2014 Anger General Greatest of All Time #16

[Yuh]

Mikan.

[Y2K]

I'd like to change my vote from Garnett to Mikan.

Cool.

[Y2K]

It's really difficult to judge George Mikan. He played in an era that:


-featured the worst competition by far than any other era
-he dominated to large proportions that rule changes were made to combat his prowess
-scoring dipped every season after the rule changes (part of it was injury but not all of it)


My biggest question is this: Could his dominance have been nearly the same had he played in the early 60s and not early 50s?

[AbeVigodaLive]

It's really difficult to judge George Mikan. He played in an era that:


-featured the worst competition by far than any other era
-he dominated to large proportions that rule changes were made to combat his prowess
-scoring dipped every season after the rule changes (part of it was injury but not all of it)


My biggest question is this: Could his dominance have been nearly the same had he played in the early 60s and not early 50s?

No. He wasn't as good as Russell or Wilt.

Hence, why he should be behind them on this list.

[Bush4Ever]

My biggest question is this: Could his dominance have been nearly the same had he played in the early 60s and not early 50s?

Absolutely no chance.

For the most part, growth in sports in terms of talent, tactics, etc...is not a perfectly linear process.

The greatest leaps forward in relative terms happen early in sports tenure. After a certain point, things start to flatten out a bit, with the gains being much smaller as time goes on in relative terms.

That's why any player from 1955 would be completely demolished time-machined to 1975, but virtually any player from 1990 would be able to hang with their 2010 counterparts.

[AbeVigodaLive]

My biggest question is this: Could his dominance have been nearly the same had he played in the early 60s and not early 50s?

Absolutely no chance.

For the most part, growth in sports in terms of talent, tactics, etc...is not a perfectly linear process.

The greatest leaps forward in relative terms happen early in sports tenure. After a certain point, things start to flatten out a bit, with the gains being much smaller as time goes on in relative terms.

That's why any player from 1955 would be completely demolished time-machined to 1975, but virtually any player from 1990 would be able to hang with their 2010 counterparts.

Jim Thorpe >>>> Adrian Peterson.

And it's not even close.

[elmouse03]

My biggest question is this: Could his dominance have been nearly the same had he played in the early 60s and not early 50s?

Absolutely no chance.

For the most part, growth in sports in terms of talent, tactics, etc...is not a perfectly linear process.

The greatest leaps forward in relative terms happen early in sports tenure. After a certain point, things start to flatten out a bit, with the gains being much smaller as time goes on in relative terms.

That's why any player from 1955 would be completely demolished time-machined to 1975, but virtually any player from 1990 would be able to hang with their 2010 counterparts.

Jim Thorpe >>>> Adrian Peterson.

And it's not even close.

Does it pain you say that because of Peterson playing for the Vikings and all?

[Yuh]

My biggest question is this: Could his dominance have been nearly the same had he played in the early 60s and not early 50s?

Absolutely no chance.

For the most part, growth in sports in terms of talent, tactics, etc...is not a perfectly linear process.

The greatest leaps forward in relative terms happen early in sports tenure. After a certain point, things start to flatten out a bit, with the gains being much smaller as time goes on in relative terms.

That's why any player from 1955 would be completely demolished time-machined to 1975, but virtually any player from 1990 would be able to hang with their 2010 counterparts.

[AbeVigodaLive]

Absolutely no chance.

For the most part, growth in sports in terms of talent, tactics, etc...is not a perfectly linear process.

The greatest leaps forward in relative terms happen early in sports tenure. After a certain point, things start to flatten out a bit, with the gains being much smaller as time goes on in relative terms.

That's why any player from 1955 would be completely demolished time-machined to 1975, but virtually any player from 1990 would be able to hang with their 2010 counterparts.

Jim Thorpe >>>> Adrian Peterson.

And it's not even close.

Does it pain you say that because of Peterson playing for the Vikings and all?

Not really the provincial rube type.

[Bush4Ever]

Jim Thorpe >>>> Adrian Peterson.

And it's not even close.

It's similar to losing weight in terms of trends.

If you 300 pounds (Artman-sized), you can lose the first 10 pounds by drinking water during the week instead of soda, and cutting back to two cans of frosting per week. Going from 300 to 290 is easy as can be.

Now, when you get down to 170 pounds or so...10 pounds is much, much harder to lose, and you are going to have to do it in smaller steps over a longer period of time.

1950 to 1960 would be the equivalent of Artman dropping his first 10 pounds. 1990 or so was the point when thing started to plateau a bit, which is equivalent to someone who is fighting to drop ever quarter-pound.

I'm soooooo smart, and you all should be thankful I post here.

[876Stephen]

It's similar to losing weight in terms of trends.

If you 300 pounds (Artman-sized), you can lose the first 10 pounds by drinking water during the week instead of soda, and cutting back to two cans of frosting per week. Going from 300 to 290 is easy as can be.

Now, when you get down to 170 pounds or so...10 pounds is much, much harder to lose, and you are going to have to do it in smaller steps over a longer period of time.

1950 to 1960 would be the equivalent of Artman dropping his first 10 pounds. 1990 or so was the point when thing started to plateau a bit, which is equivalent to someone who is fighting to drop ever quarter-pound.

I'm soooooo smart, and you all should be thankful I post here.

I always learn from u Bush. You a valued member of this community.

[Bush4Ever]

I always learn from u Bush. You a valued member of this community.

Yay!

[elmouse03]

I always learn from u Bush. You a valued member of this community.

Yay!

Stephen is just being nice to help build your self-esteem.

[876Stephen]

I always learn from u Bush. You a valued member of this community.

Yay!

Stephen is just being nice to help build your self-esteem.

I sincerely mean it, from my the bottom of my heart. Bush is definitely smarter than I am.

[Bush4Ever]

Stephen is just being nice to help build your self-esteem.

[AbeVigodaLive]

Yay!

Stephen is just being nice to help build your self-esteem.

I sincerely mean it, from my the bottom of my heart. Bush is definitely smarter than I am.

So am I. Probably.





Maybe.

[Bush4Ever]

I like you all very much as well!!

[876Stephen]

Stephen is just being nice to help build your self-esteem.

I sincerely mean it, from my the bottom of my heart. Bush is definitely smarter than I am.

So am I. Probably.







Maybe.

I think you are as well.

[elmouse03]

Stephen is just being nice to help build your self-esteem.

I sincerely mean it, from my the bottom of my heart. Bush is definitely smarter than I am.

So am I. Probably.





Maybe.

artman is the smartest of us all though.

[876Stephen]

I sincerely mean it, from my the bottom of my heart. Bush is definitely smarter than I am.

So am I. Probably.





Maybe.

artman is the smartest of us all though.

That goes without saying