RealGM 2020 Top 100 Project: #17 (David Robinson)

[Doctor MJ]

I find your take on Durant's GSW tenure incredibly biased and inaccurate.

You're certainly entitled to your perspective.

He wasn't jealous of Curry. He was envious of all the love his teammates were getting.

You think this makes him look less immature?

His detractors would never acknowledge him as "being one of the them" and hence he left for Brooklyn.

You're skipping the important part. If Durant had been a dream to be around his entire time in GS before leaving that would be one thing, in reality he was a pill after the first year when the title didn't make him feel whole...just like many of us knew it wouldn't.

I say with zero exaggeration: When Durant chose to go to GS my thought wasn't "He's ruining the game", it was "That's not going to give him what he thinks it will". The only thing I didn't know is how poorly he'd handle it when his unrealistic hopes didn't pan out.

He turned a culture of joy into a culture of walking on eggshells around him, and when you talk about me being "biased" against him, you have to understand that if I'm biased, it's because of this. I wasn't gleefully waiting for him to act like an idiot, but when he began acting like idiot, I noticed.

In this sense, he miscalculated that his play would do the talking for him; people have strong opinions and because he pulled an Infinity Wars Thanos and followed through successfully at making sure GSW dominated the league that the Heatles wish they did.

Durant chased legacy like a tone deaf person trying to sing, and this is why he's so frustrated, and why many of us find it very difficult to have patience with him.

He fit in, played his role to perfection.

He played his role pretty well - not perfection the first year - then he developed a much less willing-to-learn attitude the next year.

That scuffle with Draymond? Management suspended Green, so that should tell you who they thought was in the wrong for that altercation.

That tells you who they were trying to suck up to - Durant.

Now, the reason why they were sucking up to Durant rather than Green was in part because everyone knows Green is a loose cannon who should not be coddled, but don't fool yourself. Both Durant and Green deserved blame in that situation, and what they deserved blame for was not the same type of thing.

Green deserved blame for 1) making a bad play, 2) losing his temper, and 3) letting something out of his mouth that couldn't be taken back.

Durant deserved blame for becoming "that star" who grouses when those around him make mistakes or try to encourage him to do something he doesn't want to do.

I'm not saying Durant deserve more blame than Green. I think you can definitely make the case Green deserves more blame. But we have to acknowledge what Durant actually did or else we aren't talking about anything real.

And we also have to acknowledge this was not a one-time incident. Durant mocked Steve Kerr's culture, for example. That culture was a big part of why Durant wanted to come to GS and by his 2nd year on the team, Durant showed contempt for it. That's a really freaking short amount of time when you're actually winning championships. It's typically said that "winning cures everything", but that's how it is for most people, not someone who is as deeply neurotic as Durant is.

Want to dig deeper? Draymond didn't like the mystery surrounding KD's impending free agency. I don't see other stars getting criticized for being "a malcontent employee" simply by not openly discussing their impending free agency. Did he ever have any other documented problems or altercations with teammates while he was in OKC or GSW? The answer is no. His GSW teammates lobbied for him to resign and have nothing but good things to say about him to this day.

He's not being criticized for being a malcontent simply because he didn't openly discuss his impending free agency though. You're now just pointing to one of the many aspects of the decision that was driving toxicity and trying to attach it to something else that it clearly wasn't related to.

If Durant had never opened his mouth to say negative crap indicating his frustration with the situation, we'd have never said "Boy, he seems frustrated." It's really not that complicated.

Re: other document altercations? There was other stuff in GS as I've alluded. Go read Strauss' book. There's plenty there.

As far OKC, well that's the funny thing. For a long time in OKC Durant was Mr. Happy even while Westbrook was massacring the organization of the offense...and then Durant started just screaming at the media and he only ever briefly stopped doing that when he went to GS. The media was a dog he could beat without consequence to his direct co-working relationship, so he expressed his frustration there all while saying he was fine with Brooks/Donovan/Westbrook.

And then he left.

Re: Teammates lobbied for him to resign...because he's very good at basketball.

Re: nothing but good things to say about him. Right except for Green obviously, oh and Iguodala. But Klay hasn't said anything bad, in part because Klay is probably on the spectrum and seems to be something of a golly-gee-puppy dog who probably doesn't even understand why Durant was upset in the first place. And Steph hasn't said anything, because Steph is actually wise and knows nothing good can come from it.

Curry revolutionized the game no doubt, and is perhaps the greatest off ball player/ceiling raiser in history. But the one thing he didn't have was the elite top level ability to create his own shot at will when defenses bog down at the highest level. In the few games that GSW had trouble with in the 2017 and 2018 Finals where nobody's shot was falling those games, it was KD who was the one constant. Whether that means he was more or less "important" than Curry's overall impact is a discussion, as the value of isolation scoring at high efficiency seems to be lost for many in this project imo. You guys tend to focus on "what could have happened" vs "what actually happened".

This is a good thing to say.

It's easier to keep Curry from shooting than Durant, the rub is that you can't do that to Curry without providing space to his teammates. Which is more valuable? If you're teammates are good, I'd say Curry's way. If your teammates are bad, Durant's.

[eminence]

As I said, if you want to look at Mikan through his actual chief competition, it was Davies. If we want to extend it to everyone he faced, then yes it makes sense to refer to Cousy & Schayes, and it also makes sense to look at Arizin & Pettit.

I think with Arizin it should be noted he was the same age as Cousy & Schayes, which was 4 years younger than Mikan, which shouldn't be considered that much of a difference given that Davies was 4 years older than Mikan. You want to look at Mikan's generation, those are the guys. The most talented of the bunch other than Mikan was Arizin, who also did pretty dang well against Mikan.

So we're obviously really far apart here and there aren't many signs of that changing, but I'll put together one last reply that hopefully others following our discussion can use before moving on.

I don't consider Arizin a separate talent level from Davies/Schayes. The assessment of 'did pretty dang well' is generous, his Warriors went 6-6 against Mikan in '51/'52 prior to his first retirement. Mikan was a reigning 4x champ the 1st time they met and Arizin was a rookie. There's no degree of Mikan getting up for some big matchup against Arizin, the Warriors were a middle of the road squad that Schayes and the Nationals would dispatch in the first round both seasons (I believe Schayes/Arizin finished 4-4 in the playoffs against one another, 3-2 Schayes if we remove the Wilt seasons).

Pettit is clearly seen as the next generation beyond Mikan and I get that...but I think it has to be noted that if LeBron at age 31 were cleanly surpassed by someone age 23, no one would ever take LeBron seriously as a GOAT candidate. When you think about what would have happened had Mikan continued to play a normal career arc, there's no reason to think that wouldn't have happened more. As such, I'd argue that the idea of Mikan as this dominant figure who was never topped is a real problem.

Mikan got surpassed by others at an age that we generally would consider Mikan to still be in his prime. You want to call that injuries okay, but the idea that we wouldn't note that Mikan didn't seem to be able to do a whole heck of a lot to stop Pettit matters.

I agree it's likely that this would've continued to happen and he was smart to re-retire (should've stayed), but this part is super frustrating to me, what other big man has come back from multiple broken bones in the feet to superstardom? It's like seriously looking at Walton's Clippers play to evaluate his prime level. I can't even begin to understand seriously evaluating Mikan based on his '56 play.

Re: '52 point is absurd. Might as well say... Clearly you object to the "what might have been" aspect of things. Okay, the fact remains that Arizin is exactly the type of player we'd be looking at to ask "So could Mikan stop guys who could actually shoot?". Answer: No. Doesn't make Mikan something other than a great rim-protector, but it's telling that Mikan didn't actually face much in this vein in the thick of his prime.

It's absurd because it's a standard no player in history can meet. I guarantee I can find a 2 year stretch from any star where their team went 'only' 50% (Lakers 6-6 vs Warriors in '51/'52) against some other stars team in the RS. It's then a humongous logic leap from that to "Mikan couldn't stop guys who could actually shoot".

Mikan seems to me to have clearly had an effect on Schayes, which makes sense because Schayes was someone with the body we'd now call a wing-sized player playing as a big. He was exactly the type of guy you'd expect Mikan to expose.

Schayes played similarly to our most modern of bigs, he didn't play as a traditional big at all. I see no reason you'd expect Mikan to expose him (they rarely matched up positionally, I think Schayes said he had to defend Mikan only once and got 40+ dropped on him). He was the shooter among bigs (Gallo that was also solid on D and healthy). Mikan's teams doing well against Schayes seems extremely promising for Mikan porting forward into a more modern league.

Cousy? I mean I think it's clear as we look back that he didn't have the BBIQ people back then thought he had. If Cousy had been a smarter decision maker, you have to wonder if Boston wins titles before Russell ever arrives.

Davies? I think clearly smarter than Cousy, but he wasn't himself a volume scorer as we see them today. He wasn't going to be a guy who burned you over and over again with his shot.

I'm not high on Cousy either (I find Davies clearly superior).

Arizin was that guy. By far the most modern skilled player of the era so far as I can see, and he beat Mikan more times than he lost, while scoring more on average, and almost certainly doing so with a drastically superior efficiency.

I think Schayes skills were equally if not more modern than Arizin's.

Lumping '56 in here to me is simply insane. Remove that, Arizin's no longer winning (6-6), he's scoring less, and on the games we have the data (6 I believe) it's on near identical efficiency (55% TS Arizin vs 54% for Mikan).

None of that makes Arizin > Mikan a realistic choice for me here of course, but it is something of a problem when the biggest theoretical challengers (Kurland, Arizin) to Mikan in his generation a) seem to have done well against him and b) for differing reasons just weren't competing against Mikan all that much.

And then Pettit comes along, and you have a guy who was better at 23 than Mikan was at 31, and still better at age 31 than Mikan was at 31 holding his own and continuing to grow as a player at an age long after Mikan had to give up on things like volume scoring.

Does that mean I can't see a case for Mikan over Pettit? No. I think Mikan's defense is a big deal. I can absolutely see the case for Mikan and his modern-ineffective offense against Pettit.

But when I see people talking about Mikan towering over the world for 8 years as if "Mikan trounced everyone he faced so we'll never know what he would have done against the Russells and Wilts of the world", it doesn't jive with the reality I see. Mikan got surpassed and pushed into retirement at an early age while facing guys no one is seriously championing yet. At the very least, that should give people some pause if they are in any way asking the question "But how good was he at playing basketball?" instead of "How historically significant was he?".

It comes down to you putting great weight on '56 Mikan and minimizing the injury implications of multiple broken feet on a 260+ lb man in the early/mid 50's, which as I've said is absolutely crazy to me.

Mikan did tower over the world for 8 years. Trounced it for the first 4.9, falls for the first time while on a broken leg. Came back and won 3 more times, most likely still the best in the world though no longer levels above the competition (in part due to a widening lane as well). Retires (has his left kneecap removed) and is GM for 1.5 seasons. Then returns for the second half of '56. I just couldn't care less about '56 and his play then (not exactly basketball related, but he's also running a US House race at this time, which he loses by a few points).

Random note I was just reminded of: In '54 the Lakers played against the Hawks for one game on 12 foot rims:
https://www.basketball-reference.com/boxscores/195403070MNL.html

[DQuinn1575]

Mikan didn't play for a year and a half - he came back in mid January. And it wasn't like he was staying in athletic shape by doing something like playing baseball. When he did come back he is quoted as saying he wasn't planning on taking Lovellette's spot in the starting lineup. He didn't get pushed into retirement, he quit after winning and winning. He did a comeback because the team he was general manager for was terrible - He came back in mid January, no training camp, and then he scored less every month - 11.0.10.7/9.8 for Jan/Feb/Mar - I really don't think how he played in that half year was reflective of how good he was in 1954.
The league didnt change that much between 1954 and 1956 - of the top 15 guys in minutes played in 1956, only 3 didnt play in 1954 - Pettit, Arizin, and Gola, who was 15th. It's not like comparing 1956 vs 1961 where you get Oscar,Wilt,Russell,West.Baylor changing the league. Pettit and Arizin make the league a little better, but it's not like the league got so much better, Mikan got a lot worse and for whatever reason decided he had enough.
Win Shares per 48 - MIkan 52,53,54 is .268,264,.258 - Pettit's in 1956 was .236, his best .246- so figuring 1949-51 were definitely better, Mikan had 8 years of WS/48 better than Pettit's best.

You mention '49-51. Obviously that's because beginning the next year Mikan was considerably less effective, and this is the at the heart of what I'm talking about.

Questions:
Who the hell starts becoming a drastically worse scorer at the age of 27?
Who the hell does that against 1951 level competition?

Answer:
Someone whose offensive game was really only viable against '40s level competition, aka, something considerably less advanced that college today.

Is it unfair to say Mikan was pushed out? Yes, I'd say it's fine to call me out for hyperbole.

What cannot be denied though is that Mikan was becoming less effective at an age when most guys as we know them are only entering their prime, and it wasn't just that his scoring became obsolete. Dude was playing less. By '53-54, Mikan was playing a LOT less than Jim Pollard who was older than he was.

Does it seem realistic that Mikan was such a prodigy that he learned everything there was to know at a young age compared to the players of today and simply had his body break down? No, I don't think it does. I think if Mikan had been capable of evolving as a scorer, he'd have done so.

Does that mean Mikan wasn't still a great defensive player? No, it doesn't, and this where people have an argument to make that perhaps Mikan could have kept that facet of his impact up indefinitely.

Mikan scores less starting in 52, but was still second in the league in scoring and his team still won the championship. His scoring went down because they changed the rules because of him- they widened the lane from 6 feet to 12 feet. So they changed the rules to punish him, and he’s still second in scoring and wins 3 championships.
Somehow they got Clyde Lovellette a center, and Mikan played less in 1954 to give him an opportunity to play as they wouldn’t have played together.
Mikan scores 4.6 less ppg at age 27 than his previous high. The same or more than Jabbar, wilt, Jordan, i only looked at those 3.

[eminence]

Two big factors on scoring dropoff from '51 to '52 - 6ft lane to 12 ft lane and more limited mobility after the broken leg in the '51 playoffs. Not sure which was bigger, but two pretty big mid-career changes.

[Doctor MJ]

So we're obviously really far apart here and there aren't many signs of that changing, but I'll put together one last reply that hopefully others following our discussion can use before moving on.

Okay, I'll let your thoughts stand as the last word. Cheers eminence!

[eminence]

So we're obviously really far apart here and there aren't many signs of that changing, but I'll put together one last reply that hopefully others following our discussion can use before moving on.

Okay, I'll let your thoughts stand as the last word. Cheers eminence!

Cheers as well!

I did move West up after our little chats!

Going forward I'm interested in your takes on Barkley in particular, as you pay more attention to the attitude things than most and he has that rep, but I wasn't around during his prime so it's awful tough to tell.

[trex_8063]

1st vote: David Robinson
DRob is the best peak left on the table, imo, and his longevity isn't terrible. Basically 13 full seasons, and though his prime is only 7-9 seasons [depending on how you want to define it], he was a very good role player all the way till his final season.
Prime Robinson was routinely delivering 24-30 ppg and 3-4 apg on very good shooting efficiency and good turnover economy [while also being the fulcrum of their pnr game].
He couldn't maintain that offense in the playoffs......oh well, that's why we're talking about him more at #17 instead of #7. The offense he WAS able to maintain in the playoffs during his prime was 24 ppg (and nearly 3 apg) on +2% rTS, still with respectable turnover economy. That's the "terrible" offensive player that he was in the playoffs (though admittedly this came by way of feasting on the weaker defenses).
He meanwhile maintained GOAT-tier defensive anchoring (Spurs defense marginal OVER-performed defensively during the playoffs in his prime). That's a wicked 2-way player [even in the playoffs, wear he bears so much criticism]. The criticism seems to stem so much from the fact that he's on a relatively short-list of regular seasons GOATs.

And if not for Dennis Rodman picking the absolute worst time to have a very public team cancer meltdown, I truly believe the Spurs would have knocked off the Rockets in '95. I can't imagine how that may have changed the legacies of both he and Hakeem [even if Hakeem did outplay him individually].

I'd like to write more, but I'm short on time and energy.


2nd vote: Julius Erving
Another nice 2-way player. Could potentially fill up the boxscore in a variety of ways: scoring, rebounding, perhaps an underrated passer, active on the help D. If he has a weakness, I think it's his on-ball man defense.
His carry-job in '76 looks ridiculous on paper; it's just hard to gauge based on how weird [diluted] the 70s appear in general, and then in the ABA to boot. But he was the uber-anchor on BOTH sides of the ball for that team, which rolled on thru to a title.
Got 16 total seasons, coming into the ABA as an instant super-star, and retaining true All-Star status thru at least his 14th; still a very very good role player in his final two seasons (even a fringe All-Star in '86).


3rd vote: Chris Paul
This spot was a bit of a toss-up between CP3, Barkley, and perhaps John Stockton [again, I value longevity, and yes I think he was that good]. I could potentially be influenced to switch my vote to one of them, but for now I'm leaning slightly to Paul after the season he just put together in his 15th season (15 seasons in which he's never been worse than fringe All-NBA 3rd Team material [except in probably '10 when he simply missed too many games]).

[Doctor MJ]

Mikan scores less starting in 52, but was still second in the league in scoring and his team still won the championship. His scoring went down because they changed the rules because of him- they widened the lane from 6 feet to 12 feet. So they changed the rules to punish him, and he’s still second in scoring and wins 3 championships.
Somehow they got Clyde Lovellette a center, and Mikan played less in 1954 to give him an opportunity to play as they wouldn’t have played together.
Mikan scores 4.6 less ppg at age 27 than his previous high. The same or more than Jabbar, wilt, Jordan, i only looked at those 3.

Mikan's efficiency relative to his contemporaries takes a massive fall in this season. It's still not bad relative to them, but he stops giving you that massive value add on that end of the floor like he did before.

Re: scoring went down because they changed the rules on him. And? What part of the goaltending rule and the land change should we use to argue Mikan was better than David Robinson or Patrick Ewing?

Re: scored 4.6 less PPG at age 27 like Jabbar, Wilt, Jordan. Wilt's a great analogy because clearly he needed to score less to better optimize team play. Imagine how much worse it would be for Wilt if he were actually jacking up crappy shots all the time like Mikan was?

I'm sorry, I understand that eras change and Mikan's efficiency wasn't putrid for the time, but that's because the league was new and guys by and large were bad at basketball compared to now. That should be obvious based on the fact that 6'10" guys without insane quickness don't dominate the game based on their physical presence any more.

Again, I'm 100% fine with someone putting Mikan #1 on their GOAT list if they are talking about historical significance, but there's just no way anyone looks at Mikan coming up as a prospect today and says "Wow, that's a generational talent." If you're going based on actual capability to play basketball, while I still think Mikan could be a capable player today, he's not the outlier of outliers once everyone knows to be on the look out for exceptionally large human beings.

And let me just note here: THAT guy. The outlier among outliers that would stand up physically with anyone from today, first showed up born in the 1930s. Mikan wasn't born in 1492, he was born in the 1920s - a mere decade earlier. He was in the right place, at the right time - born earlier he doesn't play basketball, born later, he's not the best big man prospect.

[trex_8063]

I vote for David Robinson. The best two-way player remaining and a GOAT level defender. He is also a GOAT level regular season player and one of the best floor raisers in NBA history. His impact was immediately felt when he came to the Spurs as he led the Spurs to multiple 50 win seasons, 3 semis and the WCF. Besides Lebron nobody was carrying teams like D-Rob was in the early to mid 90’s.

Out of all the players I feel D-Rob gets the worst rap from only one playoff series against arguable the greatest matchup center of all-time in Hakeem. People forget he was ranked right there with Hakeem until that fateful ‘95 playoff series. Robinson’s 7-year run from 1990-‘96 is very impressive and something you can stack well against any player in terms of capabilities and skill-set.

To follow protocol, please provide a first alternate and second alternate pick, and if you haven't already done so peruse the OP of the list main thread (link is in the stickied project consolidation thread).

[trex_8063]

Thru post #69:

David Robinson - 4 (Doctor MJ, Magic Is Magic, Matt15, trex_8063)
Moses Malone - 2 (Hal14, Odinn21)
George Mikan - 2 (DQuinn1575, penbeast0)
Julius Erving - 1 (Joao Saraiva)
Kevin Durant - 1 (Dutchball97)
Chris Paul - 1 (Whopper_Sr)
Charles Barkley - 1 (sansterre)


About 19-20 hours of life left in this thread. If you don’t see your handle above, YOU HAVEN’T VOTE IN THIS THREAD.

Spoiler:

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

[quote=”sansterre”].[/quote]

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

[Jordan Syndrome]

1. Steve Nash
2. David Robinson
3. Julius Erving

Beginning with Nash, he is the best Offensive Player left in the pool. He has the most "offensive value added over his career" out of the pool (Reggie may actually beat him here) and he was a key component, along with Donny Nelson, MDA and SVG in revolutionizing the Modern NBA Game. Notice, however, he was the player who did while the other 3 were all coaches...well Nash is a coach I guess. Nash never had playoff failures or poor playoff runs in his prime and routinely put his team in a position to win and lost to teams with players ahead of him (Duncan, Dirk, Kobe).

David Robinson is the best two-way player bar none, he doesn't have the clear weaknesses someone like Moses did on the defensive end and he had a versatile skill-set on both ends. His impact numbers pop off the charts as the best player from the 1990s and the way he morphed and adapted next to Tim Duncan is tremendous. His run in 1999 is one of the greatest ever as a #1B (and I would argue he was the best on the team but that is for a different discussion). He got beat up against a team with spacing and a style ahead of its time in the Houston Rockets featuring Hakeem Olajuwon--swap Hakeem and Robinson and I can only imagine a different champion.

Julius Erving has a more complete career than Durant, Curry and Paul. His peak was higher than Malone's for me and, even though I'm low on the ABA (not a big fan of the level of competition or the style of basketball played) he proved himself once entering the NBA as arguably the best player in the world for a period of time. Erving's game wouldn't be great in the modern era due to his lack of shooting but his game still had less holes than Moses and I appreciate Erving's willingness once again to age next to another hall of famer.

I'm not huge on Moses nor Mikan--a lot of what I have read in this thread has turned me off to Mikan. As for Moses, not a fan, similar to Durant. Offensive focused players who are not great passers and playmakers go against the grain for me in terms of what I value as a basketball fan and what I recognize as great. I value passing and playmaking as much as high volume scoring and I need them to go hand in hand for me to consider you as an all-time great offensive force.

[eminence]

1. George Mikan
2. David Robinson
3. Steve Nash

Mikan is my pretty easy #1 here at this point. He has 4 seasons basically incomparable to anyone remaining ('47-'50, and I'd listen to Walton/Curry at that level), and another 4 seasons that compare to any other peak ('51-'54). '52 Lakers are the best non-Russell relative defense ever. Superstar scorer beyond belief in the first 5 seasons of his career, basically combining early Wilt's volume and later Wilt's efficiency. Solid passer and dominated the glass. I'm not sure what more you could really ask of him during his career.

David Robinson, peak pretty darn good, I have slightly more questions than some about his playoff defense, but still an all-timer and a strong offensive player if not the anchor that the guys we're comparing him too were. Impressive with Duncan. Longevity overall a bit lacking, but not terrible.

Steve Nash, think I'm higher on his Dallas years than some, I really value '01-'12 Nash quite highly (obviously not all at peak level). Arguably the best offensive player ever. Defensive questions kept him from an earlier entry.

Julius Erving, great longevity, good on both ends. His offensive feel leaves me leaving him just short of the all-timers.

Chris Paul, I like his peak/prime more than Nash, but only just so worse durability keeps him just below for now, could move up soon.

Moses Malone has a fine peak, but I find his prime inconsistent and am not high on his later seasons so only mediocre longevity in my book.

KD, Barkley, Curry, Harden, Wade, Stockton, Pettit, ??? all starting to be on my mind.

[penbeast0]

Mikan's efficiency relative to his contemporaries takes a massive fall in this season. It's still not bad relative to them, but he stops giving you that massive value add on that end of the floor like he did before.

Re: scoring went down because they changed the rules on him. And? What part of the goaltending rule and the land change should we use to argue Mikan was better than David Robinson or Patrick Ewing?

Re: scored 4.6 less PPG at age 27 like Jabbar, Wilt, Jordan. Wilt's a great analogy because clearly he needed to score less to better optimize team play. Imagine how much worse it would be for Wilt if he were actually jacking up crappy shots all the time like Mikan was?

I'm sorry, I understand that eras change and Mikan's efficiency wasn't putrid for the time, but that's because the league was new and guys by and large were bad at basketball compared to now. That should be obvious based on the fact that 6'10" guys without insane quickness don't dominate the game based on their physical presence any more....

(1) The fact that, as you say, "Mikan's efficiency wasn't putrid for the time" and provided "massive value add on" up to that point says to me that he was taking good shots, not crappy ones. IF you are providing a massive add on with your scoring, those aren't crappy shots -- by definition.

(2) Mikan, from everything I've read, didn't "dominate the game based on (his) physical presence." In fact, his contemporaries talk about his skills, his basketball IQ, his team game. He doesn't get the Wilt/Shaq where people rave about how he just overpowers everyone; more Kareem where he was an extraordinary athlete but more importantly an extraordinarily skilled one. In fact, Kareem was taller for his era than Mikan was for his.

You can only play with the rules and skills of the day. I discount Mikan's dominance because of the weakness of his era; but I don't think it's reasonable to discount his dominance because his skill set wasn't modern when neither were the skills of his competitors. That's a different, and to me, a wrong headed critique.

[DQuinn1575]

Mikan scores less starting in 52, but was still second in the league in scoring and his team still won the championship. His scoring went down because they changed the rules because of him- they widened the lane from 6 feet to 12 feet. So they changed the rules to punish him, and he’s still second in scoring and wins 3 championships.
Somehow they got Clyde Lovellette a center, and Mikan played less in 1954 to give him an opportunity to play as they wouldn’t have played together.
Mikan scores 4.6 less ppg at age 27 than his previous high. The same or more than Jabbar, wilt, Jordan, i only looked at those 3.

Mikan's efficiency relative to his contemporaries takes a massive fall in this season. It's still not bad relative to them, but he stops giving you that massive value add on that end of the floor like he did before.

Re: scoring went down because they changed the rules on him. And? What part of the goaltending rule and the land change should we use to argue Mikan was better than David Robinson or Patrick Ewing?

Re: scored 4.6 less PPG at age 27 like Jabbar, Wilt, Jordan. Wilt's a great analogy because clearly he needed to score less to better optimize team play. Imagine how much worse it would be for Wilt if he were actually jacking up crappy shots all the time like Mikan was?

I'm sorry, I understand that eras change and Mikan's efficiency wasn't putrid for the time, but that's because the league was new and guys by and large were bad at basketball compared to now. That should be obvious based on the fact that 6'10" guys without insane quickness don't dominate the game based on their physical presence any more.

Again, I'm 100% fine with someone putting Mikan #1 on their GOAT list if they are talking about historical significance, but there's just no way anyone looks at Mikan coming up as a prospect today and says "Wow, that's a generational talent." If you're going based on actual capability to play basketball, while I still think Mikan could be a capable player today, he's not the outlier of outliers once everyone knows to be on the look out for exceptionally large human beings.

And let me just note here: THAT guy. The outlier among outliers that would stand up physically with anyone from today, first showed up born in the 1930s. Mikan wasn't born in 1492, he was born in the 1920s - a mere decade earlier. He was in the right place, at the right time - born earlier he doesn't play basketball, born later, he's not the best big man prospect.

The goaltending rule was changed prior to 1947 and shouldn't be part of the conversation.
You play by the rules of the time. Mikan played in his time, under the rules of the time. Based on today, the rules at the time gave me an unfair advantage. If 20 years from now they abolish the 3 point shot, does that lessen the value that Steve Curry has today? If they make 25 footers 4 points, does that greaten his value? It's irrelevant how Robinson or Ewing would play with a 6 foot lane. It was never part of the rules they played by. Should Mikan have set up farther from the basket in 1950, because that would show people 70 years later how good he was? You understand the rules, play by them, and maximize them to your advantage. But the fact is they changed the rules because Mikan was so good, and now you are penalizing him for it.
Mikan was second in the league in scoring, shooting above league average field goal percentage - so that really isn't crappy shots. If you're shooting better shots than the other team, and keep winning, it's real hard to say to do otherwise.
Yes people were bad at basketball compared to now. In 1961 Dolph Schayes and Bob Cousy finished ahead of Jerry West in MVP voting. 1952-1954 Mikan was better than Schayes or Cousy. In 1952 the league shot 73.5% from the free throw line. In 1999 - 72.8%. So maybe they weren't as bad as we think. But yes, basketball wasn't played anyone near as well many year ago. Then the guidelines should have stated to start at 1956 (or whenever) because that's when players were good enough. The NBA is counting the Laker titles, and this selection process is as well. I'm counting each title the same, whether won in 1947, 1974, 2016, or 2020.
Ewing was maybe 7th best player over a 10 year span - 1988-1997 (Jordan, Robinson, Barkley, Magic, Hakeem, Malone). Mikan was best player over a 10 year span - 1947-1956. You can argue that Robinson is 2nd or 3rd in a given 10 year span, and maybe that should give him the nod over Mikan; I'm not currently following an exact formula; and of course there is no right or wrong answer.
But it's hard for me to say that 7 (or more) humans born in a time period are all better than the best 1 in another. And if the guidelines say start in 1947, then I am, and not counting MIkan's play in 1946.

[Baski]

I'm really heavily leaning DRob here because of how impressive his achievement with the Spurs is. I see the playoff drop argument but I find it a little........imbalanced comparing him to players like Curry and Durant who had it infinitely easier to do well.

I'm also in the camp that finds that argument to be penalizing him for being one of the greatest RS players of all time, especially when KG has already been voted in

Tbh his lost prime seasons due to the Navy stint is more of a knock to me than the playoff drop he experienced playing next to Sean Elliot and Avery Johnson.

I'm gonna wait this out a bit and see if I can get behind the Anti-DRob arguments before the final count.

[Baski]

Vote:

1. David Robinson
2. Julius Erving
3. Steph Curry

On Robinson, I think the literal worst you can say about him is that on an ideal team he's your #2 offensive player and your #1 defensive player. The idea that that's damning when we're considering the #17 spot to me is frankly pretty absurd. Compare others through the same lens, Robinson comes across looking great.

Now add in his lack of ego, his willingness and ability to change roles incredibly effectively, and his cultural impact, and frankly I can see a case for him going a lot higher.

Longevity is something of an issues for him, but not nearly as big as it looks at first glance. The average NBA fan thinks that Robinson stopped being relevant as a superstar with his '96 injury and the rest is just filler. In reality, he was probably the most impactful player in the world in '98-99 and continued to be quite valuable until the end of his career in 2003, albeit with lower and lower minutes by the end.

Glad to see DRob get a lot of love in this thread. I feared I may be biased because I just could not see "He can't carry you to a title by himself even though you're guaranteed fantastic regular seasons and deep playoff runs most of the time" as a knock at the freaking # 17 spot.

A note on Paul:

Him being traded to Phoenix makes it really clear how next year is going to be big for Paul's legacy. Paul thus far largely has a career where he's managed not to make his teammates better despite playing the "make your teammates better" position exceptionally well. Paul likes control, and he's going to a place where he needs to not be a control-freak or it just won't work. It's Booker's backcourt and Paul best never delude himself otherwise.

Hmmm. Gotta say this is surprising to read. That kind of comment fits someone like Kyrie Irving rather than Chris Paul. What's your basis for this?

[eminence]

A note on Paul:

Him being traded to Phoenix makes it really clear how next year is going to be big for Paul's legacy. Paul thus far largely has a career where he's managed not to make his teammates better despite playing the "make your teammates better" position exceptionally well. Paul likes control, and he's going to a place where he needs to not be a control-freak or it just won't work. It's Booker's backcourt and Paul best never delude himself otherwise.

Hmmm. Gotta say this is surprising to read. That kind of comment fits someone like Kyrie Irving rather than Chris Paul. What's your basis for this?

This one throws me a bit too, I'm not really thinking of any examples. He/Harden obviously didn't get along (now more evidence coming out that they weren't the only issue in Houston), but still Harden played arguably his best ball ever with him by his side. Griffin, maybe there's a case. Jordan undeniably played his best ball with CP3. All of the guys on the Thunder/Hornets looked good with Paul. I dunno, tough sell for me.

[Hornet Mania]

I'm sticking with Mikan for my pick, no one else left on the board was as dominant in their respective era. I do understand and acknowledge that he would very likely be an inferior player to someone like D-Rob but that's why I've been voting for him starting at spot 15 and not 5. His era was the worst (imo) so he gets ranked below all the dominant players of other eras but that's as low as I can go for a guy who was the best player in the world for such a sustained stretch.

D-Rob is my first alternate, two-way big with insane advanced metrics. He carried those Spurs teams and though he ultimately fell short until Duncan showed up I was still thoroughly impressed by how he kept them in the mix. His elite defense right up until the end of his career provides plenty of total career value in my eyes even with the late start to his career due to naval deployment.

The third pick was tough, I went back and forth between Dr. J and Moses quite a bit but ultimately I'm siding with Julius Erving. Dr. J was dominant in his ABA run, still an MVP-caliber player as he entered the NBA, and he had tremendous impact on the way the game is played. I really wish the leagues had not been split during his early run because his impact would be a lot more clear in a unified environment. I suspect his best seasons were in the ABA and that those performances would transfer to a unified environment, my vote reflects that belief.

My vote:
1. George Mikan
2. David Robinson
3. Julius Erving

Next up will be Moses, but I have a strong favoritism towards Barkley's offense as well so we'll see.

[Dr Positivity]

1. Julius Erving
2. David Robinson
3. Bob Pettit

Erving has one of the highest peaks left (76), good longevity/intangibles, performed well in the playoffs.

I consider Robinson's value 98 on to be solid, so I'm not as bothered by his longevity, and while he has offensive shortcomings he makes up for it with defense.

Pettit has great all around skillset (shooting value in addition to high volume scoring), helped anchor the Hawks on defense and rebounding, solid longevity at 11 good years. He was considered to have one of the most maniacal motors of his era giving him intangibles that a player like Barkley is lacking. The difference between him and other 60s guys time wise is overstated, he is only 2 years older than Russell and Baylor, and he played well into the 60s.

[penbeast0]

I have Pettit over Barkley as well, his offense wasn't at Barkley's level (few if anyone ever were), but his defense as apparently strong and he was arguably the most respected player in the NBA both by opponents, management, and teammates. His black teammates (Sihugo Green and Lenny Wilkens) talked about how he was one of the first guys to try to build bridges and make them a part of the team. The only negative comment I've ever heard about him is from Tommy Heinsohn (so take it with a grain of salt) who said that he got special treatment from the refs. I think the gist was that when he complained about all the foul calls Pettit got (and Pettit's efficiency comes mainly from his super high foul draw), the ref told him "Heinsohn, stop your whining and be respectful to 'Mr. Pettit.'"

NOTE FOR TREX: I am not voting him quite yet though; but I think I'm going to go back and put David Robinson into my list ahead of Curry.