RealGM 2020 Top 100 Project: #16 (Karl Malone)

[eminence]

1. George Mikan
2. Karl Malone
3. Julius Erving

Mikan still my #1 by virtue of huge prime/peak edge on the field.

Karl gets #2 by being comparable to most remaining for prime/peak and having overwhelming longevity.

DrJ grabs #3 for now with a solid combo of it all, bad +/- numbers kept him from pushing Dirk/Karl Malone for me.

[trex_8063]

Thru post #41:

George Mikan - 5 (DQuinn1575, eminence, Hornet Mania, lebron4-13-4, penbeast0)
Karl Malone - 3 (Doctor MJ, Joao Saraiva, trex_8063)
Julius Erving - 3 (Cavsfansince84, Dr Positivity, sansterre)
David Robinson - 2 (drza, Magic Is Magic)
Moses Malone - 1 (Odinn21)
Kevin Durant - 1 (Dutchball97)


About 4 hours more for this thread. If you don’t see your handle above, YOU HAVEN’T VOTED IN THIS THREAD.

***lebron3-14-3: I've tentatively counted your vote, though moving forward you'll have to dig a little deeper/contribute more to have a counted vote, as per stipulations in OP of main project thread. Preferably I'd like you to add a little more in THIS thread......it will feel a bit unsettling if Mikan wins the spot by a single vote, with yours being exceptionally marginal in its eligibility [based on lack of content].

Spoiler:

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

[quote=”sansterre”].[/quote]

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

[trex_8063]

Though it’s not what I’d call a detailed or deep-dive analysis (I tried to do more by way of that in post #22), collectively I feel the following bullet points are telling….

rs WS Leaders among tractioned candidates, and all-time rank
4. Karl Malone - 234.63
…..
13. Julius Erving* - 181.11 (*includes ABA win shares)
14. Chris Paul - 180.34
15. Moses Malone - 179.15* (*includes ABA win shares)
16. David Robinson - 178.67
17. Charles Barkley - 177.21
…..
32. Kevin Durant - 141.75

ps WS Leaders among tractioned candidates, and all-time rank
10. Julius Erving* - 26.89 (*16.44 in NBA [ranked 34th], 10.45 in ABA)
…..
15. Kevin Durant - 23.09
16. Karl Malone - 22.09
…..
26. Charles Barkley - 19.52
….
30. David Robinson - 17.52
31. Stephen Curry - 17.11
32. George Mikan - 16.97 (does not include NBL)
….
T47. Moses Malone - 14.80* (*13.67 in NBA [ranked #52], 1.13 in ABA)

rs VORP Leaders among tractioned candidates, and all-time rank
4. Karl Malone - 99.03
…..
10. David Robinson - 81.96
11. Charles Barkley - 80.46
….
13. Julius Erving* - 80.05 (*51.76 in NBA [ranked 31st], 28.29 in ABA)
…..
20. Kevin Durant - 69.01
…..
33. Stephen Curry - 50.74
…..
40. Moses Malone - 45.14* (*42.43 in NBA [ranked 44th], 2.71 in ABA)

ps VORP Leaders among tractioned candidates, and all-time rank
9. Julius Erving* - 13.52 (*9.63 in NBA [ranked 24th], 3.89 in ABA)
……
15. Karl Malone - 12.07
….
20. Charles Barkley - 10.15
…..
25. Stephen Curry - 9.54
….
28. David Robinson - 8.67
…..
52. Moses Malone - 5.38* (*4.92 in NBA [ranked 58th], 0.46 in ABA)


MVP Award shares among tractioned candidates, and all-time rank
8. Karl Malone - 4.296 (is the only player anywhere in the top 11 still on the table)
…..
13. Julius Erving* - 3.551 (*includes his ABA MVP shares)
14. Kevin Durant - 3.209
15. David Robinson - 3.123
16. Moses Malone - 2.854
…..
22. Charles Barkley - 2.437
23. Steve Nash - 2.429
24. Stephen Curry - 2.207
…..
(29. Dirk Nowitzki - 1.810)
**MVP not awarded during Mikan’s career**

NBA(/ABA) All-Star Selections among tractioned candidates, and all-time rank
T3. Julius Erving* - 16 (*11 NBA, 5 ABA)
……
T8. Karl Malone - 14
…..
T12. Moses Malone* - 13 (12 NBA, 1 ABA)
….
T27. Charles Barley - 11
…..
T34. Kevin Durant - 10
T34. David Robinson - 10
(Nash -8, Curry - 6; if “honoring” a selection in years prior to All-Star games [for BAA and NBL] Mikan would have no more than 8)

All-NBA Team Selections among tractioned candidates, and all-time rank
T5. Karl Malone - 14 (only player in top 6 still on the table)
…..
T7. Julius Erving* - 12 (*7 NBA, 5 ABA)
….
13. Charles Barkley - 11
….
T20. David Robinson - 10
…..
T26. Kevin Durant - 9
….
T32. Moses Malone - 8
***George Mikan - 6 (5 NBA, 1 BAA; even if give credit for NBL, total comes to 8)***


All-NBA/ABA/BAA 1st Team Selections among tractioned candidates, and all-time rank
3. Karl Malone - 11
…….
T11. Julius Erving* - 9 (*5 NBA, 4 ABA)
…..
T15. George Mikan - 6 (5 NBA, 1 BAA; could “credit” with 8 if include NBL)
T15. Kevin Durant - 6
…..
T21. Charles Barkley - 5
…..
T27. David Robinson - 4
T27. Moses Malone - 4


Karl Malone is either at the top [sometimes by a wide margin] or near the top in all of these things, has a very respectable late-prime/post-prime impact profile, and fwiw if not for some OBJECTIVELY poor officiating on two crucial calls in a single game of the '98 Finals, it's likely Mailman would also have a title as the best player on his team (and would likely have a FMVP in that instance), too.

Given all of these considerations.......

[Hal14]

16) Moses Malone
17) Julius Erving
18) Elgin Baylor

As far as Moses over Dr. J, I posted in the other thread, but if Dr. J put up those numbers and had all of those accolades in the NBA, he'd have a stronger case. But his fist few years he did it in a slightly weaker league, the ABA - I only say slightly though. The ABA did have some very good teams and have a good amount of talent, but wasn't quite as good as the NBA, as evidenced by the Doctors individual stats and team success suffering a little bit after he went from ABA to NBA.

Moses meanwhile, matched up very well vs Kareem (the no. 3 GOAT according to this board), leadings his team to wins over Kareem's Lakers in the playoffs in both 81 and 83, leading his team to the finals in 81 and sweeping the defending champs Lakers in 83. Yes, Dr. J was on that 83 Sixers team but Moses was the MVP of the league that year and finals MVP. Moses won 3 NBA MVPs compared to 1 for Dr. J. Yes, Dr. J won 3 ABA MVPs, but again, it depends how much you value the level of competition in the ABA. IMO, 3 NBA MVPs is just as impressive as 3 ABA MVPs and 1 NBA MVP - possibly more.

Dr. J was a better defender and passer, but he was by no means GOAT level at either defending or passing, whereas Moses was a GOAT level rebounder.

Also - it certainly seems like I have Baylor ranked higher than most on here, but in terms of scoring and rebounding numbers in his prime - he was not far off at all from Wilt Chamberlain, despite the fact that Baylor was 8 inches shorter than Wilt. Wilt got voted in the no. 6 spot, so I see no reason why Baylor can't be no. 18. Also, while I do have West ahead of Baylor, I think the gap between those 2 is very close, much closer than what most people think. Often times when they were teammates, Baylor was simply the better, more dangerous player who was bigger, stronger, more powerful and more athletic. Baylor was an exceptional passer and defender. Again, I have West ahead of Baylor, but it's very close. West got voted in at no. 13, so I see no reason why Baylor can't be no. 18.

[penbeast0]

I'm curious about your source for Baylor being an exceptional defender; haven't heard that about him.

[Doctor MJ]

As I look at the leaderboard I'm going to say a particular thing. I'm not saying this in outrage, but just think it needs to be said:

Do you think that if George Mikan were born in the same year as David Robinson, that Mikan would be better at basketball than Robinson?

If you do, you do. I think it's worth explaining if you haven't done so already but I'm not saying I think you can't explain it.

If you think Robinson would be better, then on what basis are you voting for Mikan? This isn't a rhetorical question. This is about criteria. You have a good amount of freedom in specifically which criteria you choose to go by, but whatever you choose it should be clear to you rather than murky.

You should also be aware that it makes sense to have multiple personal lists based on different criteria. This is why we have Peaks projects to go along with the Top 100 which always had more of a career focus without actually saying the word Career. It's also why I have lists based on historical significance, which traditionally hasn't been the focus of the Top 100.

If your vote here deviates from that Top 100-historical norm more in the direction of these other lists, as far as I'm aware, that's explicitly allowed, and you've got my thumbs up to use it.

But be careful about mixing your paints here. When I see things like attempting to apply the appropriate penalty for Mikan's era by multiplying his spot on the list by 3, I see a list becoming muddled and ceasing to mean anything.

Last note: You might ask "If mixing criteria is a bad thing makes a list meaningless, then what does that say about the RealGM Top 100?" In a very real sense, the RealGM Top 100 list doesn't mean any particular clear thing. The real power of the project is in the process of doing the project. The comparisons serve as a focusing agent for us to dig deeper, the thread allows us to see others thoughts and develop our own further like vines growing around each other. And when things go well, we build community and make friends on something of a deeper level than we get with most other forms of debate, which is what dominates much of social media.

That said, I think the historical shifts we get to see over time as a result of our continuing to keep this tradition going are really noteworthy. We are in some sense setting a zeitgeist in stone every time we do this.

[Joao Saraiva]

Too bad Karl Malone never won a ring. This is what it has done to his legacy...

[sansterre]

May I ask the methodology here? I feel like I remember seeing a worrying trend of his team defense scaling to opponent (better against weaker teams), with the only standout performance against a strong team being the '93 series vs the Suns.

Of course!

It's nothing particularly snazzy.

1990: (3 games against a 108 OR + 7 games against a 110.5 OR) = 109.8 expected, 106.1 allowed, -3.65 rating
1991: 4 games against a 111.9 OR, 111.6 allowed, -0.30 Rating
1993: (4 games against a 108.3 OR + 6 games against a 113.3 OR) = 111.3 expected, 107 allowed, -4.3 rating
1994: 4 games against a 108.6 OR, 110.3 allowed, +1.7 Rating
1995: (3 games against a 109.1 OR + 6 games against a 109.1 OR + 6 games against a 109.7 OR) = 109.3 expected, 103.1 allowed, -6.24 Rating
1996: (4 games against a 110.3 OR + 6 games against a 113.3 OR) = 112.1 expected, 108.5 allowed, -3.6 rating

I'm not saying it's super-dispositive; I was just looking for evidence that his defense dropped in the playoffs using team measures and I couldn't find it. If I was looking for scaling falloff I'd check this (opponent offensive average vs playoff defensive rating):

1990: Opposition is +0.35, Rating is -3.65
1991: Opposition is +4.00, Rating is -0.30
1993: Opposition is +3.30, Rating is -4.30
1994: Opposition is +2.30, Rating is +1.70
1995: Opposition is +1.04, Rating is -6.24
1996: Opposition is +4.50, Rating is -0.60

Or, sorted by opposing offenses (best on top):

1996: Opposition is +4.50, Rating is -0.60
1991: Opposition is +4.00, Rating is -0.30
1993: Opposition is +3.30, Rating is -4.30
1994: Opposition is +2.30, Rating is +1.70
1995: Opposition is +1.04, Rating is -6.24
1990: Opposition is +0.35, Rating is -3.65

I think there's reason to think that there is *some* scaling at work.

Of course, I haven't looked at other players/teams in this way, so for all I know some degree of scaling against quality offenses in the playoffs is normal. It does look like there's something there; I'm just not sure what it means.

Brother, how many spreadsheets you have running right now? I love it, though. Your Top 100 teams and the RealGM Top 100 threads possess some of the best basketball discussion anywhere.

That's incredibly kind of you to say sir. I have really enjoyed working on the Top 100 teams - I've learned so much and I find the task of writing one every day to be very soothing. I'm very much hoping that it is being read and enjoyed.

But as for the Top 100 players, I'm literally just making this up as I go along. I don't pretend to have the substantive knowledge that others do, so I just try and reason it out as best I can. Two kinds of people bring something new to the discussion: sages and fools. In this area I feel far more the latter than the former.

But again, it was very thoughtful of you to take the time to post such a complimentary remark, and I am thankful for it.

[eminence]

Robinson vs DrJ vs Moses vs others is something I want to look at more next round, as I'm really not sure who to support after Mikan/Karl this round.

[Cavsfansince84]

As I look at the leaderboard I'm going to say a particular thing. I'm not saying this in outrage, but just think it needs to be said:

Do you think that if George Mikan were born in the same year as David Robinson, that Mikan would be better at basketball than Robinson?

If you do, you do. I think it's worth explaining if you haven't done so already but I'm not saying I think you can't explain it.

If you think Robinson would be better, then on what basis are you voting for Mikan? This isn't a rhetorical question. This is about criteria. You have a good amount of freedom in specifically which criteria you choose to go by, but whatever you choose it should be clear to you rather than murky.

You should also be aware that it makes sense to have multiple personal lists based on different criteria. This is why we have Peaks projects to go along with the Top 100 which always had more of a career focus without actually saying the word Career. It's also why I have lists based on historical significance, which traditionally hasn't been the focus of the Top 100.

If your vote here deviates from that Top 100-historical norm more in the direction of these other lists, as far as I'm aware, that's explicitly allowed, and you've got my thumbs up to use it.

But be careful about mixing your paints here. When I see things like attempting to apply the appropriate penalty for Mikan's era by multiplying his spot on the list by 3, I see a list becoming muddled and ceasing to mean anything.

Last note: You might ask "If mixing criteria is a bad thing makes a list meaningless, then what does that say about the RealGM Top 100?" In a very real sense, the RealGM Top 100 list doesn't mean any particular clear thing. The real power of the project is in the process of doing the project. The comparisons serve as a focusing agent for us to dig deeper, the thread allows us to see others thoughts and develop our own further like vines growing around each other. And when things go well, we build community and make friends on something of a deeper level than we get with most other forms of debate, which is what dominates much of social media.

That said, I think the historical shifts we get to see over time as a result of our continuing to keep this tradition going are really noteworthy. We are in some sense setting a zeitgeist in stone every time we do this.

I agree with a lot of this and I also think its worth noting that we can have a high amount of respect for the place Mikan holds in the history of the game without it necessarily having to translate to a high spot in the top 100 project. Its not the same thing even taking into account how dominant he was in his era. Sort of how similar to how I wouldn't feel obligated to have Red Grange in the top 20 or 25 if I were listing the greatest nfl players of all time. I mean you could but its not an obligation to do so.

[trex_8063]

As I look at the leaderboard I'm going to say a particular thing. I'm not saying this in outrage, but just think it needs to be said:

Do you think that if George Mikan were born in the same year as David Robinson, that Mikan would be better at basketball than Robinson?

If you do, you do. I think it's worth explaining if you haven't done so already but I'm not saying I think you can't explain it.

If you think Robinson would be better, then on what basis are you voting for Mikan? This isn't a rhetorical question. This is about criteria. You have a good amount of freedom in specifically which criteria you choose to go by, but whatever you choose it should be clear to you rather than murky.

You should also be aware that it makes sense to have multiple personal lists based on different criteria. This is why we have Peaks projects to go along with the Top 100 which always had more of a career focus without actually saying the word Career. It's also why I have lists based on historical significance, which traditionally hasn't been the focus of the Top 100.

If your vote here deviates from that Top 100-historical norm more in the direction of these other lists, as far as I'm aware, that's explicitly allowed, and you've got my thumbs up to use it.

But be careful about mixing your paints here. When I see things like attempting to apply the appropriate penalty for Mikan's era by multiplying his spot on the list by 3, I see a list becoming muddled and ceasing to mean anything.

Last note: You might ask "If mixing criteria is a bad thing makes a list meaningless, then what does that say about the RealGM Top 100?" In a very real sense, the RealGM Top 100 list doesn't mean any particular clear thing. The real power of the project is in the process of doing the project. The comparisons serve as a focusing agent for us to dig deeper, the thread allows us to see others thoughts and develop our own further like vines growing around each other. And when things go well, we build community and make friends on something of a deeper level than we get with most other forms of debate, which is what dominates much of social media.

That said, I think the historical shifts we get to see over time as a result of our continuing to keep this tradition going are really noteworthy. We are in some sense setting a zeitgeist in stone every time we do this.

I agree with a lot of this and I also think its worth noting that we can have a high amount of respect for the place Mikan holds in the history of the game without it necessarily having to translate to a high spot in the top 100 project. Its not the same thing even taking into account how dominant he was in his era. Sort of how similar to how I wouldn't feel obligated to have Red Grange in the top 20 or 25 if I were listing the greatest nfl players of all time. I mean you could but its not an obligation to do so.

I agree.
In terms of ranking him, I personally have him in the low 30s on my ATL, which I feel is giving more than ample consideration to what he did in terms of beating what was in front of him. From a forward/era translating perspective, I don't see him peaking any higher than a Marc Gasol or Al Horford level player in the modern game......which is still really damn good, but which wouldn't come within sniffing distance of my top 20 (or even top 50) if such a career played itself out in the modern era. That said, we don't know that Horford or Gasol would have developed the skills to dominate back then either (if they'd been born circa-1925).

All things considered (bearing in mind meaningful longevity is important to me too), I feel low 30s is generous enough.

[DQuinn1575]

As I look at the leaderboard I'm going to say a particular thing. I'm not saying this in outrage, but just think it needs to be said:

Do you think that if George Mikan were born in the same year as David Robinson, that Mikan would be better at basketball than Robinson?

If you do, you do. I think it's worth explaining if you haven't done so already but I'm not saying I think you can't explain it.

If you think Robinson would be better, then on what basis are you voting for Mikan? This isn't a rhetorical question. This is about criteria. You have a good amount of freedom in specifically which criteria you choose to go by, but whatever you choose it should be clear to you rather than murky.

You should also be aware that it makes sense to have multiple personal lists based on different criteria. This is why we have Peaks projects to go along with the Top 100 which always had more of a career focus without actually saying the word Career. It's also why I have lists based on historical significance, which traditionally hasn't been the focus of the Top 100.

If your vote here deviates from that Top 100-historical norm more in the direction of these other lists, as far as I'm aware, that's explicitly allowed, and you've got my thumbs up to use it.

But be careful about mixing your paints here. When I see things like attempting to apply the appropriate penalty for Mikan's era by multiplying his spot on the list by 3, I see a list becoming muddled and ceasing to mean anything.

Last note: You might ask "If mixing criteria is a bad thing makes a list meaningless, then what does that say about the RealGM Top 100?" In a very real sense, the RealGM Top 100 list doesn't mean any particular clear thing. The real power of the project is in the process of doing the project. The comparisons serve as a focusing agent for us to dig deeper, the thread allows us to see others thoughts and develop our own further like vines growing around each other. And when things go well, we build community and make friends on something of a deeper level than we get with most other forms of debate, which is what dominates much of social media.

That said, I think the historical shifts we get to see over time as a result of our continuing to keep this tradition going are really noteworthy. We are in some sense setting a zeitgeist in stone every time we do this.

I agree with a lot of this and I also think its worth noting that we can have a high amount of respect for the place Mikan holds in the history of the game without it necessarily having to translate to a high spot in the top 100 project. Its not the same thing even taking into account how dominant he was in his era. Sort of how similar to how I wouldn't feel obligated to have Red Grange in the top 20 or 25 if I were listing the greatest nfl players of all time. I mean you could but its not an obligation to do so.

You mention Red Grange, but the better comparison might be Babe Ruth, who still is generally rated the greatest baseball player of all-time despite being born over 100 years ago. And replace Jim Thorpe with Grange, who frequently shows up in the discussion of greatest football player ever.

So I'm voting for Mikan here, and I am "guilty" of using the times 3 argument. It gets to be real hard in any sport to compare those born decades ago to modern players. I think I see a couple of parts to this:

1. You ask if David Robinson and George Mikan were born in the same year who would be better at basketball? I guess the answer is what year? If born in the 20s then the answer would probably be Mikan, as Robinson wouldn't have had the opportunities to excel. But they are probably good examples of the correct answer, because these guys were "made" players - they weren't LeBron, Oscar, Jabbar who were superstars from the beginning, they were guys who entered college as no names and became superstars. They both learned and adapted to the game, and I really can't say how they would have learned or progressed in different times. When Mikan was in college goal tended was allowed, so he became proficient at that. The lane was only six feet wide, so he learned to post up real close to the basket. My guess is that in today's game Robinson's skills would translate better, but neither one played in a league like they did today.

2. We are all making some type of timeline adjustment for Mikan - if you take away any adjustment for the era, then MIkan is Top 5 - best player in the world, and best player on 7 title teams. I don't see anyone advocating him as Top 5. Using Bill James as a resource, in his ranking of the Top baseball players of all-time, he put in a timeline adjustment. Anyone who puts Mikan in the Top 100 is making a timeline adjustment of some sort. Some choose to ask how would they play today. I'm trying to rate players in how they played in their time, and not try to "guess" how they would do in hypothetical situations. I don't know what Mikan would play like if he was born in 1990, nor do I think it is relevant. I think I can only fairly judge him in the era that he played.

3. Right now if I take the change in population, in the lack of black players, and the growth of the international game, I am estimating the talent pool is about 3 times greater than the 1950s - sometime during the process I will try to fine tune this. That is the basis for my 3 times - maybe it should be 4 times.

4. We already have Wilt, Russell, Oscar, West in the list already. They all entered the league less than 10 years after Mikan left. I'm not sure if 1962 Jerry West would be the best player in the league in the early 50s ahead of Mikan.

5. The projects starts in 1947 - to exclude Mikan might then exclude any player who played in 1954 and before - 8 years, which is more than 10% of the project. I started above with Babe Ruth, but in baseball lists you would also get Cobb, Honus Wagner, Rogers Hornsby, Lou Gehrig. and Walter Johnson all vying for Top 20 spots - here we are only talking Mikan in Top 20; It seems fair to include the very best players from the first part of the time period.

We all have different weights we put on the criteria -regular season vs. post season, championships won, value of longevity, etc.

[Cavsfansince84]

I agree with a lot of this and I also think its worth noting that we can have a high amount of respect for the place Mikan holds in the history of the game without it necessarily having to translate to a high spot in the top 100 project. Its not the same thing even taking into account how dominant he was in his era. Sort of how similar to how I wouldn't feel obligated to have Red Grange in the top 20 or 25 if I were listing the greatest nfl players of all time. I mean you could but its not an obligation to do so.

You mention Red Grange, but the better comparison might be Babe Ruth, who still is generally rated the greatest baseball player of all-time despite being born over 100 years ago. And replace Jim Thorpe with Grange, who frequently shows up in the discussion of greatest football player ever.

So I'm voting for Mikan here, and I am "guilty" of using the times 3 argument. It gets to be real hard in any sport to compare those born decades ago to modern players. I think I see a couple of parts to this:

1. You ask if David Robinson and George Mikan were born in the same year who would be better at basketball? I guess the answer is what year? If born in the 20s then the answer would probably be Mikan, as Robinson wouldn't have had the opportunities to excel. But they are probably good examples of the correct answer, because these guys were "made" players - they weren't LeBron, Oscar, Jabbar who were superstars from the beginning, they were guys who entered college as no names and became superstars. They both learned and adapted to the game, and I really can't say how they would have learned or progressed in different times. When Mikan was in college goal tended was allowed, so he became proficient at that. The lane was only six feet wide, so he learned to post up real close to the basket. My guess is that in today's game Robinson's skills would translate better, but neither one played in a league like they did today.

2. We are all making some type of timeline adjustment for Mikan - if you take away any adjustment for the era, then MIkan is Top 5 - best player in the world, and best player on 7 title teams. I don't see anyone advocating him as Top 5. Using Bill James as a resource, in his ranking of the Top baseball players of all-time, he put in a timeline adjustment. Anyone who puts Mikan in the Top 100 is making a timeline adjustment of some sort. Some choose to ask how would they play today. I'm trying to rate players in how they played in their time, and not try to "guess" how they would do in hypothetical situations. I don't know what Mikan would play like if he was born in 1990, nor do I think it is relevant. I think I can only fairly judge him in the era that he played.

3. Right now if I take the change in population, in the lack of black players, and the growth of the international game, I am estimating the talent pool is about 3 times greater than the 1950s - sometime during the process I will try to fine tune this. That is the basis for my 3 times - maybe it should be 4 times.

4. We already have Wilt, Russell, Oscar, West in the list already. They all entered the league less than 10 years after Mikan left. I'm not sure if 1962 Jerry West would be the best player in the league in the early 50s ahead of Mikan.

5. The projects starts in 1947 - to exclude Mikan might then exclude any player who played in 1954 and before - 8 years, which is more than 10% of the project. I started above with Babe Ruth, but in baseball lists you would also get Cobb, Honus Wagner, Rogers Hornsby, Lou Gehrig. and Walter Johnson all vying for Top 20 spots - here we are only talking Mikan in Top 20; It seems fair to include the very best players from the first part of the time period.

We all have different weights we put on the criteria -regular season vs. post season, championships won, value of longevity, etc.

To me dominance relative to era is a big thing. Its partly why I have Russell as a true goat candidate and keep guys like West and Oscar in my top 13. My biggest issue with Mikan is that I feel the league's overall talent level likely went up at least a notch or two in the years right after Mikan left which includes height which was a big advantage Mikan held back then. Average league height went up from 6-4 in 1954 to 6-6 in 1963 and I think a big part of that was the number of guys over 6-6 in the league. The other issue I have with Mikan relative to other guys I generally would put in my top 30 is somewhat obviously length of prime. Its not that his prime was super short but on top of the other things its just very hard for me to justify putting him ahead of guys I feel were likely as good if not better and had much better longevity. Bob Pettit for example. imo he was probably better than Mikan while his career nearly overlapped with Mikan's and who played a few more years. Had Pettit come into the league 6 years earlier and Mikan come into it 6 years later I feel confident that Pettit wins a lot more rings while Mikan likely has the same problem getting by Russell's Celtics.

[KPT1867]

My vote here is for Dr. J. He was a versatile small forward with a wide range of talents. His athleticism was ahead of his time. He averaged more than 20+ rebounds in college, which I know does not mean anything for these rankings, but still very impressive. He had a long 17 year career, where he compiled impressive career totals over the NBA and ABA, being 8th in scoring, 35th in rebounds, 7th in steals, 23rd in blocks, 62nd assists. He is a 4x MVP. He made it to championship series six total times, winning in 3.

Apart from his numbers, is his impact cannot be measured. We could argue that he proved that flashy play could make it in the NBA. After him other similar athletes began breaking into the league.

[70sFan]

For what it's worth, the rest of the Mikan-era superstars did very well in shotclock era in most cases - Schayes, Arizin, Cousy, Sharman, Foust, Braun all did very well in the early 1960s.

[Cavsfansince84]

You mention Red Grange, but the better comparison might be Babe Ruth, who still is generally rated the greatest baseball player of all-time despite being born over 100 years ago. And replace Jim Thorpe with Grange, who frequently shows up in the discussion of greatest football player ever.

I don't fully agree with the Babe Ruth comparison for a few reasons. One, is that outside of segregation I don't see it as quite the same. Baseball was a sport that had its professional beginnings all the way back in the late 19th century while Mikan came into pro bb right in its infancy though it had been played on a college level for a few decades prior. So I think baseball was likely drawing from a much larger pool relative to each player while also Ruth didn't have the innate advantage of height(more so relative to era) which Mikan had. Ruth was big and strong but not to a degree that makes you think he was putting up his record numbers based purely off of size. Also, the last difference is that Ruth's records in baseball are closer to the records that Wilt set than any which Mikan did. Both Ruth's raw numbers and when used to create different metrics are still among the very best in the history of his sport. Mikan's metrics are quite good also in a few years but not to the degree which Babe's stand out. Mikan's career does not stand out the way that Ruth's does imo.

[penbeast0]

Honus Wagner/Ty Cobb then or for football, Sammy Baugh.

[Odinn21]

Do you think that if George Mikan were born in the same year as David Robinson, that Mikan would be better at basketball than Robinson?

One of the reasons why I would never be sure about Mikan's placement on the goat list is that the development phase was too different for him.

For example, I can compare Bill Russell to David Robinson because I feel I know enough about the development phase of the both sides.
How coaches conducted themselves in the '60s, how the college basketball was like in that time. Those are just about basketball, the whole life was actually different back then.
Surely, it's way easier to know those things about David Robinson.

That's why picking Russell over Robinson makes way more sense than picking Mikan over Robinson.

Comparing Mikan to Robinson is like comparing Juan Manuel Fangio to Nelson Piquet Sr. or Rod Laver to Andre Agassi. The known era norms are just too different.

[penbeast0]

....

Comparing Mikan to Robinson is like comparing Juan Manuel Fangio to Nelson Piquet Sr. or Rod Laver to Andre Agassi. The known era norms are just too different.

But that is what this project is about. In the past, we have started at least 1 or 2 of these with the shot clock which would exclude Mikan. It was a big debate before the last one (not this one) about moving the starting point back. We decided to do so because most of the arguments against it came down to "but I didn't see him play and it's hard to compare," and we decided that wasn't a good argument unless we were going to get rid of the likes of Wilt/Russell/etc. as well.

And I have no problem comparing Laver to Agassi or Federer. Comparing them to Don Budge is trickier because I didn't see Budge but we just go with the best evidence we have. Heck, I teach history; I'm not leaving out the whole of history because we don't have televised versions of it; you use what's available and make your best judgment.

[eminence]

Mikan's metrics do stand out similarly to Ruth imo. Crazy stats through '51, merely atg after that. '49/'51 are the highest WS/48 on record (and that's if we assume he's playing 48 mpg, if only ~40 mpg then they absolutely destroy the records held by KAJ). Over .4 WS/48 if we use 40 mpg for Mikan.