That depends. Would Paul Konerko be facing the exact same quality pichters if he played in the 20s? If he was facing off against guys pitching 70 mph, he'd probably have better stats.
I bring up guys like Gasol and Horford because I have no doubt they'd probably have the same success as Mikan did if they played against ****.
Barkley on O and rebounding Garnett on D. Barkley wins
Sir Charles by a landslide.
ahhh... the good ole days
watch 4free here http://firstrownow.eu
Barkley all day
I just know that Mikan wouldn't survive in the 2000's considering his performances sucked enough as it is during a weak era.
I didn't realize that when determining whether or not a player was one of the best all time in his sport that you had to factor in time travel and whether or not that player would do well in other eras.
I have to re-think my entire sports argument life now.
Sports evolve in terms of gameplay, athletes, rules, equipment. The only time I would apply cross-era factoring is if a player's equally spans two significantly different eras.
1970 NFL - One player 300 lbs or heavier.
2010 NFL - 532 players over 300.
That's two significantly different games.
Last edited by Rentzias; 12-04-2012 at 11:47 AM.
When I do my top 50, I take into consideration talent and success. Mikan might have some success, but his talent wouldn't even be close to the top 200 all time in the NBA.
I'm not gonna penalize a player for being ahead of his time in a weak era. I'm not speaking specifically to Mikan, but in general, and when you say you take "success" into consideration, then a player's domination of an era, regardless of the level of competition, should be taken into consideration.