The Forgotten Superstar - George Mikan

[singlepurposeac]

Glad to hear it.

[writerman]

I've long since gotten over being astonished by the stunning level of ignorance exhibited by the majority of posters here on this board. I come here mostly anymore to see what the few who do know anything (Warspite, TrueLAFan, tsherkin, Penbeast and a few others I can respect, even when we disagree) have to say. They are like a pool of cool water in an otherwise barren desert wasteland.

[singlepurposeac]

I've long since gotten over being astonished by the stunning level of ignorance exhibited by the majority of posters here on this board. I come here mostly anymore to see what the few who do know anything (Warspite, TrueLAFan, tsherkin, Penbeast and a few others I can respect, even when we disagree) have to say. They are like a pool of cool water in an otherwise barren desert wasteland.

As I understand it you once said Wilt would beat Ali in a boxing match. You're not in a strong position to be throwing stones.

[DocHoops]

Great post, Doc. My only disagreement - what he did and how he excelled against his peers probably warrants him a higher spot, IMO.

I agree, since I wrote that piece I've moved him up to #10. I think he works as a gatekeeper there as well. His achievements unquestionably warrant him in the top ten, but it's such a different era, and I can't ignore just how much it effected his impact when they installed the shot clock. If only he'd have played two or three more full healthy seasons...

[lorak]

The truth is though, Mikan was exposed to an extent by the shot clock era which began at the tail end of his career.]

That's not the truth. Mikan retired after 1953/54 season.
First year with shot clock was during 1954/55 season. Mikan missed that year and comeback in the middle of 1955/56 season. So after year and a half without playing basketball, when he was 31 years old, he returned and played worse than before. But that doesn't prove that shot clock exposed him. It's like saying that something during '95 season exposed Jordan. And MJ was in much better situation, during his break from basketball he was doing another sport, he has condition and so on.

Another example - Paul Arizin after his two year military service also had bad season. Poor shooting %, one of the lowest points average of his career. But with time he get back to condition and the game and in next season played as good as before military.

My point is - we can't judge Mikan in shot clock era based on so small sample (half season) and so special conditions (year and a half rest from basketball, from any sport activity).


PS
His PER 36 numbers in '56 are very similar to numbers from '54. FG% is even better.

[DocHoops]

The truth is though, Mikan was exposed to an extent by the shot clock era which began at the tail end of his career.]

That's not the truth. Mikan retired after 1953/54 season.
First year with shot clock was during 1954/55 season. Mikan missed that year and comeback in the middle of 1955/56 season. So after year and a half without playing basketball, when he was 31 years old, he returned and played worse than before. But that doesn't prove that shot clock exposed him. It's like saying that something during '95 season exposed Jordan. And MJ was in much better situation, during his break from basketball he was doing another sport, he has condition and so on.

Another example - Paul Arizin after his two year military service also had bad season. Poor shooting %, one of the lowest points average of his career. But with time he get back to condition and the game and in next season played as good as before military.

My point is - we can't judge Mikan in shot clock era based on so small sample (half season) and so special conditions (year and a half rest from basketball, from any sport activity).

It's a fair point, but let me explain where I am coming from. Mikan was working to get in shape for the comeback since early in the season, he had been running clinics and staying shape before anyway. Still the Lakers coach John Kundla was strongly against Mikan returning. He said the game had gotten too fast for Mikan. Mikan played half the minutes in the shot clock era that he did prior to it. Even by the end of the year that hadn't improved. He couldn't get in good enough shape to play at the new pace and be the same level of player he was just 18 months prior.

Rust is one thing, Arizin, though much younger, returned to being an elite level player, Mikan returned to retirement. Jordan, while not elite, was three full seasons removed and seven years older and still posted all-star numbers in starters minutes. Even Dave Cowens acclimated himself better in his own ill-fated return. Do I think a young Mikan would have been a star in the shot clock era, yes. Do I think he would have been a guaranteed title like he was before it, no.

[lorak]

Do I think a young Mikan would have been a star in the shot clock era, yes. Do I think he would have been a guaranteed title like he was before it, no.

Here we agree

BTW, Elgee, could you show us estimations for pace during Mikan years and first years of shot clock era?

[Wavy Q]

I've long since gotten over being astonished by the stunning level of ignorance exhibited by the majority of posters here on this board. I come here mostly anymore to see what the few who do know anything (Warspite, TrueLAFan, tsherkin, Penbeast and a few others I can respect, even when we disagree) have to say. They are like a pool of cool water in an otherwise barren desert wasteland.

Calling people racists and stereotyping/generalizing Laker fans is what constitutes a good post? That's all Warspite has contributed here.

[azuresou1]

George Mikan would be probably as good as Aaron Gray is today. That is to say, pretty ****ing bad.

I have the utmost respect for what Mikan did for the sport of basketball, which probably would not exist today as it does were it not for him. That being said, it's pretty clear to see that as a player he really is not that good relative to all the people who have come after.

[Dr Positivity]

Mikan isn't forgotten. Pettit is more underrated by casual fans. He made it in the improved 60s, post shot clock era too.

The biggest reason nobody loves Mikan is he couldn't even crack a college team's starting lineup today. The guy tried a comeback after the shot clock's introduction and failed cause he didn't have the speed or endurance to run up and down the court.

His ceiling would probably be Omar Samhan. Absolutely awesome college player, doesn't make an NBA team and goes to Europe

[Dr Positivity]

I once made a comparison of players to the film industry

Mikan is Birth of a Nation. It's still famous because it's basically the first movie and was a huge step forward for 1916. But by all accounts by the way we normally judge movies - it's not actually good. Most people haven't watched it or footage of it. And like Mikan and the late 40s league, it's um, racist.

Pettit is Sunrise. Move up to 1927, still silent era, but it's legitimately great by regular standards, not just historical imprint. Likewise Pettit could still be a Boozer/David Lee cross today. Not a superstar, but all-star and top 15 player, sure. But like Sunrise casual fans don't know Pettit

Russ, Wilt, West, Oscar are the big sound films in the 30s and 40s - Citizen Kane, Casablanca, It's a Wonderful Life, Gone with the Wind. The big fishes for both nerds and casual fans and the industry and league took off from there

Then a bunch more legends - Kareem/The Godfather, Dr. J/2001: A Space Odyssey, the Holzman Knicks/Taxi Driver, before taking a drastic turn in about the late 70s and early 80s for movies and the NBA respectively, with Magic/Bird and Star Wars/Jaws ushering in the money era

[The Main Event]

I once made a comparison of players to the film industry

Mikan is Birth of a Nation. It's still famous because it's basically the first movie and was a huge step forward for 1916. But by all accounts by the way we normally judge movies - it's not actually good. Most people haven't watched it or footage of it. And like Mikan and the late 40s league, it's um, racist.

Pettit is Sunrise. Move up to 1927, still silent era, but it's legitimately great by regular standards, not just historical imprint. Likewise Pettit could still be a Boozer/David Lee cross today. Not a superstar, but all-star and top 15 player, sure. But like Sunrise casual fans don't know Pettit

Russ, Wilt, West, Oscar are the big sound films in the 30s and 40s - Citizen Kane, Casablanca, It's a Wonderful Life, Gone with the Wind. The big fishes for both nerds and casual fans and the industry and league took off from there

Then a bunch more legends - Kareem/The Godfather, Dr. J/2001: A Space Odyssey, the Holzman Knicks/Taxi Driver, before taking a drastic turn in about the late 70s and early 80s for movies and the NBA respectively, with Magic/Bird and Star Wars/Jaws ushering in the money era

Interesting analogy. I like!

[stan1981]

George Mikan would be probably as good as Aaron Gray is today. That is to say, pretty ****ing bad.

I have the utmost respect for what Mikan did for the sport of basketball, which probably would not exist today as it does were it not for him. That being said, it's pretty clear to see that as a player he really is not that good relative to all the people who have come after.

Bill Russel would be probably as good as Gortat is today but that doesn't mean anything. Judging a player from the late 1940s according to today's standards is pointless

[The Main Event]

George Mikan would be probably as good as Aaron Gray is today. That is to say, pretty ****ing bad.

I have the utmost respect for what Mikan did for the sport of basketball, which probably would not exist today as it does were it not for him. That being said, it's pretty clear to see that as a player he really is not that good relative to all the people who have come after.

Bill Russel would be probably as good as Gortat is today but that doesn't mean anything. Judging a player from the late 1940s according to today's standards is pointless

Both of you are missing the point entirely.

The time-machine approach to cross-generational comparison is a terrible way of approaching and evaluating a theoretical production of a player in a different era.

You need to consider all of the various benefitial/debilitating factors that a player would be subject to in moving foward or backward in time. Rule changes, stylistic variances in the game, techonlogical/nutritional/training/medical advancements, fiscal influences, competition, etc.

Put everything in context and assume that the player in question is subject to all of the environmental factors during the time that you are analyzing them in and you'll paint a much more realistic picture of how they'd look.

[Die93]

I once made a comparison of players to the film industry

Mikan is Birth of a Nation. It's still famous because it's basically the first movie and was a huge step forward for 1916. But by all accounts by the way we normally judge movies - it's not actually good. Most people haven't watched it or footage of it. And like Mikan and the late 40s league, it's um, racist.

Pettit is Sunrise. Move up to 1927, still silent era, but it's legitimately great by regular standards, not just historical imprint. Likewise Pettit could still be a Boozer/David Lee cross today. Not a superstar, but all-star and top 15 player, sure. But like Sunrise casual fans don't know Pettit

Russ, Wilt, West, Oscar are the big sound films in the 30s and 40s - Citizen Kane, Casablanca, It's a Wonderful Life, Gone with the Wind. The big fishes for both nerds and casual fans and the industry and league took off from there

Then a bunch more legends - Kareem/The Godfather, Dr. J/2001: A Space Odyssey, the Holzman Knicks/Taxi Driver, before taking a drastic turn in about the late 70s and early 80s for movies and the NBA respectively, with Magic/Bird and Star Wars/Jaws ushering in the money era

Brilliant post

[tsherkin]

You need to consider all of the various benefitial/debilitating factors that a player would be subject to in moving foward or backward in time. Rule changes, stylistic variances in the game, techonlogical/nutritional/training/medical advancements, fiscal influences, competition, etc.

Put everything in context and assume that the player in question is subject to all of the environmental factors during the time that you are analyzing them in and you'll paint a much more realistic picture of how they'd look.

That still doesn't help Mikan who, in his own era, couldn't deal with the widened lane and would today just be some unathletic white guy without sufficient size to dominate the post. His FT shooting was awesome, that's literally the only thing that would translate. He wouldn't even make the D-League, let alone the NBA, today.

He is worth remembering as a top 50 player on the strength of what he achieved in his own time and for how he did change the game, but there are so many players who are similarly accomplished that it doesn't much matter (especially in the case of guys like Wilt/Russell/Oscar, Magic/Bird/Jordan, Shaq, etc, who also changed the game as well).

[stan1981]

George Mikan would be probably as good as Aaron Gray is today. That is to say, pretty ****ing bad.

I have the utmost respect for what Mikan did for the sport of basketball, which probably would not exist today as it does were it not for him. That being said, it's pretty clear to see that as a player he really is not that good relative to all the people who have come after.

Bill Russel would be probably as good as Gortat is today but that doesn't mean anything. Judging a player from the late 1940s according to today's standards is pointless

Both of you are missing the point entirely.

The time-machine approach to cross-generational comparison is a terrible way of approaching and evaluating a theoretical production of a player in a different era.

You need to consider all of the various benefitial/debilitating factors that a player would be subject to in moving foward or backward in time. Rule changes, stylistic variances in the game, techonlogical/nutritional/training/medical advancements, fiscal influences, competition, etc.

Put everything in context and assume that the player in question is subject to all of the environmental factors during the time that you are analyzing them in and you'll paint a much more
realistic picture of how they'd look.

Cross-generation comparisons are wrong to begin with, except when you're comparing eras with relatively similar 'environmental factors' (as you wrote). Today, basketball is a billion-dollar global industry, in the 40s it was still a recreational activity. There are too many variables. Judging Mikan solely on his basketball skills is as useless, as trying to predict LeBron's stats back then.

[The Main Event]

You need to consider all of the various benefitial/debilitating factors that a player would be subject to in moving foward or backward in time. Rule changes, stylistic variances in the game, techonlogical/nutritional/training/medical advancements, fiscal influences, competition, etc.

Put everything in context and assume that the player in question is subject to all of the environmental factors during the time that you are analyzing them in and you'll paint a much more realistic picture of how they'd look.

That still doesn't help Mikan who, in his own era, couldn't deal with the widened lane and would today just be some unathletic white guy without sufficient size to dominate the post. His FT shooting was awesome, that's literally the only thing that would translate. He wouldn't even make the D-League, let alone the NBA, today.

He is worth remembering as a top 50 player on the strength of what he achieved in his own time and for how he did change the game, but there are so many players who are similarly accomplished that it doesn't much matter (especially in the case of guys like Wilt/Russell/Oscar, Magic/Bird/Jordan, Shaq, etc, who also changed the game as well).

Right. It bears mention that I wasn't offering this strategy as a way to favor Mikan, rather, I thought it was the most realistic and accurate manner by which we can approach these types of comparisons. That said, i am in complete agreeance with your position of Mikans relative value and theoretical proudction in today's game. I just find it hella annoying when people insist on taking the time-maching approach to cross-generational comparisions of players.

[tsherkin]

Right. It bears mention that I wasn't offering this strategy as a way to favor Mikan, rather, I thought it was the most realistic and accurate manner by which we can approach these types of comparisons.

Fair enough.

That said, i am in complete agreeance with your position of Mikans relative value and theoretical proudction in today's game. I just find it hella annoying when people insist on taking the time-maching approach to cross-generational comparisions of players.

Yeah, it's not entirely fair to look at it that way. Guys coming forward would have new advantages that would help them in many cases, and guys going back would have them removed in those same cases. Both are factors to consider, so dominance relative to competition becomes very important. In a sense, Mikan's size was (in-era, anyway) not a lot different an advantage than that exhibited by Shaq, just a half-century earlier. Shaq's size was and remains a monstrous outlier, especially in combination with the skills he had.

So in that sense, we do have to respect Mikan; he was the greatest achiever in his era, prior to the rules-changes totally sabotaging his ability to play because of his weak physical tools beyond height and (more importantly) power.

[Warspite]

George Mikan would be probably as good as Aaron Gray is today. That is to say, pretty ****ing bad.

I have the utmost respect for what Mikan did for the sport of basketball, which probably would not exist today as it does were it not for him. That being said, it's pretty clear to see that as a player he really is not that good relative to all the people who have come after.

What comes around gos around.

In 50 yrs this exact post will be written and Mikan will be replaced with Kobe or LBJ or Shaq.

We dont say that CP3 is a horrible player because he couldnt play in the 50s-60s because he cant dribble correctly according to there rules. You wish to fault Wirterman for saying that the apex of the NBA was in the past but then say that apex of the NBA is today and that the future players will be inferior. If your saying the same thing then your as big a hypocrite.

What will future generations say about current players?

1. they didnt have anti- gravity shoes?
2. They played on a short 10 ft rim?
3. They never had to play back to backs in Sydney and LA?
4. They took HGH?
5. They only played 82 games?

Mikan not only played before there were team jets he played before there were jet aircraft.

Judge the man by what he accomplished in his era. We arent judgeing todays players against the future so we shouldnt judge the past vs the present.

5MVPs and 5 titles is pretty impressive regardless of era.

I have been to LA, Chicago and Dallas. You can walk up and down the streets of these cities with pictures of James Worthy, Steve Kerr and Tony Dorsett and ask people with Lakers, Bulls and and Cowboys jerseys and you wont get 2 correct answers in 10. The big exception of course is Yankee fans. They can tell you the pitch count for Reggie Jacksons 3 HRs in the Word Series.