More important to Celtics, Parish or McHale

[penbeast0]

Who was the more important player in the Bird led Celtic teams, Robert Parish or Kevin McHale?

Looking at their numbers through age 35 when McHale retired (Parish continued to play for some years) they are pretty even . . .

McHale 971 games 31.0mpg 7.3reb 1.7ast 1.8 blk 17.9ppg
.554fg% 20.0 PER

Parish 1021 games 31.0mpg 10.1reb 1.7ast 1.8blk 16.7 ppg
.537fg% 20.0 PER

McHale was the better shooter and slightly better man defender
Parish was the better rebounder and played the tougher position

Parish is the more durable, McHale has the better ast to TO ratio despite his rep. These numbers do include Parish's first 4 up and down years in GS as well as McHale's first 4 years as a 6th man in Boston. Which was more valuable?

[WesWesley]

Tough to say,

I'm going to go with McHale.

He was more reliable at the ft line.

[bluestang302]

Tough tough question.

I remember a comment in an old Peterson's Pro Preview issue or similar magazine that said The C's record when Bird or McHale was out of the lineup was better than their record when they were missing Parish. This was, IIRC, prior to the 88/89 season that Bird almost entirely missed. All three players, especially Parish and Bird, were generally very healthy during that time period as well. So, it was not a large sample size.

McHale was the better offensive player, and typically guarded the opposing team's best forward. Parish was no slouch in either category either, and had deceptive speed for someone of his age. He was good running the floor, had range on his shot, and was an equal shot-blocker to McHale - although not as versatile defensively.

I'm going to lean slightly toward Parish for his similar level of play and better durability. The earlier Celtic teams also had an efficient, long-armed low post player in Cedric Maxwell who started over McHale for several years. McHale was definitely, without question, a starting caliber player. But, the point is that Boston had Maxwell to do those things while they didn't really have anyone else who could somewhat replicate Parish (Greg Kite? Eric Fernsten? Rick Robey?)

[ronnymac2]

i think mchale was better, but parrish was really valuable. he hadda go up against kareem, moses, and hakeem in the 80's for boston.

[tmac4real]

At first glance I'd say McHale was better, but when I watch old tapes of the 80's I can't help but think Parish was more valuable.

[kooldude]

McHale was the better player, even emerged as the best PF in the league, even for just one year. But I think Parish was more valuable. He went against an era of great centers and Bird could have played PF if McHale wasn't there.

[Relentless88]

More important to the Celtics or better player? If looking at importance to the team it's McHale. He gave the Celtics Kevin Garnett, what did Parrish give?

[Harry Palmer]

One of the better questions I've ever seen asked in here, and as usual when confronted with really tough questions, I'm gonna cop out and say 'I don't know'.

Well, basically. I think the 'McHale was a better player, Parish was more valuable' comment is pretty much a cop out, and pretty much where I'd hang my hat if forced.

[bluestang302]

Well, basically. I think the 'McHale was a better player, Parish was more valuable' comment is pretty much a cop out, and pretty much where I'd hang my hat if forced.

Me too

How about a Later-80s Worthy vs Kareem thread next ?

[Point forward]

Forced to choose between these two, I take McHale, that low post twister. But on second thoughts, I don't think McHale could defend Kareem/Hakeem, yet Parish was not as versatile ***aarrgghhh***