Why not Mikan?

[Prometheus]

Before I pose this question, I want to emphasize that I have never watched Mikan, Russell*, or Chamberlain* (*aside from limited game footage and highlight videos), and I therefore have no true opinion on their greatness, whether in a vacuum or relative to the contemporary NBA.

What I want to know is, why are Russell and Chamberlain almost universally regarded as two of the greatest players in history, and Mikan is barely mentioned in such discussions? Those who would discredit Mikan would doubtlessly do so on account of the era in which he played. The man was dominating a league that many would now consider "weak". But Russell's rookie season came the year after Mikan retired. If Russell's accomplishments are worth ranking him as a top-five GOAT basketball player, then why aren't Mikan's?

I think it has to be neither or both. Either Mikan, Russell, and Chamberlain all benefited from a weak NBA, and should therefore not be mentioned among the likes of Jordan, O'Neal, Magic, Bird, Olajuwon, etc., or all three of them belong in the discussion for the greatest centers of all time.

[warriorfan]

he's white

[LAZERUSS]

Before I pose this question, I want to emphasize that I have never watched Mikan, Russell*, or Chamberlain* (*aside from limited game footage and highlight videos), and I therefore have no true opinion on their greatness, whether in a vacuum or relative to the contemporary NBA.

What I want to know is, why are Russell and Chamberlain almost universally regarded as two of the greatest players in history, and Mikan is barely mentioned in such discussions? Those who would discredit Mikan would doubtlessly do so on account of the era in which he played. The man was dominating a league that many would now consider "weak". But Russell's rookie season came the year after Mikan retired. If Russell's accomplishments are worth ranking him as a top-five GOAT basketball player, then why aren't Mikan's?

I think it has to be neither or both. Either Mikan, Russell, and Chamberlain all benefited from a weak NBA, and should therefore not be mentioned among the likes of Jordan, O'Neal, Magic, Bird, Olajuwon, etc., or all three of them belong in the discussion for the greatest centers of all time.

Mikan dominated in the pre-shot clock era, and beyond that, before any significant integration.

Oh, and I would argue that Bob Kurland was an even better center when Mikan was at his peak.

[Prometheus]

Mikan dominated in the pre-shot clock era, and beyond that, before any significant integration.

Oh, and I would argue that Bob Kurland was an even better center when Mikan was at his peak.


he's white

dat consistency

[AkronAngel]

Mikan dominated in the pre-shot clock era, and beyond that, before any significant integration.

Oh, and I would argue that Bob Kurland was an even better center when Mikan was at his peak.

Also Mikan played when black people weren't even allowed to play in the NBA.

[TheMarkMadsen]

Mikan was the most dominant player of his era.

[TheMarkMadsen]

Also Mikan played when black people weren't even allowed to play in the NBA.

The first black man to play in the nba was 1950, Mikan won all of his championships after this..

not only did Mikan play during integration, he overcame it

[Deuce Bigalow]

There is not much difference between the 50's and 60's. If you are going to put Russell and Wilt among the modern greats then you have to do the same with Mikan as well since he dominanted a similar era, even more so than Russell and Wilt did. He was actually a greater player by all accounts. To think that the NBA in 1956-57 was magically different is foolish, it was just as weak as another other season whether it be 1952 or 1962, no significant difference in the strength of talent.

[Akrazotile]

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/2a/GeorgeMikan.jpg

[Deuce Bigalow]

http://www.gregorys.it/nba/biog/wiltc/univ/04.jpg

[Asukal]

Truth is there is almost no one left alive to have watched him play in his prime. Before loseruss got alzheimer's, he was preaching how weak the 60's was compared to today. :confusedshrug:

[fourkicks44]

MIKAN= goat

Anyone who could dominate in an era where the pictures WERE SO LARGE had to be the best

[Psileas]

Before I pose this question, I want to emphasize that I have never watched Mikan, Russell*, or Chamberlain* (*aside from limited game footage and highlight videos), and I therefore have no true opinion on their greatness, whether in a vacuum or relative to the contemporary NBA.

What I want to know is, why are Russell and Chamberlain almost universally regarded as two of the greatest players in history, and Mikan is barely mentioned in such discussions? Those who would discredit Mikan would doubtlessly do so on account of the era in which he played. The man was dominating a league that many would now consider "weak". But Russell's rookie season came the year after Mikan retired. If Russell's accomplishments are worth ranking him as a top-five GOAT basketball player, then why aren't Mikan's?

I think it has to be neither or both. Either Mikan, Russell, and Chamberlain all benefited from a weak NBA, and should therefore not be mentioned among the likes of Jordan, O'Neal, Magic, Bird, Olajuwon, etc., or all three of them belong in the discussion for the greatest centers of all time.

Μιkan's era included practically zero integration, unlike Russell's and, even more, unlike Wilt's. It was also the closest the NBA has ever come to being called "watered down", since, not only wasn't the league integrated, it also had a lot more teams than the 60's, spreading the already reduced talent even more. Plus, practical reasons, like the fact that there's also even less footage of him compared to Wilt or Russell.
IMO, Mikan would be great regardless, since he's shown evidence that he could play fine against black athletes (e.g, he destroyed the Globetrotters almost every time he faced them, providing already evidence that athleticism is overrated, especially among bigs). But the evidence sample is still not as big as I'd want, so I hesitate to put him as high as the real GOATs.

Let me ask a question similar to yours. If the 80's are considered the "Golden Era" of the NBA, shouldn't the 70's get much of this credit, as well, for various reasons, including "each other being very close"? Are we going to pretend that the NBA talent pool is so shallow that the arrival of 2 players alone turned the "Dark Ages" into a "Golden Era"?

[Prometheus]

Let me ask a question similar to yours. If the 80's are considered the "Golden Era" of the NBA, shouldn't the 70's get much of this credit, as well, for various reasons, including "each other being very close"? Are we going to pretend that the NBA talent pool is so shallow that the arrival of 2 players alone turned the "Dark Ages" into a "Golden Era"?

The only real answer I can give is that I do not subscribe to the notion that the 80's are the "Golden Era". At least not in the sense that the game was being played at its highest level. I'm not saying it necessarily wasn't, but aside from several endearing stars, I see no reason to believe quality of play was superior to what happened before or since.

I'm of the school of thought that the greatest players from any particular era would be among the greatest in any other era.

[SHAQisGOAT]

Mikan was pretty big regardless of generation, seemed mobile enough and with some skills like in the post BUT no integration, no shot-clock, even less footage than for 60's players... can't "vouch" for that...

[Dr.J4ever]

Yes, before we start treating the 50s like it doesn't belong in the conversation, shouldn't we do the "bridge thing" that Lazeruss likes to do?

I checked the stats of two HOF guys and Bob Petit played in both the 50s and 60s, and his stats were EVEN BETTER during the 60s. Or how 'bout Cousy who played in both decades too? He did just fine, and no real difference.

And both players were both aging in the 60s, and you could argue that the 50s were their prime years. You wouldn't know it by the numbers though. Petit averaged his best year in the early 60s when did 31 and 18 during the year when Wilt did 50ppg.

Just saying. Food for thought. This proves again a famous ISH saying that the best players adjust over eras.

[TheMarkMadsen]

Yes, before we start treating the 50s like it doesn't belong in the conversation, shouldn't we do the "bridge thing" that Lazeruss likes to do?

I checked the stats of two HOF guys and Bob Petit played in both the 50s and 60s, and his stats were EVEN BETTER during the 60s. Or how 'bout Cousy who played in both decades too? He did just fine, and no real difference.

And both players were both aging in the 60s, and you could argue that the 50s were their prime years. You wouldn't know it by the numbers though. Petit averaged his best year in the early 60s when did 31 and 18 during the year when Wilt did 50ppg.

Just saying. Food for thought. This proves again a famous ISH saying that the best players adjust over eras.

Exactly this

It's hilarious to see the 60s supporters back track when the 50s get brought up.

I'd love to see somebody try and address the points you made.

[Akhenaten]

Yes, before we start treating the 50s like it doesn't belong in the conversation, shouldn't we do the "bridge thing" that Lazeruss likes to do?

I checked the stats of two HOF guys and Bob Petit played in both the 50s and 60s, and his stats were EVEN BETTER during the 60s. Or how 'bout Cousy who played in both decades too? He did just fine, and no real difference.

And both players were both aging in the 60s, and you could argue that the 50s were their prime years. You wouldn't know it by the numbers though. Petit averaged his best year in the early 60s when did 31 and 18 during the year when Wilt did 50ppg.

Just saying. Food for thought. This proves again a famous ISH saying that the best players adjust over eras.

http://image.absoluteastronomy.com/images/topicimages/c/ch/checkmate.gif

[LAZERUSS]

Yes, before we start treating the 50s like it doesn't belong in the conversation, shouldn't we do the "bridge thing" that Lazeruss likes to do?

I checked the stats of two HOF guys and Bob Petit played in both the 50s and 60s, and his stats were EVEN BETTER during the 60s. Or how 'bout Cousy who played in both decades too? He did just fine, and no real difference.

And both players were both aging in the 60s, and you could argue that the 50s were their prime years. You wouldn't know it by the numbers though. Petit averaged his best year in the early 60s when did 31 and 18 during the year when Wilt did 50ppg.

Just saying. Food for thought. This proves again a famous ISH saying that the best players adjust over eras.

I have no problem with this at all.

My original answer was to the question, "Why not Mikan?"

He might very well have been a dominant center in any era. What we do know, though, was that he dominated before the shot-clock, and before any significant integration.

We also know that he had some post-season shooting in the 50's that was atrocious even for that period.

Having said that...he was certainly as big as most centers in the league today, and likely as skilled, if not moreso.

Oh, and again...I still believe that Bob Kurland was better.

[inclinerator]

http://i.imgur.com/0YsVS8Z.jpg

[Deuce Bigalow]

Yes, before we start treating the 50s like it doesn't belong in the conversation, shouldn't we do the "bridge thing" that Lazeruss likes to do?

I checked the stats of two HOF guys and Bob Petit played in both the 50s and 60s, and his stats were EVEN BETTER during the 60s. Or how 'bout Cousy who played in both decades too? He did just fine, and no real difference.

And both players were both aging in the 60s, and you could argue that the 50s were their prime years. You wouldn't know it by the numbers though. Petit averaged his best year in the early 60s when did 31 and 18 during the year when Wilt did 50ppg.

Just saying. Food for thought. This proves again a famous ISH saying that the best players adjust over eras.
Also Dolph Schayes who's rookie season was in 1949-50 never averaged 20 ppg until 1955-56 and his peak ppg season was 24.9 ppg in 1956-57, Russell's rookie year. From 1956-1961 he averaged over 20 ppg, even at age 32 he averaged 23.6 ppg, which is the second highest of his career in 1960-61, Wilt's second season. Want to know what happened to Wilt in 1961? Schayes' Nationals swept Wilt's Warriors in the playoffs. Mikan in his only head to head playoff meeting with Schayes came during the 1950 NBA Finals which Mikan's Lakers won 4-2.

[Marchesk]

http://www.gregorys.it/nba/biog/wiltc/univ/04.jpg

That was college, brah. See another black dude (Wilt's KU teammate in the background).

http://chasing23.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/Wilt-vs-Russell.jpg

Five black dudes and one white dude in this pic.

[Deuce Bigalow]

Paul Arizin led the NBA in scoring in 1951-52 (25.4 ppg) and also did it in Russell's rookie season in 1956-57 (25.6 ppg). Mikan and Russell each won a title those years yet Bill is a "legend" and Mikan's forgotten? Every season Arizin played in he made the All-Star team, his last season was 1961-62 at age 33 he averaged 21.9 ppg and was an All-Star.

[Dr.J4ever]

That was college, brah. See another black dude (Wilt's KU teammate in the background).

http://chasing23.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/Wilt-vs-Russell.jpg

Five black dudes and one white dude in this pic.

Yeah, we can talk integration or rules or whatever. So far, however, with 3 examples of HoFers, their numbers stayed the same or even better during the 60s.

There seems to be no real difference, as far as those 3 players above were concerned. Now, I didn't do a lot of research on this. So, if someone will show that the best players of the 50s could not adjust to 60s ball, or that they were shocked to see the higher level of athleticism during the 60s as compared to the 50s, then of course, I will be stand corrected.

[Deuce Bigalow]

Neil Johnston was one of the best players in the early 50's. He didn't seem to have any trouble during the shot clock era and Bill Russell's first couple of years.

PER

1952-53: 25.9
1953-54: 25.6
1954-55: 25.4
---Shot clock era---
1955-56: 25.1
---Bill Russell era---
1956-57: 26.6 (Russell: 20.9)
1957-58: 22.5 (Russell: 22.8 his peak PER)

[Prometheus]

It's intuitive that scorers will average more points-per-game with the shot clock than without it - this should be so obvious as to not warrant any discussion, really.