Redoing the NBA Hall of Fame (1960 or earlier players)

[eminence]

I've tried tracking down who gave Wanzer that '53 'MVP' and have never found much. There was something like an MVP award given to him, but I have no idea who gave it to him or why he got it. I would not treat it seriously as an MVP award.

...
I would treat about as seriously as every other MVP award (which is to say very little).

I agree with the general thought that MVP awards (and awards in general) shouldn't be given a huge amount of weight in player evaluation (though I'm forced to give them a bit more weight from these eras we don't have much tape). But I disagree with this one in particular being weighted as seriously as others. Player and media votes are certainly imperfect (see Iverson/DeAndre), but A) they've actually been pretty good over the years and B) at least I know what they are. This could be the 1953 Rochester Boys & Girls Club NBA MVP for all I know.

[eminence]

A quick summary of the '56 Lakers with and without Mikan to further cement his candidacy (like he needs it). I don't see a huge change in pace either, so that +6 MOV swing is fairly accurate. This is Mikan on only ~20 mpg. Nobody else missed significant time.

Lakers without Mikan
14-21 (40%)
-3.9 MOV

Lakers with Mikan
19-18 (51.4%)
+2.2 MOV

[Owly]

I've tried tracking down who gave Wanzer that '53 'MVP' and have never found much. There was something like an MVP award given to him, but I have no idea who gave it to him or why he got it. I would not treat it seriously as an MVP award.

...
I would treat about as seriously as every other MVP award (which is to say very little).

I agree with the general thought that MVP awards (and awards in general) shouldn't be given a huge amount of weight in player evaluation (though I'm forced to give them a bit more weight from these eras we don't have much tape). But I disagree with this one in particular being weighted as seriously as others. Player and media votes are certainly imperfect (see Iverson/DeAndre), but A) they've actually been pretty good over the years and B) at least I know what they are. This could be the 1953 Rochester Boys & Girls Club NBA MVP for all I know.

Okay so I suppose I've encouraged the conflation of two things.

1) Is the MVP a good indicator of performance. No. I kind of agree that the less data we have the more these accolades have value as least worst measure though MVP votes have been pretty bad.

2) Is Wanzer's a "legit" MVP. Not deserved (can't really imagine Wanzer's was this), but not made up, not local, not two dudes invent a trophy for publicity - official-ish, proper process-ish. We may differ here. Various unofficial MVPs were given over the years but always named (e.g. United States Basketball Writers MVP, Metropolitan Sportwriters Sam Davis Memorial Award [NBA MVP]) only one I'm aware of goes back that far and it's not going to Wanzer. My guess (though it is that) is the Hall wouldn't get tricked by a "Rochester Boys & Girls Club"-like MVP, that would be a pretty bad black eye as being custodians of the game is their job. If they did it is possible that Porter, Bjarkman and Hollander and Sachare (the latter pair for the official NBA Encyclopedia 1st edition) and the rest are all reliant on the Hall as their (only) source.

So there is some doubt which matters little to me because MVP doesn't really matter to me anyhow, is a clearer position.

[Doctor MJ]

Here is how it stands at the moment. I am very happy that we had a lot of good discussion, this was the hardest as there is the least evidence for it.

Voters: penbeast0, kipper34, Dr Positivity, Doctor MJ, eminence, trex_8063

Mikan 6
Johnston 6
Macauley 6
Martin 6
Davies 6
Yardley 6
Wanzer 6

Mikkelson 5

Fulks 3
Gallatin 3
Pollard 3

Risen 2
Stokes 2

So, it looks like we've got 8 locks, and 3 guys tied for the last two spots. What happens if the tie continues?

[Doctor MJ]

Official Picks:
George Mikan
Neil Johnston
George Yardley
Ed Macauley
Slater Martin

The only one of these guys that didn't play at a high level in the second half of the decade is Mikan but his dominance over the pre-shot clock era is so great I absolutely have to include him. I see the main claim to fame for the Royals trio (Davies, Risen, Wanzer) being their one win over Mikan's Lakers all the way back in 1951 as insufficient to be a HoF player, I wouldn't say Rasheed Wallace deserves to be in the HoF either just because he played a big role in taking down the Shaq/Kobe Lakers. As for Mikan's teammates I felt like Mikkelsen and Pollard didn't do too much impressive stuff after Mikan retired, while Martin was a key contributor to champtionship level teams all decade. Tempted to put Stokes in there but while I think he was on a trajectory to be a star, he wasn't quite there yet at the time imo.

Re: Royals. Looks like Risen's not going to make it but for me it's significant that Rochester emerged as one of the two great teams of the early BAA/NBL->NBA era along with the Lakers and that the two key guys for that were Davies and Risen.

Narrative-wise, based on that, Wanzer shouldn't be in, which is why I didn't have him in initially, but the fact of the matter is that Wanzer just seems better than Davies once he's allowed the primacy. For me, Davies is in because he's the most important guard of the early ear, while Wanzer's in because he's the best guard eligible.

Re: Mikan's teammates. Remember that Pollard is older than Mikan. In the last championship season, when Mikan was starting to break down and play less minutes, it was Pollard & Slater Martin who were all-stars and who carried the playing burden.

Do notice that in '54-55, without Mikan at all, the Lakers remained a good team. It wasn't until '55-56, when Pollard retired but Mikan came back, that the team became a not-good team, and thus the "good team" era of the Lakers actually starts and ends with Pollard not Mikan. Mikan was obviously the MVP, just saying, the #2 guy of that dynasty is pretty clearly Pollard.

[Doctor MJ]

Hopefully I'm not being annoying, just enjoying this.

When considering the 3 guys who are currently on the borderline (Fulks, Gallatin, and Pollard):

1. Regarding Fulks, I would emphasize the fact that Hall of Fame's are called "Hall of Fames", rather than Hall of Goodness. A true Hall of Goodness might only allow George Mikan in from this group. We're starting with this era because we're looking to understand what was significant from this era.

And Joe Fulks was significant. Leading scorer in the first two seasons of the BAA, star of the first champion, likely a strong Finals MVP in the second season. And there's the matter that he did this on the Philadelphia Warriors, a franchise that has built on this foundation to become one of the great franchises in NBA history. It's hard to imagine telling the story of this era without Fulks.

2. I cannot emphasize enough how much more significant Pollard was to the Laker success than I realized. I - like most voters - saw Mikkelson as a new and improved #2 for Mikan over Pollard because his stats look better, but there never came a time during the dynasty when Mikkelson ever surpassed Pollard in importance to that team and the Lakers' golden age really does end with Pollard while Mikkelson goes on to prove that he's best serving in a supporting role even when the star isn't good enough to lead the team anywhere.

Not really looking to knock Mikkelson out of voting - seems like he's a lock and I'm fine with that - but to me he is quite clearly the #4 Laker from the era, and it would be a shame for him to get in while Pollard does not.

3. Gallatin was in my 10 originally, but if one of these guys has to be the odd man out, it's clearly him from my perspective. I tended to think of him as the Knick of the '50s, but the truth is the Knicks kicked him to the curb only a bit over halfway through the decade and didn't regret it. On his new team he fizzled and retired while his less celebrated teammate (McGuire) continued to thrive.

[Dutchball97]

Official Picks:
George Mikan
Neil Johnston
George Yardley
Ed Macauley
Slater Martin

The only one of these guys that didn't play at a high level in the second half of the decade is Mikan but his dominance over the pre-shot clock era is so great I absolutely have to include him. I see the main claim to fame for the Royals trio (Davies, Risen, Wanzer) being their one win over Mikan's Lakers all the way back in 1951 as insufficient to be a HoF player, I wouldn't say Rasheed Wallace deserves to be in the HoF either just because he played a big role in taking down the Shaq/Kobe Lakers. As for Mikan's teammates I felt like Mikkelsen and Pollard didn't do too much impressive stuff after Mikan retired, while Martin was a key contributor to champtionship level teams all decade. Tempted to put Stokes in there but while I think he was on a trajectory to be a star, he wasn't quite there yet at the time imo.

Re: Royals. Looks like Risen's not going to make it but for me it's significant that Rochester emerged as one of the two great teams of the early BAA/NBL->NBA era along with the Lakers and that the two key guys for that were Davies and Risen.

Narrative-wise, based on that, Wanzer shouldn't be in, which is why I didn't have him in initially, but the fact of the matter is that Wanzer just seems better than Davies once he's allowed the primacy. For me, Davies is in because he's the most important guard of the early ear, while Wanzer's in because he's the best guard eligible.

Re: Mikan's teammates. Remember that Pollard is older than Mikan. In the last championship season, when Mikan was starting to break down and play less minutes, it was Pollard & Slater Martin who were all-stars and who carried the playing burden.

Do notice that in '54-55, without Mikan at all, the Lakers remained a good team. It wasn't until '55-56, when Pollard retired but Mikan came back, that the team became a not-good team, and thus the "good team" era of the Lakers actually starts and ends with Pollard not Mikan. Mikan was obviously the MVP, just saying, the #2 guy of that dynasty is pretty clearly Pollard.

If I went to the full 10 I'd include Pollard, Davies and Risen, it's just that most of the best 50s guys will come in the next round and I don't think these guys quite stack up as HoFers vs the 6-10th best guys of the 60s, 70s, 80s, 90s and 00s.

[worldjbfree]

Showed up late, but I am very happy to see this project coming to life. Especially when it comes to the 40s-60s, which I try to educate myself on more-and-more each week.

After doing a ton of research, here is my final list:

Bob Davies
Harry Gallatin
Neil Johnston
Ed Macauley
Slater Martin
George Mikan
Vern Mikkelsen
Bobby Wanzer
George Yardley

Honestly shocked I named nine, as I was going into this process looking to trim as much as possible. Maybe I need to get tougher going forward.

Also, while not an official selection, I have to mention Maurice Stokes. Loved what I could see of him, but since this is a chance to be tougher on selections, I can't reward short-runs and scoring without true success. This will come into play with omitting guys like Pete Maravich down the line.

[Doctor MJ]

Official Picks:
George Mikan
Neil Johnston
George Yardley
Ed Macauley
Slater Martin

The only one of these guys that didn't play at a high level in the second half of the decade is Mikan but his dominance over the pre-shot clock era is so great I absolutely have to include him. I see the main claim to fame for the Royals trio (Davies, Risen, Wanzer) being their one win over Mikan's Lakers all the way back in 1951 as insufficient to be a HoF player, I wouldn't say Rasheed Wallace deserves to be in the HoF either just because he played a big role in taking down the Shaq/Kobe Lakers. As for Mikan's teammates I felt like Mikkelsen and Pollard didn't do too much impressive stuff after Mikan retired, while Martin was a key contributor to champtionship level teams all decade. Tempted to put Stokes in there but while I think he was on a trajectory to be a star, he wasn't quite there yet at the time imo.

Re: Royals. Looks like Risen's not going to make it but for me it's significant that Rochester emerged as one of the two great teams of the early BAA/NBL->NBA era along with the Lakers and that the two key guys for that were Davies and Risen.

Narrative-wise, based on that, Wanzer shouldn't be in, which is why I didn't have him in initially, but the fact of the matter is that Wanzer just seems better than Davies once he's allowed the primacy. For me, Davies is in because he's the most important guard of the early ear, while Wanzer's in because he's the best guard eligible.

Re: Mikan's teammates. Remember that Pollard is older than Mikan. In the last championship season, when Mikan was starting to break down and play less minutes, it was Pollard & Slater Martin who were all-stars and who carried the playing burden.

Do notice that in '54-55, without Mikan at all, the Lakers remained a good team. It wasn't until '55-56, when Pollard retired but Mikan came back, that the team became a not-good team, and thus the "good team" era of the Lakers actually starts and ends with Pollard not Mikan. Mikan was obviously the MVP, just saying, the #2 guy of that dynasty is pretty clearly Pollard.

If I went to the full 10 I'd include Pollard, Davies and Risen, it's just that most of the best 50s guys will come in the next round and I don't think these guys quite stack up as HoFers vs the 6-10th best guys of the 60s, 70s, 80s, 90s and 00s.

I understand the thinking there. It's a question of how much you put guys in for how good they are in a more absolute sense compared to how big of a deal they were as trailblazers.

Let me point this out:

So far as I can tell, all of the candidates we're discussing were born in the 1920s.

Right now on your list you have have a grand total of 1 guy born from the first half of the decade (Mikan, in 1924), and 4 guys born in the back half.

When we do 1965, I don't believe there will be any other major early 1920s-born candidates, and so you'll still just have 1 guy from the cohort that built the NBA.

Meanwhile we'll be getting the following guys from the 1925-1929 birthing years:
Bill Sharman
Bob Cousy
Dolph Schayes
Paul Arizin
Clyde Lovellete
Larry Foust
Carl Braun

And possibly other guys I'm forgetting.

So when you say "Most of the best 50s are in the next era", what you're actually saying is "Most of the best guys born in the Late 20s are in the next era", but you're primarily dismissing the guys born in the Early 20s because of this.

I'd encourage you to take another looks at the Early 20s guys (Davies, Wanzer, Fulks, Pollard, Risen, etc). I wouldn't suggest you include them all, but right now the actual trailblazers of the NBA are largely missing from you HOF, which is not how any real HOF would function.

[Dutchball97]

Re: Royals. Looks like Risen's not going to make it but for me it's significant that Rochester emerged as one of the two great teams of the early BAA/NBL->NBA era along with the Lakers and that the two key guys for that were Davies and Risen.

Narrative-wise, based on that, Wanzer shouldn't be in, which is why I didn't have him in initially, but the fact of the matter is that Wanzer just seems better than Davies once he's allowed the primacy. For me, Davies is in because he's the most important guard of the early ear, while Wanzer's in because he's the best guard eligible.

Re: Mikan's teammates. Remember that Pollard is older than Mikan. In the last championship season, when Mikan was starting to break down and play less minutes, it was Pollard & Slater Martin who were all-stars and who carried the playing burden.

Do notice that in '54-55, without Mikan at all, the Lakers remained a good team. It wasn't until '55-56, when Pollard retired but Mikan came back, that the team became a not-good team, and thus the "good team" era of the Lakers actually starts and ends with Pollard not Mikan. Mikan was obviously the MVP, just saying, the #2 guy of that dynasty is pretty clearly Pollard.

If I went to the full 10 I'd include Pollard, Davies and Risen, it's just that most of the best 50s guys will come in the next round and I don't think these guys quite stack up as HoFers vs the 6-10th best guys of the 60s, 70s, 80s, 90s and 00s.

I understand the thinking there. It's a question of how much you put guys in for how good they are in a more absolute sense compared to how big of a deal they were as trailblazers.

Let me point this out:

So far as I can tell, all of the candidates we're discussing were born in the 1920s.

Right now on your list you have have a grand total of 1 guy born from the first half of the decade (Mikan, in 1924), and 4 guys born in the back half.

When we do 1965, I don't believe there will be any other major early 1920s-born candidates, and so you'll still just have 1 guy from the cohort that built the NBA.

Meanwhile we'll be getting the following guys from the 1925-1929 birthing years:
Bill Sharman
Bob Cousy
Dolph Schayes
Paul Arizin
Clyde Lovellete
Larry Foust
Carl Braun

And possibly other guys I'm forgetting.

So when you say "Most of the best 50s are in the next era", what you're actually saying is "Most of the best guys born in the Late 20s are in the next era", but you're primarily dismissing the guys born in the Early 20s because of this.

I'd encourage you to take another looks at the Early 20s guys (Davies, Wanzer, Fulks, Pollard, Risen, etc). I wouldn't suggest you include them all, but right now the actual trailblazers of the NBA are largely missing from you HOF, which is not how any real HOF would function.

I understand the thinking but just like how the players from the 20s and 30s aren't considered here I don't like to include guys from the pre-shot clock era. Mikan is pretty much my only exception to this rule due to his clearly documented dominance.

[Dr Positivity]

I would have been ok with only 5 guys from this period, since the downgrade to the era after is so significant.

[Doctor MJ]

Another way to look at Early 20s births vs Later 20s births:

Once we hit equilbrium, we're going to get roughly 2 guys born each year getting in the Hall. There will be exceptions to this just based on variance of talent, but consider 1928.

1928's best player's were Bob Cousy, Dolph Schayes, and Paul Arizin.
And right now we also have the following players from that year as locks: Macauley, Yardley, and MIkkelson.

I don't think 1928 is so special of a year it cries out for 6 guys to get in, and it's also not a true trailblazer period as that's the guys born in the Early 20s. I think what we're seeing relating to 1928 is that these were the guys who jointed the league just after the true trailblazers at a time when they were more likely to have a consistent team and league context in which to put up accomplishments.

It's not great sin to me any of these guys getting in, but I just want to emphasize that if we end up with more guys born in 1928 than born in 1920-1924 combined when the players from 1920-1924 really built the league, this is rather strange. To me it's like giving the trailblazer advantage to the wrong group.

[Doctor MJ]

I understand the thinking but just like how the players from the 20s and 30s aren't considered here I don't like to include guys from the pre-shot clock era. Mikan is pretty much my only exception to this rule due to his clearly documented dominance.

Guys from the 20s and 30s aren't considered because beast gave rules not to consider them.
He's given rules specifically to include pre-shot clock era guys though.

ftr, when I ran the Retro POY, we only went as far back as the shot clock, so I get not wanting to focus on the pre-shot clock era. But this is a Hall of Fame and the start of a league is always going to be emphasized for any Hall of Fame in any sport.

I'm not the rule setter here though, so feel free to ignore.

[Dutchball97]

I understand the thinking but just like how the players from the 20s and 30s aren't considered here I don't like to include guys from the pre-shot clock era. Mikan is pretty much my only exception to this rule due to his clearly documented dominance.

Guys from the 20s and 30s aren't considered because beast gave rules not to consider them.
He's given rules specifically to include pre-shot clock era guys though.

ftr, when I ran the Retro POY, we only went as far back as the shot clock, so I get not wanting to focus on the pre-shot clock era. But this is a Hall of Fame and the start of a league is always going to be emphasized for any Hall of Fame in any sport.

I'm not the rule setter here though, so feel free to ignore.

Right. I feel like if there were other clear standouts like Mikan from that era I'd definitely include them but I'm someone who loves to dive into the history of the NBA and from what I've read and watched I can't put myself to put any of them in a HoF. I don't mind them making the list since this is a PC Board HoF and not a Dutchball97 HoF but I don't personally consider any of the pre-shot clock era guys except for Mikan truely good enough or important enough to the league to choose them.

[worldjbfree]

I understand the thinking but just like how the players from the 20s and 30s aren't considered here I don't like to include guys from the pre-shot clock era. Mikan is pretty much my only exception to this rule due to his clearly documented dominance.

Guys from the 20s and 30s aren't considered because beast gave rules not to consider them.
He's given rules specifically to include pre-shot clock era guys though.

ftr, when I ran the Retro POY, we only went as far back as the shot clock, so I get not wanting to focus on the pre-shot clock era. But this is a Hall of Fame and the start of a league is always going to be emphasized for any Hall of Fame in any sport.

I'm not the rule setter here though, so feel free to ignore.

Right. I feel like if there were other clear standouts like Mikan from that era I'd definitely include them but I'm someone who loves to dive into the history of the NBA and from what I've read and watched I can't put myself to put any of them in a HoF. I don't mind them making the list since this is a PC Board HoF and not a Dutchball97 HoF but I don't personally consider any of the pre-shot clock era guys except for Mikan truely good enough or important enough to the league to choose them.

This is where I found myself split as well. I ended up including nine names on my ballot, but questioned if I should be tougher the whole time. Mikan being the standout for the era was not lost, but it came down to the project process. Ten names are getting in regardless, so I might as well name people that I prefer to get the nod over ones I outright think should not. It will get harder to narrow down with time, taking a glance at the future. Though I agree that, if things were different, I would've said Mikan and left it at him.

[Doctor MJ]

Guys from the 20s and 30s aren't considered because beast gave rules not to consider them.
He's given rules specifically to include pre-shot clock era guys though.

ftr, when I ran the Retro POY, we only went as far back as the shot clock, so I get not wanting to focus on the pre-shot clock era. But this is a Hall of Fame and the start of a league is always going to be emphasized for any Hall of Fame in any sport.

I'm not the rule setter here though, so feel free to ignore.

Right. I feel like if there were other clear standouts like Mikan from that era I'd definitely include them but I'm someone who loves to dive into the history of the NBA and from what I've read and watched I can't put myself to put any of them in a HoF. I don't mind them making the list since this is a PC Board HoF and not a Dutchball97 HoF but I don't personally consider any of the pre-shot clock era guys except for Mikan truely good enough or important enough to the league to choose them.

This is where I found myself split as well. I ended up including nine names on my ballot, but questioned if I should be tougher the whole time. Mikan being the standout for the era was not lost, but it came down to the project process. Ten names are getting in regardless, so I might as well name people that I prefer to get the nod over ones I outright think should not. It will get harder to narrow down with time, taking a glance at the future. Though I agree that, if things were different, I would've said Mikan and left it at him.

ftr, I'm someone who think the basketball HOF has too low of a standard for getting in, but when I complain I'm really thinking of Mitch Richmond-types who even mentioning distracts from the history worth relaying to the next generation. Your generic C-lister from the modern game is not important to me, but the guys who shaped the league are.

[Dr Positivity]

I understand the thinking but just like how the players from the 20s and 30s aren't considered here I don't like to include guys from the pre-shot clock era. Mikan is pretty much my only exception to this rule due to his clearly documented dominance.

Guys from the 20s and 30s aren't considered because beast gave rules not to consider them.
He's given rules specifically to include pre-shot clock era guys though.

ftr, when I ran the Retro POY, we only went as far back as the shot clock, so I get not wanting to focus on the pre-shot clock era. But this is a Hall of Fame and the start of a league is always going to be emphasized for any Hall of Fame in any sport.

I'm not the rule setter here though, so feel free to ignore.

Right. I feel like if there were other clear standouts like Mikan from that era I'd definitely include them but I'm someone who loves to dive into the history of the NBA and from what I've read and watched I can't put myself to put any of them in a HoF. I don't mind them making the list since this is a PC Board HoF and not a Dutchball97 HoF but I don't personally consider any of the pre-shot clock era guys except for Mikan truely good enough or important enough to the league to choose them.

I'm pretty sure a player like Zelmo Beaty would wreck everyone but Mikan here.

[penbeast0]

Our list now:

Voters: penbeast0, kipper34, Dr Positivity, Doctor MJ, eminence, trex_8063, Dutchball97, worldjbfree

Mikan 8
Johnston 8
Macauley 8
Martin 8
Yardley 8
Davies 7
Wanzer 7
Mikkelson 6

Gallatin 4
Fulks 3
Pollard 3
Risen 2
Stokes 2

If the thread drops off page 1, I will either bump it or call the vote. We take the top 10 votegetters, in case of a tie, I will go back and ask everyone to vote on just the tied players, ranking them in order with just 1st place votes counting, then 2nd if 1st ties again, etc.

[Owly]

Official Picks:
George Mikan
Neil Johnston
George Yardley
Ed Macauley
Slater Martin

The only one of these guys that didn't play at a high level in the second half of the decade is Mikan but his dominance over the pre-shot clock era is so great I absolutely have to include him. I see the main claim to fame for the Royals trio (Davies, Risen, Wanzer) being their one win over Mikan's Lakers all the way back in 1951 as insufficient to be a HoF player, I wouldn't say Rasheed Wallace deserves to be in the HoF either just because he played a big role in taking down the Shaq/Kobe Lakers. As for Mikan's teammates I felt like Mikkelsen and Pollard didn't do too much impressive stuff after Mikan retired, while Martin was a key contributor to champtionship level teams all decade. Tempted to put Stokes in there but while I think he was on a trajectory to be a star, he wasn't quite there yet at the time imo.

Re: Royals. Looks like Risen's not going to make it but for me it's significant that Rochester emerged as one of the two great teams of the early BAA/NBL->NBA era along with the Lakers and that the two key guys for that were Davies and Risen.

Narrative-wise, based on that, Wanzer shouldn't be in, which is why I didn't have him in initially, but the fact of the matter is that Wanzer just seems better than Davies once he's allowed the primacy. For me, Davies is in because he's the most important guard of the early ear, while Wanzer's in because he's the best guard eligible.

Re: Mikan's teammates. Remember that Pollard is older than Mikan. In the last championship season, when Mikan was starting to break down and play less minutes, it was Pollard & Slater Martin who were all-stars and who carried the playing burden.

Do notice that in '54-55, without Mikan at all, the Lakers remained a good team. It wasn't until '55-56, when Pollard retired but Mikan came back, that the team became a not-good team, and thus the "good team" era of the Lakers actually starts and ends with Pollard not Mikan. Mikan was obviously the MVP, just saying, the #2 guy of that dynasty is pretty clearly Pollard.

With prime Mikan they're circa 5-8 SRS, last year od dynasty down to 2.71. Sans Mikan in '55 0.96 (with Lovellette to replace him). Are they still "good". See also eminence above regarding with/without Mikan splits in '56 (again with Lovellette able to take on some extra minutes). '56 isn't just Pollard going, it's Mikkelsen falling off quite a lot productivity wise (scoring less, shooting worse, rebounding worse). Pollard is the big "name" but not sure he's "clearly" 2.

Not looked into what's causing it and playoffs not huge for me but Pollard's negative career OWS in the playoffs (from on a good team) is curious.

Would reiterate Cervi, depending what precise years you are talking for Royals.

[penbeast0]

In terms of this era, just remember, we are trying to redo the HOF and see if we disagree. The HOF has more of this era than we do so I didn't feel it right to exclude them. It hopefully will give us more of a feel for what the HOF actually did and why.

Heck, if we finish this, I'm fine with side projects for pre WW2 guys, black barnstormers, playground legends, world legends, female players, etc. I just feel really shaky even here, those would be even more so.