Does Parish have a case for better than Dwight for career

[Stalwart]

This is an interesting comparison. I would consider Dwight the more dominant force with Parish being the more well rounded, portable player. Dwight has more individual accolades while Parish has greater team success.

Ultimately I would have to go with Dwight. He distinguished himself individually over the course of his career than Parish. Were talking 3 DPOYs, 5x Reb Champ, 2x Blks leader, 8x All NBA, and led his own team to the Finals. Plus at his peak he was a top 5 player in the league.

Parish of course had the greater team success but it was always as the 2nd and 3rd guy.

[Owly]

There were alot of bigs, some very good and you named them. Compare to Dwight's era, there is a big difference. Parish was no mega star but Dwight wasn't either and Parish was a great #2 as some have stated and performed very well. I don't think Dwight helps the Celts win as much as Parish did.

But I would argue not many "great" rivals at a time. In the 50s or 60s close to half the league might have been dominant, huge producing star centers. In the 90s there was a strong top tier. If the comparison was stated "there was tougher competition in Dwight's era" it wouldn't have jumped out to me. Per the above, I think "a lot" used with "great" seem off, too me at least.
You
Per my earlier post I have some perspectives sympathetic to Parish. That said on your further positions not directly related to what I said i the quoted post, that Dwight wasn't a "mega star" is at least ... uncertain. With regard to helping the Celtics win, that is (a) one particular scenario and itself not clear especially if winning is meant to allude to titles and the focus is on playoffs and one either focuses just on what happened to happen or believes playoff variance is more signal than noise ... because per my first post in the thread many of his prime playoff runs look quite average.

You named the good Centers in Parish's prime 80s years. There were plenty and much more than in Dwight's prime. Parish performed well in the playoffs. He was really the third option once McHale emerged so he wasn't going to be a huge scorer but he did the rest well for a Center. He was more skilled than Dwight and a better fit on most teams in not having to be the focal point offensively.

I named the great and the good and the average. As before there weren't many great rivals to Parish at a time in the 80s. That was where I disagreed. Lot's and great.

On Parish doing well in the playoffs unless there's new evidence, just see my previous post. It could have been noise, could have been competition but to reiterate the above

Parish one 80s playoff run above 20 PER (20.7)
No 80s playoff runs with a WS/48 above .200 WS/48 (or above .170).
Peak BPM at exactly 4.0.
Dwight has a 4 year run at 24.3 PER, .213 WS/48, 4.8 BPM.

Per earliest post he held up better later including series against Ewing and Mourning. But for the largest chunk of his playoff career and for his career as a whole the playoffs were just worse - not otoh one big thing but a bit less volume, a bit worse shooting, a bit worse on the offensive boards, a bit worse on the defensive boards, a bit worse passing - adding up to often quite middling. He has his better years but never that special. As has been reiterated one could argue playoff variance as noise, or circumstance (e.g. K.C. [and Rodgers] is running his 30-35 year old center too hard, too long in the RS) etc. You might be able to argue he was better than his boxscore ... but as it was he was he produced at a lesser level in the playoffs. I don't love to point it out but it is a matter of record.

On McHale I'm unsure why he would affect Parish in the playoffs but not the RS. If not then that seems a non-sequitur.

[prolific passer]

Parish was one of the early 7 footers to be able to run the floor, post up, have a nice mid range, and defend pretty well. Then Hakeem, Ewing, and DRob came after him and took it to a whole new level.

[70sFan]

Parish was one of the early 7 footers to be able to run the floor, post up, have a nice mid range, and defend pretty well. Then Hakeem, Ewing, and DRob came after him and took it to a whole new level.

Well, if you use very loose definition of 7 footer (calling Hakeem and Ewing 7 footers is a stretch), then players like Walt Bellamy, Nate Thurmond and Bob Lanier could do it all. These are only the first names that came to my mind, they were others and if you want to include smaller centers, then Zelmo Beaty, Willis Reed and Dave Cowens are significantly better than Parish in most of these categories.

[prolific passer]

Parish was one of the early 7 footers to be able to run the floor, post up, have a nice mid range, and defend pretty well. Then Hakeem, Ewing, and DRob came after him and took it to a whole new level.

Well, if you use very loose definition of 7 footer (calling Hakeem and Ewing 7 footers is a stretch), then players like Walt Bellamy, Nate Thurmond and Bob Lanier could do it all. These are only the first names that came to my mind, they were others and if you want to include smaller centers, then Zelmo Beaty, Willis Reed and Dave Cowens are significantly better than Parish in most of these categories.

Parish didn't have that go to guy mentality like those others did. Even though some thought he did. Krause wanted the bulls to draft him in 76 because he thought he was a go to center. They had Gilmore coming in and Boerwinkle still on the roster though.