in D.C.; both participating in a march and participating in the actual Congress meetings - it was a HUGE hall, there were several hundreds of serious organizers / activists - I was one of the only white faces amongst everybody.

Black Panther Party Mass Demonstration In Oakland, California:
I also went from San Diego up to Oakland, California by invitation; to participate in, and speak at a Black Panther Party (BPP) rally.
That HAD to have been one of the 10 or so most militant demonstrations in the entire history of the US. (I count "everything" and while waiting up on the stage to give my small solidarity speech, I counted over 16,000 (almost all Black) people. The park was completely surrounded by police (armed to the teeth) but they didn't dare try to enter the park - they would have been routed.

While I was up on stage, two of the three TOP BPP leaders, Bobby Seale and Huey P. Newton (the third, Eldridge Cleaver, was serving one of his stints behind bars) came up to me and actually shook my hand; thanking me and San Diego for all our work. I was so stunned, that when it was my turn to speak I had trouble, at first, getting my mouth muscles to work.

THE highlight of that rally was when, at the very end of their last speech, they screamed out, "The Only Solution To This Pollution Is Revolution!" and the crowd erupted in a ROAR that echoed in my head for weeks. Wow.

One thing that struck me as so weird about the BPP was that they simultaneously organized: Kindergartens & Food-Drives with the selling of "Chairman Mao's Little Red Book" (of quotes). What one had to do with the other I never had any idea - but they worked very hard at both. They also rode, 4 shotguns to a car, behind all the cop cars in the city - ensuring no more Blacks there would be gunned down by the cops.

A TOTALLY PEACEFUL MEXICO CITY DEMONSTRATION OF 1,000,000 PEOPLE TURNS INTO A POLICE-RIOT & THEN CIVIL WAR:
Similar things happened when I was "on tour" in Mexico. To give you-all an idea of the differences in the level of struggle between the two countries; I attended a march-rally (and leadership Conference) in Mexico City. At the Conference, there were the heads of 16 individual self-proclaimed "revolutionary" Parties - in a coalition called UNIR (Union Nacional de la Izquierda Revolucionaria - National Union of the Revolutionary Left) - a very influential and ultra-radical "United Front". Amongst the things discussed there were the next-day's march.

One million plus people showed up in the very center of Mexico City, "El Zocalo", the National Plaza. The authorities decided that there were too many people, too peaceful, too united; and physically attacked en masse. Literally civil war broke out, eventually enveloping large swathes of that city of 20+ million people. I got swept up within the crowd as the police / army and other armed forces physically drove us out of the plaza. The section of people I went with ended up in the 2nd most important place in the City and country - "La Alameda Centra" (Central Park) in front of the most important monument, "El Hemiciclo Juarez" (The (great Mexican President) Benito Juarez's Semi-circle). There, the people decided they had enough and started fighting back. Bricks, rocks, Molotov Cocktails went flying. Bodies were falling everyone on both sides. The people eventually ROUTED the police/army and chased them thru the streets up thru the night. (Attempts at reprisals turned into more pitched battles over the following months).

So, compared to that Black Panther Party rally, what happened in Mexico City was 1,000s of times more radical.

"A Day In The Life".

Very, very cool

[trex_8063]

Also Mikan should NOT go here or anywhere in the 20s. Era usually isn't a huge deal for me but the weakness of Mikan's era really shouldn't be overlooked. I just don't think he was a good basketball player. I don't think he could play D-1 basketball today. I think I'm probably a better player than he was and my best scholarship offer was from Chicago State (I didn't go there I go to Duke University go Blue Devils).

Although I’m not voting for Mikan yet, I’m disappointed in the sentiment here, especially the bolded segment, which imo denotes skewed or incomplete consideration of all factors.

I realize there’s a range of possibilities as far as how good Mikan could be in a modern context, but I’m repeatedly upset by how many will casually leap to the absolute lowest potential on the spectrum, as you have done here.

I mean let’s look at what we have with Mikan, starting with the physical….


Size
The WCA archive lists Mikan as 6’9” without shoes (same height as Dwight Howard---who is listed at 6’11”), though I could swear I remember reading somewhere that Mikan measured 6’9.5” without shoes, but I can’t remember the source. Other sources…...
There’s this famous SI cover where [old man, possibly marginally shrunk] Mikan looks only about 3” shorter than Kareem (who’s listed at 7’2”).
And there’s this (post #13) photo in which he looks not even 2” shorter than Wilt (who was listed as 7’1”, and iirc was known to be 7’0.5” without shoes).

In short, Mikan would easily be listed 6’11” in today’s league; slim chance he might even be listed 7’0” (especially if we believe things like nutrition of the time and more exposure to second-hand smoke perhaps marginally stunted his growth in his own time).
His weight during his playing career in the BAA/NBA ranged between ~245-260 lbs (249 lbs specifically noted at training camp prior to ‘54 season).
Bear in mind this is during an era BEFORE weight training was facilitated or encouraged (in fact, it was even active DIScouraged on the assumption that extra muscle mass would both effect one’s shot and interfere with endurance). And that’s not like fat weight, as you can see from any number of photos you can find on a Google search (I'd post some I've on file, but Photobucket has changed their 3rd party hosting recently, which sucks).

Suffice to say that was his reasonably lean body weight, just on the basis of his natural physique, which doesn’t look too shabby in those photos (broad shouldered, lean but wiry arms, strong-looking legs).


Other Athletic Attributes
Combine those above specs with what we see just in the first minute or so of this scouting film by WCA:

Watch on YouTube

Is he any slower or less fleet of foot than players like Brook or Robin Lopez, Joakim Noah, Kendrick Perkins, or the final 6-8 seasons of Tim Duncan? I don’t think so.

He appears substantially MORE athletic [faster, less gravity-bound] than someone like Bill Laimbeer, who was listed at 6’11”, but I saw Laimbeer in person recently at the airport, and I’ll eat my hat if he was taller than 6’9” or maybe 6’9.5” (wearing thin-soled dress-casual loafers); he’s not THAT old, I doubt he could have shrunk much. I saw him next to Herb Williams (who was listed 6’10” in his career), and Herb looked exactly the same height or possibly even ~0.5” taller.
And Laimbeer had a nearly 14-year career (4-time All-Star) in the semi-recent era, because he was smart, tough and physical, and could shoot.


In summary, there doesn’t appear to be any overt physical limitation which would prevent him from being capable of a successful NBA career in a more modern context.


Let’s talk skills….
You said you think you’re better, and from a modern standard of skillset, you’re likely right. But I’ll ask you: how do you think you came to be better?

Did you or did you not have exposure to modern stars (via TV, NBA TV, YouTube, etc) growing up?
Did you or did you not try to ape what those stars were doing as you were developing your game (shot mechanics, specific moves, etc)?
Were all of your peers doing the same thing, such that you had that kind of constant feedback loop (seeing what works and what doesn't, etc), and all challenging and pushing each other in developing these aped skills?
Did you or did you not learn drills from coaches or peers to practice skills which either were not allowed or otherwise had not yet even been pioneered in Mikan’s day?

I’ve not seen you play, but I’m willing to bet you’re not an extreme outlier---in this era----in your basketball skills. There are likely thousands (or perhaps tens of thousands) of other kids and young men around the globe who are as good or better than you and basically every single basketball skill. Otherwise (and I do NOT mean this as an insult, but rather just pointing out the factoid that you shared as a means of illustrating the point) you’d have received a scholarship from something bigger Chicago State.
So, given the skills you possess are so accessible to thousands of young players today, I think it’s pure generational arrogance and vanity to assume a prior generation couldn’t also find these skills just as accessible if they were afforded all the same influences you were…..particularly one who seemed as far ahead of the basketball curve as Mikan appeared to be at the time.

And just as a suggestion that it wasn’t ONLY his size that enabled him to dominate, just going to list a few other similar sized chaps from the same era, and what kind of players they were:

George Mikan (‘49-’54, ‘56)
23.1 ppg/13.4 rpg/2.8 apg @ 48.3% TS
DRtg available beginning in ‘51; from ‘51 to ‘54 he anchored three #1 defenses and one #2 defense (as good as -7.6 rDRTG---in the running for most dominant ever, proportionally; in the two years prior to DRTG, Lakers were #1 and #2 respectively in pts/allowed).

Ed Mikan (‘49-’54) 6’8”, 230 lbs
6.7 ppg, 5.5 rpg, 0.9 apg @ 38.3% TS

Robert Hahn (played 10 games in ‘50) 6’10”, 240 lbs
1.0 ppg, 0.1 apg @ 31.1% TS

Arnie Risen (‘49-’58) 6’9”, 200 lbs
12.0 ppg, 9.7 rpg, 1.7 apg @ 45.6% TS
4x All-Star

Mike Novak (‘49-’50, ‘54; though came into league at age 33) 6’9”, 219 lbs
3.4 ppg, 1.4 apg @ 35.3% TS

Bill Henry (‘49-’50) 6’9”, 215 lbs
6.5 ppg, 1.1 apg @ 41.2% TS

John Mahnken (‘47-’53) 6’8”, 220 lbs
5.8 ppg, 2.9 rpg, 1.3 apg @ 30.9% TS

Dolph Schayes (‘50-’64) **6’8”, 220 lbs (this is odd: is from bbref, but I KNOW I once saw them list him as 195 lbs, and I believe just 6’7”; perhaps a recent correction, though it certainly would make more sense of his rebounding numbers)
18.5 ppg, 12.1 rpg, 3.1 apg @ 48.8% TS
12x All-Star
12x All-NBA (6x 1st)

Kleggie Hermsen (‘47-’53) 6’9”, 225 lbs
9.3 ppg, 5.8 rpg, 1.3 apg @ 35.6% TS

George Nostrand (‘47-’50) 6’8”, 195 lbs
8.2 ppg, 0.8 apg @ 34.9% TS

Jerry Fowler (6 games played in ‘52) 6’8”, 230 lbs
1.5 ppg, 1.7 rpg, 0.3 apg @ 30.5% TS

Jim Slaughter (lasted 28 games TOTAL in ‘52) 6’11”, 210 lbs
5.3 ppg, 5.3 rpg, 0.9 apg @ 37.7% TS

Ed Macauley (‘50-’59) 6’8”, 185 lbs
17.5 ppg, 7.5 rpg, 3.2 apg @ 52.2% TS

Bill Roberts (‘49-’50) 6’9”, 210 lbs
3.5 ppg, 0.6 apg @ 37.8% TS

Red Rocha (‘48-’53, ‘55-’57) 6’9”, 185 lbs
10.9 ppg, 6.6 rpg, 2.0 apg @ 44.1% TS
2x All-Star

Ed Peterson (‘50-’51) 6’9”, 220 lbs
7.0 ppg, 5.4 rpg, 0.9 apg @ 43.6% TS

Don Otten (‘50-’53) 6’10”, 240 lbs
10.5 ppg, 6.0 rpg, 1.4 apg @ 47.5% TS

Connie Simmons (‘47-’56) 6’8”, 222 lbs
9.8 ppg, 6.2 rpg, 1.6 apg @ 40.8% TS

Neil Johnston (‘52-’59) 6’8”, 210 lbs
19.4 ppg, 11.3 rpg, 2.5 apg @ 53.4% TS
6x All-Star
5x All-NBA (4x 1st)

Chick Halbert (‘47-’51) 6’9”, 225 lbs
8.8 ppg, 7.9 rpg, 1.4 apg @ 38.3% TS

Ron Livingstone (‘50-’51) 6’10”, 220 lbs
6.3 ppg, (4.7 rpg), 1.9 apg @ 34.6% TS

Noble Jorgensen (‘47, ‘50-’53) 6’9”, 228 lbs
8.8 ppg, 4.3 rpg, 1.2 apg @ 44.1% TS

Harry Boykoff (‘50-’51) 6’10”, 225 lbs
10.1 ppg, (4.6 rpg), 1.9 apg @ 46.3% TS

John Pritchard (7 games in ‘50) 6’9”, 220 lbs
3.1 ppg, 1.1 apg @ 32.5% TS

Jim Browne (35 games played in ‘49-’50) 6’10”, 235 lbs
1.4 ppg, 0.2 apg @ 39.8% TS

Larry Foust (‘51-’62) 6’9”, 215 lbs
13.7 ppg, 9.8 rpg, 1.7 apg @ 48.5% TS
8x All-Star
2x All-NBA

Chuck Share (‘52-’60) 6’11”, 235 lbs
8.3 ppg, 8.4 rpg, 1.4 apg @ 48.8% TS

Herb Scherer (played 32 games in ‘51-’52) 6’9”, 212 lbs
3.6 ppg, 2.4 rpg, 0.7 apg @ 33.7% TS



So.........that’s a whole lot of guys who are at least within 2” of Mikan, including 7 guys who were as tall or taller (although no one quite as heavy as Mikan; but that again speaks to his somewhat burly natural physique); few of them within 5-10 lbs. Yet outside of Schayes and Johnston, none of them even remotely approached George Mikan’s degree of dominance. In fact, most were basically average players in the league of that time, and a handful (Jim Browne, Robert Hahn, John Pritchard, Jerry Fowler, etc) were downright scrubs who washed out of the league very quickly.

[trex_8063]

A thought for some time in the future? Someone else mentioned this too - perhaps our voting system should have a 3rd-place vote - so there'd be less "ghost" votes - and the results MIGHT even better reflect people's choices than our already-good current system?

Something like that may be done in future projects, but not in this one. For one, I'm not inclined to totally change the voting protocol right in the middle of the project (sort of messes with internal consistency, you know?). Secondly, as was noted in discussion in the sign-up thread, the point-based ballot system (especially with 3+ ballots per voter) is the system that allows the MOST potential for voters to intentionally manipulate the vote AGAINST players they don't want to get in......it's why we decided against it this time around.

[dhsilv2]

I'd rather we have a black ball vote, all be it just a -1 second place value. I know this could lead to some hurt feelings, but I think that's the counter to a chris paul vote like we just had. I would HOPE there's a maturity here for that, but I'm not a mod so I'm not sure how much trouble this could lead to. Still I think nerfing those votes some of us feel are out of line might be good.

[drza]

Some Patrick Ewing thoughts

So, when I was a kid, he Lakers vs the Celtics was the magical match-up, and Magic vs Bird was the greatest rivalry in the world. In the NBA.

In the NCAA, on the other hand, Patrick Ewing vs Chris Mullin was every bit as magical. Ewing was a monster in college, in my eyes. He used to wear those gray t-shirts under the gray Georgetown jerseys, and he just looked like a man among boys. Mullin was the shooter, the scorer, the offense...but Ewing was the wall. The last line of defense. I didn't think anyone could score on him, and I didn't think that anyone could stop him from scoring at the rim. I was flatly flabbergasted when Villanova pulled the upset of the Hoyas in the Finals...when Mullin couldn't do it, it didn't seem possible that anyone would be able to stop Ewing and the Hoyas that year.

I remember that the hype was just off-the-charts absurd for the draft before Ewing's rookie year. The whole thing about the frozen envelope, then the Knicks got the first pick. Ewing was going to be the player to lead the Knicks back to glory.

Only, he didn't. He led them to a consistent very good. He was a great defender in the pros, and he was a strong scorer as well. But he wasn't an isolated monster, the way that he was in college. He also didn't pass the way that I would later learn that great offensive big men did. He could score, though, and over the first five years of his career he continued to get better and better at putting the ball in the hoop. From 20 points on 53% TS as a rookie, up to a peak of 28.6 points on 60% TS in 1990. That can safely be considered elite scoring, but his passing never came close to catching up (2.2 assists, 3.4 turnovers per game in 1990...he had fewer assists than turnovers in literally every year of his career).

By the time we got to the 90s, Ewing was having clear and noticeable trouble in his knees. My dad used to say that he ran like both his legs were hurting all the time...and they probably did. He lost a good bit of his mobility, and also lost a lot of his quick movements and explosiveness when making offensive moves around the rim. He leaned more and more on his jumper, which makes people remember him as primarily a jump shooter. This was a criticism of Ewing in his day. However, databall analytics tell us that bigs that can shoot from midrange or beyond create a nice spacing effect that can help increase their offensive impact. Thus, even though Ewing couldn't pass to save his life, his face-up/jump-shooting style could have bolstered his scoring prowess and allowed him to be a solid plus offensively.

Ewing's 1990 was chosen as the #21 peak in NBA history during the 2015 peaks project ( viewtopic.php?f=64&t=1404723 ). Bill Walton (#13) and Steph Curry (#17) are the only players with peak seasons voted higher in that project that aren't already voted onto this list. Curry is starting to get some mention, but both Curry and Walton clearly lack quite a bit of longevity compared to Ewing. This is the brief blurb that I wrote about Ewing's 1990 peak from that project:

"With Ewing, if I'm convinced that he's near the peak of his defensive powers here, he should be reasonably in the +5 to +6 range on defense (using Doc MJ's normalized RAPM scale as a base; for reference Duncan (+6.78), Robinson post '97 (+6.78), Ben Wallace (+6.8) and Zo Mouning post 97 (~+7) all peaked on defense around +7 on that scale, so peak Ewing should at least be within shouting distance of that). Meanwhile, high-volume/efficiency scoring bigs that aren't big assist men (using Dwight Howard and Amare Stoudemire as estimate models) tended to peak around + 3 to +4. Thus, I think +8 to +9 is a reasonable estimate for peak Ewing on this scale."

Generally speaking, I believe that Ewing was a borderline dominant defender over a long career. His offense varied in impact, peaking as a plus offensive player in a franchise role, but continued as a solid spacing big man even as his knees failed and his post-game waned. He had one of the strongest peaks left among the remaining players, but how does the total package compare to the other players under consideration?

*George Mikan. He's the great enigma, and the other great center on the board. Joe's post in the last thread was very convincing that he had a game that could have translated better than generally considered to other eras. He was convincing enough, in fact, that I'm likely to have Mikan as my second vote here. He has the most in-era dominance of anyone, but is probably the most polarizing player on the board. I think Ewing was just a better player, but Mikan's time is either in this thread or in the near future.

*Bob Pettit. I see his accolades and St. Louis' team accomplishments. Petit was one of the players that probably slipped the most in my estimation during the RPoY project. Before that project, I was familiar with him more on the basis of his highlights and B-R resume. In that project, as we tried to go a bit deeper, I found myself consistently underwhelmed by his playoff performances. During the team's glory years, when much of their accomplishments are generally ascribed to Pettit, I found Cliff Hagan to be the much more consistent and impressive postseason performer. Pettit's value as an offensive power forward that could shoot, perhaps the precursor to Dirk, I recognize. However, is what he contributed more valuable in his 11 years than What Ewing gave in his 15 years in New York? That's unclear to me. I tend to value big men that are defensive anchors, all things being equal. Pettit's scoring doesn't really look more impressive than Ewing's, and though we lack turnover numbers, Pettit's assist numbers don't suggest that he was necessarily that much more impressive than Ewing on that side of the ball.

*Steve Nash. The highest impact offense player of the databall era. He's also polarizing, as his impact didn't show until he re-joined the Suns in the SSoL era. I was not initially high on him, but posters such as Doc MJ, and my own look at the analytics have brought me around to seeing his value. I don't believe he was a system player. But again, if I was choosing between one of the great defenders of all time that was a plus offensive player as a franchise guy to an outstanding impact offensive point guard...again, stylistically, I'd tend towards Ewing.

None of those comps are in any way quantitative, which you all know is my wont. I could thus be swayed, if someone could show that what these or others contributed was clearly more valuable than what Ewing offered. I can be convinced. But listing accolades from a different era with much different situations isn't going to do it for me. Relate it to game play on the court, or even better an analytical approach of production, and you'd be more likely to get me to change my view. Until then:

Vote: Patrick Ewing
2nd: George Mikan

[Winsome Gerbil]

I don't even choose to go there with Mikan.

I briefly made this comparison for Mikan back at the beginning of this project:

Player A: 439gms 10156pts 4167reb 1245ast
Player B: 487gms 10308pts 5267reb 1468ast

And there is not a doubt in my mind, none whatsoever, that Demarcus Cousins would utterly and completely wreck the early NBA. the only thing stopping him from joining Wilt in the 50ppg club would be the lack of a shotclock in the early years. And again, if you had George Mikan try to play Cousins 1 on 1, or in a team setting, again, it would be a beatdown.

And yet I think people who focus on that are kind of missing the point or making up their own point. Very few athletes in any sport could compete with modern stars who have built their games upon all the decades and advancements that came after the earlier players. In the NFL linemen weigh 50lbs more than they did in the 70s. In track and field guys run seconds faster than legends like Jessie Owens. Ballhandlers did not even discover the crossover dribble and behind the back stuff util Mikan was already retired. If all you are going to do is say, ok, we magically transport players from across the eras into a giant 1 on 1 tournament today..well, your list is just going to be a last 30 years list and you'll be talking about the greatness of George Mikan, legendary figure, in the same breath as you talk about Jonas Valanciunas.

[Lou Fan]

Also Mikan should NOT go here or anywhere in the 20s. Era usually isn't a huge deal for me but the weakness of Mikan's era really shouldn't be overlooked. I just don't think he was a good basketball player. I don't think he could play D-1 basketball today. I think I'm probably a better player than he was and my best scholarship offer was from Chicago State (I didn't go there I go to Duke University go Blue Devils).

Let’s talk skills….
You said you think you’re better, and from a modern standard of skillset, you’re likely right. But I’ll ask you: how do you think you came to be better?

Did you or did you not have exposure to modern stars (via TV, NBA TV, YouTube, etc) growing up?
Did you or did you not try to ape what those stars were doing as you were developing your game (shot mechanics, specific moves, etc)?
Were all of your peer doing the same thing, such that you had that kind of constant feedback loop, and all challenging and pushing each other in developing these aped skills?
Did you or did you not learn drills from coaches or peers to practice skills which either were not allowed or otherwise had not yet even been pioneered in Mikan’s day?

I’ve not seen you play, but I’m willing to bet you’re not an extreme outlier---in this era----in your basketball skills. There are likely thousands (or perhaps tens of thousands) of other kids and young men around the globe who are as good or better than you and basically every single basketball skill. Otherwise (and I do NOT mean this as an insult, but rather just pointing out the factoid that you shared as a means of illustrating the point) you’d have received a scholarship from something bigger Chicago State.
So, given the skills you possess are so accessible to thousands of young players today, I think it’s pure generational arrogance and vanity to assume a prior generation couldn’t also find these skills just as accessible if they were afforded all the same influences you were…..particularly one who seemed as far ahead of the basketball curve as Mikan appeared to be at the time.

And just as a suggestion that it wasn’t ONLY his size that enabled him to dominate, just going to list a few other similar sized chaps from the same era, and what kind of players they were:

Your completely right. I agree with everything you said here and I have no doubt give modern resources he would be a much better player than I am and he could probably make a D-1 roster. However, I have no doubt in my mind that Bill Russell is so much better than me at basketball it's not even comparable. I'm 100% sure that Don Nelson is way better at basketball than I am and he was a role player. Same with Pettit(though he obviously wasn't a role player). But I watch Milan play and I can't help but think I'm better than that guy. And the fact that I can even think that and not be totally wrong is my issue with having him so high. Know if I had been grown up when he did and had to learn basketball in 40s-50s like he did I know I would be worse than him. I just don't think Mikan was very good at basketball. Maybe it's some confirmation bias as I have never thought of Mikan as an All-time great. That's how I feel and I don't think I'm way off base either. Heck, you even agreed that you think in the modern sense I am a better basketball player. I struggle with that immensely when talking about putting him over guys like Curry, Nash, Ewing and Durant.