Does Parish have a case for better than Dwight for career

[migya]

Looking at both Parish and Dwight, their career numbers are quite similar. Dwight may have peaked higher but Parish had a considerably longer prime. Can Parish be held as having a better career than Dwight? Make the case.

[tsherkin]

Looking at both Parish and Dwight, their career numbers are quite similar. Dwight may have peaked higher but Parish had a considerably longer prime. Can Parish be held as having a better career than Dwight? Make the case.

I'm struggling to see it in terms of accolades and defensive value. Certainly Parish has titles that Dwight doesn't, and is of course one of the longevity ATGs... though how much a couple extra 3.5 - 5.0 ppg seasons matter is up for debate. You have to pause and consider what you want to weight here. Dwight wins on accolades. Parish was a far more portable player because he wasn't a headcase and because he had a short jumper. Good motor, no attitude issues, played to his role very effectively, didn't kvetch. But all-time? He wasn't the centerpiece or even the #2 on a title team, so I don't know that those rings mean a lot more relative to Dwight than they do for, say, K.C. Jones.

[AEnigma]

With no particular offence intended to Cedric Maxwell, to me Parish was pretty comfortably Boston’s “#2” in 1981.

[70sFan]

With no particular offence intended to Cedric Maxwell, to me Parish was pretty comfortably Boston’s “#2” in 1981.

Parish was certainly the 2nd best player of 1981 Celtics team.

[tsherkin]

With no particular offence intended to Cedric Maxwell, to me Parish was pretty comfortably Boston’s “#2” in 1981.

Mmm. Actually that's a good point, I overlooked that year.

[Stan]

Dwight was a legitimate superstar & top 5 player for like 4-5 seasons, led his team to the Finals, and was a 3x DPOY, Parish never came close to achieving any of that. Dwight's resume absolutely blows Parish's away, and I'd have him ranked several spots ahead.

[No-more-rings]

I don’t really see the case. I understand that some people here love longevity, but Dwight wasn’t exactly Brandon Roy or Gilbert Arenas with longevity, he was close to reeling out a 5 year stretch of healthy 20/14 with dpoy level play. I think he also had a pretty solid run with Harden, kind of a weird fit I get it but they still made a WCF with him having some good performances generally speaking. He had a few weird seasons inbetween HOU and LA where he didn’t really seem like he was a big game changer, but his willingness to take a small yet important role with the Lakers I think helped repair his image some. It also seems that at least on paper, Parish’s playoff performances didn’t really stand out as anything remarkable. For example he had a lot of years where he was under 53 ts%, which for having a playmaker the likes of Bird isn’t impressive.

Like I get the argument that you’d rather have Parish if you were looking for a long term core or something like that, but I don’t think all time rankings should be based on how likely someone is to leave a franchise or get disgruntled or whatever. More should be total value added to teams over their careers.

I think winning can make or break a player’s perception a lot of time, fair or unfair. I think if Dwight was fortunate to get paired with an elite perimeter player in Orlando we could be talking about him getting one or 2 rings there, even if he would end up clashing and leaving.

[Owly]

My opinions

Parish has an underrated (rate) productivity peak ('81).

Whilst he does sustain being good/very good for a long time, he doesn't stay near his peak (somewhat close '82, '83 but even those a clear step down) for long.

Around his peak and short prime he couldn't stay on the floor as much as you'd want him too ('81 is worst for this) which is mostly probably a result of foul trouble ('81: 9 foul outs, 18 further 5 foul games, 4.9 PF/36, 28mpg)

He his production holds up poorly in the playoffs especially through the 80's though a renaissance RS spike (89 to maybe 91, maybe 93 depending where you want to cut off) mostly coincides with improved playoff numbers (90-93). 83-89 in particular (some dropoff earlier but maybe less and definitely from a higher baseline so still good) he looks pretty average and this makes up nearly 2/3 of his career playoff minutes, contributing heavily to their being somewhat pedestrian.


Certainly many mainstream rankers see it. Dwight didn't make the 75 and I think has come in low (ranked low, so a high number) on some other lists otoh.

I think with a more consistent process ... I think I can see a route to getting there. Tilt RS heavy, tilt longevity of quality / career value (probably things I already do to some, definitely the former). Ding Dwight for intangibles. Maybe ding Dwight for 13-19 salary with lesser production, lesser value.

Still, otoh Dwight's genuine top tier superstar spell for circa 5 years, where otoh he may plausibly be the 2nd best player in the league for that span is something of immense value in terms of championship equity so without looking closely that would put Dwight ahead for me.

[trex_8063]

With no particular offence intended to Cedric Maxwell, to me Parish was pretty comfortably Boston’s “#2” in 1981.

I absolutely agree.

I also think that in '89 [when Bird missed basically the whole year] he has a case as the best player on that 42-win [+1.26 SRS] playoff team.......at age 35!

[prolific passer]

Parish is probably my favorite center of all time but he isn't a number 1 option that you can build around like Dwight was. Great #2 option for a super caliber perimeter player like a Larry Bird.

[migya]

Dwight was a legitimate superstar & top 5 player for like 4-5 seasons, led his team to the Finals, and was a 3x DPOY, Parish never came close to achieving any of that. Dwight's resume absolutely blows Parish's away, and I'd have him ranked several spots ahead.

This a great and proper example of era and level of competition. Parish was in a stacked era with alot of great Centers, two in particular who are alltime greats, Kareem a case for GOAT and Moses, a top 15-20 player. Dwight had NOONE at center of mention. Marc Gasol and Deandre Jordan aren't comparable and not confused as stars.

Dwight's peak looks better but Parish's prime is much longer and he was still at a high level in his mid 30s.

[70sFan]

With no particular offence intended to Cedric Maxwell, to me Parish was pretty comfortably Boston’s “#2” in 1981.

I absolutely agree.

I also think that in '89 [when Bird missed basically the whole year] he has a case as the best player on that 42-win [+1.26 SRS] playoff team.......at age 35!

I'd personally go with McHale for that title.

[70sFan]

Dwight was a legitimate superstar & top 5 player for like 4-5 seasons, led his team to the Finals, and was a 3x DPOY, Parish never came close to achieving any of that. Dwight's resume absolutely blows Parish's away, and I'd have him ranked several spots ahead.

This a great and proper example of era and level of competition. Parish was in a stacked era with alot of great Centers, two in particular who are alltime greats, Kareem a case for GOAT and Moses, a top 15-20 player. Dwight had NOONE at center of mention. Marc Gasol and Deandre Jordan aren't comparable and not confused as stars.

Dwight's peak looks better but Parish's prime is much longer and he was still at a high level in his mid 30s.

If you use 1981-84 Kareem, then why should we exclude 2008-13 Duncan as the competition at center spot? DeAndre Jordan was never Dwight's competitior, get real.

Parish did face tougher competition at center spot for getting accolades, but you're not doing a proper comparison.

[70sFan]

As for the thread, I think I'd put Howard ahead of Parish probably. His prime in 2007-14 was just too good in comparison to Parish prime, who never was a high minute player or elite postseason performer to shorten the gap. Of course, Parish had an amazing longevity, but he wasn't all-star level player in many of these years.

[picko]

Howard peaked higher and has more personal accolades. But I'd prefer to have Parish's career by a considerable margin.

[Owly]

Parish was in a stacked era with alot of great Centers,

Was he though. If you think his prime was or should be broadly the 80s (he went on longer as a good player) ...
there's
Kareem - still great for about 6 years or so, but clearly a step down from his 70s self and declining.
M Malone - I'd say similar level to Kareem for the first half of the 80s then dropped off.
Olajuwon - Young, somewhat unpolished, but pretty great from the off, and certainly by year two (by which point the two above centers were dropping).
Ewing - Promining but arrives later, than Olajuwon, misses significant injury time in years one and two, foul trouble plagues year three, early production (mainly y1 and 2) not at elite levels. Only by year 4 ('88-89) is he a productive, high minutes player,

There's Ruland for a spell, but he's not healthy for long.
Then there's good guys like Sikma and Laimbeer.
Then we're slipping.
Young healthy Cartwright was an effective scorer for half a decade.
Gminski was solid. So was Schayes at his best (though foul prone).
Dawkins (and Johnson and Donaldson) shot for a high percentage. Donaldson had size and did some typical big man stuff competently.
Sampson wasn't a great pro and plays only 1 (healthy) year at center.
Rollins, Eaton, Benjamin, Caroll, Edwards, Stipanovich.
We're mostly looking at flawed, circa average players.

I suppose Gilmore and Lanier from the 70s last well (otoh moreso Gilmore, but both) and are effective into the 80s.

Still overall I don't think there are any huge apexs. There's roughly two top tier guys at any one time. Then then Sikma and Laimbeer. Ruland above them probably for a spell in the early-mid 80s. Maybe Daugherty joins Sikma and Laimbeer in the late 80s (though he got better in the 90s). Gilmore there to fight Parish (and Ruland) for 3rd in the first half of the decade. Lower minutes Lanier still around. I'd say most of the other big beasts of the 70s are gone, or significantly reduced.

Now Parish did as I say play later. But for the majority of his prime was the league "stacked era with alot of great Centers". I'd buy that for the 90s. For the 50s. For the 70s perhaps (many are large in "legacy", some's numbers are lesser, and you don. Maybe the 60s ... raw numbers are fewer but a smaller league, and most stay in the league and on the court for big minutes ... Reed isn't always playing C, and beyond he, Thurmond, perhaps Bellamy(?), others - the likes of say a Beaty - are easily put into the shade by the two colossi - but certainly you're playing a lot of your minutes against great centers if you're in the NBA.

Semantics on for instance "great" (and where one draws the line) and room to differ on different years. And Parish played many great players by virtue of playing so long. But was he often in his prime going against "a lot of great" centers. Much more so in say '93 (when he was still effective) and probably more so pre=prime than the bulk of his prime. Or at least that's what I'd be inclined to argue.

Howard peaked higher and has more personal accolades. But I'd prefer to have Parish's career by a considerable margin.

Since someone just noted accolades I'll note that Parish probably got shafted as much as anyone (not an official vote count just rough estimate of era positional ranking) by absence of a "third team" All-NBA.

[migya]

Parish was in a stacked era with alot of great Centers,

Was he though. If you think his prime was or should be broadly the 80s (he went on longer as a good player) ...
there's
Kareem - still great for about 6 years or so, but clearly a step down from his 70s self and declining.
M Malone - I'd say similar level to Kareem for the first half of the 80s then dropped off.
Olajuwon - Young, somewhat unpolished, but pretty great from the off, and certainly by year two (by which point the two above centers were dropping).
Ewing - Promining but arrives later, than Olajuwon, misses significant injury time in years one and two, foul trouble plagues year three, early production (mainly y1 and 2) not at elite levels. Only by year 4 ('88-89) is he a productive, high minutes player,

There's Ruland for a spell, but he's not healthy for long.
Then there's good guys like Sikma and Laimbeer.
Then we're slipping.
Young healthy Cartwright was an effective scorer for half a decade.
Gminski was solid. So was Schayes at his best (though foul prone).
Dawkins (and Johnson and Donaldson) shot for a high percentage. Donaldson had size and did some typical big man stuff competently.
Sampson wasn't a great pro and plays only 1 (healthy) year at center.
Rollins, Eaton, Benjamin, Caroll, Edwards, Stipanovich.
We're mostly looking at flawed, circa average players.

I suppose Gilmore and Lanier from the 70s last well (otoh moreso Gilmore, but both) and are effective into the 80s.

Still overall I don't think there are any huge apexs. There's roughly two top tier guys at any one time. Then then Sikma and Laimbeer. Ruland above them probably for a spell in the early-mid 80s. Maybe Daugherty joins Sikma and Laimbeer in the late 80s (though he got better in the 90s). Gilmore there to fight Parish (and Ruland) for 3rd in the first half of the decade. Lower minutes Lanier still around. I'd say most of the other big beasts of the 70s are gone, or significantly reduced.

Now Parish did as I say play later. But for the majority of his prime was the league "stacked era with alot of great Centers". I'd buy that for the 90s. For the 50s. For the 70s perhaps (many are large in "legacy", some's numbers are lesser, and you don. Maybe the 60s ... raw numbers are fewer but a smaller league, and most stay in the league and on the court for big minutes ... Reed isn't always playing C, and beyond he, Thurmond, perhaps Bellamy(?), others - the likes of say a Beaty - are easily put into the shade by the two colossi - but certainly you're playing a lot of your minutes against great centers if you're in the NBA.

Semantics on for instance "great" (and where one draws the line) and room to differ on different years. And Parish played many great players by virtue of playing so long. But was he often in his prime going against "a lot of great" centers. Much more so in say '93 (when he was still effective) and probably more so pre=prime than the bulk of his prime. Or at least that's what I'd be inclined to argue.

Howard peaked higher and has more personal accolades. But I'd prefer to have Parish's career by a considerable margin.

Since someone just noted accolades I'll note that Parish probably got shafted as much as anyone (not an official vote count just rough estimate of era positional ranking) by absence of a "third team" All-NBA.

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.

[AEnigma]

Since someone just noted accolades I'll note that Parish probably got shafted as much as anyone (not an official vote count just rough estimate of era positional ranking) by absence of a "third team" All-NBA.

Doubtful.

1981, sure. 1983, seems unlikely; that one probably goes to Gilmore, and Sikma and Ruland would have a strong shot too. 1984, probably Ruland or maybe Laimbeer. No shot in 1985 (Hakeem). We get voting results in 1986, so we do know Parish would have been third-team in 1987, ultimately giving us one confirmed and another likely missed third team.

In contrast with guys like Thurmond or Lanier, not sure that stands out too notably.

[Owly]

Parish was in a stacked era with alot of great Centers,

Was he though. If you think his prime was or should be broadly the 80s (he went on longer as a good player) ...
there's
Kareem - still great for about 6 years or so, but clearly a step down from his 70s self and declining.
M Malone - I'd say similar level to Kareem for the first half of the 80s then dropped off.
Olajuwon - Young, somewhat unpolished, but pretty great from the off, and certainly by year two (by which point the two above centers were dropping).
Ewing - Promining but arrives later, than Olajuwon, misses significant injury time in years one and two, foul trouble plagues year three, early production (mainly y1 and 2) not at elite levels. Only by year 4 ('88-89) is he a productive, high minutes player,

There's Ruland for a spell, but he's not healthy for long.
Then there's good guys like Sikma and Laimbeer.
Then we're slipping.
Young healthy Cartwright was an effective scorer for half a decade.
Gminski was solid. So was Schayes at his best (though foul prone).
Dawkins (and Johnson and Donaldson) shot for a high percentage. Donaldson had size and did some typical big man stuff competently.
Sampson wasn't a great pro and plays only 1 (healthy) year at center.
Rollins, Eaton, Benjamin, Caroll, Edwards, Stipanovich.
We're mostly looking at flawed, circa average players.

I suppose Gilmore and Lanier from the 70s last well (otoh moreso Gilmore, but both) and are effective into the 80s.

Still overall I don't think there are any huge apexs. There's roughly two top tier guys at any one time. Then then Sikma and Laimbeer. Ruland above them probably for a spell in the early-mid 80s. Maybe Daugherty joins Sikma and Laimbeer in the late 80s (though he got better in the 90s). Gilmore there to fight Parish (and Ruland) for 3rd in the first half of the decade. Lower minutes Lanier still around. I'd say most of the other big beasts of the 70s are gone, or significantly reduced.

Now Parish did as I say play later. But for the majority of his prime was the league "stacked era with alot of great Centers". I'd buy that for the 90s. For the 50s. For the 70s perhaps (many are large in "legacy", some's numbers are lesser, and you don. Maybe the 60s ... raw numbers are fewer but a smaller league, and most stay in the league and on the court for big minutes ... Reed isn't always playing C, and beyond he, Thurmond, perhaps Bellamy(?), others - the likes of say a Beaty - are easily put into the shade by the two colossi - but certainly you're playing a lot of your minutes against great centers if you're in the NBA.

Semantics on for instance "great" (and where one draws the line) and room to differ on different years. And Parish played many great players by virtue of playing so long. But was he often in his prime going against "a lot of great" centers. Much more so in say '93 (when he was still effective) and probably more so pre=prime than the bulk of his prime. Or at least that's what I'd be inclined to argue.

Howard peaked higher and has more personal accolades. But I'd prefer to have Parish's career by a considerable margin.

Since someone just noted accolades I'll note that Parish probably got shafted as much as anyone (not an official vote count just rough estimate of era positional ranking) by absence of a "third team" All-NBA.

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.

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.

[migya]

Was he though. If you think his prime was or should be broadly the 80s (he went on longer as a good player) ...
there's
Kareem - still great for about 6 years or so, but clearly a step down from his 70s self and declining.
M Malone - I'd say similar level to Kareem for the first half of the 80s then dropped off.
Olajuwon - Young, somewhat unpolished, but pretty great from the off, and certainly by year two (by which point the two above centers were dropping).
Ewing - Promining but arrives later, than Olajuwon, misses significant injury time in years one and two, foul trouble plagues year three, early production (mainly y1 and 2) not at elite levels. Only by year 4 ('88-89) is he a productive, high minutes player,

There's Ruland for a spell, but he's not healthy for long.
Then there's good guys like Sikma and Laimbeer.
Then we're slipping.
Young healthy Cartwright was an effective scorer for half a decade.
Gminski was solid. So was Schayes at his best (though foul prone).
Dawkins (and Johnson and Donaldson) shot for a high percentage. Donaldson had size and did some typical big man stuff competently.
Sampson wasn't a great pro and plays only 1 (healthy) year at center.
Rollins, Eaton, Benjamin, Caroll, Edwards, Stipanovich.
We're mostly looking at flawed, circa average players.

I suppose Gilmore and Lanier from the 70s last well (otoh moreso Gilmore, but both) and are effective into the 80s.

Still overall I don't think there are any huge apexs. There's roughly two top tier guys at any one time. Then then Sikma and Laimbeer. Ruland above them probably for a spell in the early-mid 80s. Maybe Daugherty joins Sikma and Laimbeer in the late 80s (though he got better in the 90s). Gilmore there to fight Parish (and Ruland) for 3rd in the first half of the decade. Lower minutes Lanier still around. I'd say most of the other big beasts of the 70s are gone, or significantly reduced.

Now Parish did as I say play later. But for the majority of his prime was the league "stacked era with alot of great Centers". I'd buy that for the 90s. For the 50s. For the 70s perhaps (many are large in "legacy", some's numbers are lesser, and you don. Maybe the 60s ... raw numbers are fewer but a smaller league, and most stay in the league and on the court for big minutes ... Reed isn't always playing C, and beyond he, Thurmond, perhaps Bellamy(?), others - the likes of say a Beaty - are easily put into the shade by the two colossi - but certainly you're playing a lot of your minutes against great centers if you're in the NBA.

Semantics on for instance "great" (and where one draws the line) and room to differ on different years. And Parish played many great players by virtue of playing so long. But was he often in his prime going against "a lot of great" centers. Much more so in say '93 (when he was still effective) and probably more so pre=prime than the bulk of his prime. Or at least that's what I'd be inclined to argue.


Since someone just noted accolades I'll note that Parish probably got shafted as much as anyone (not an official vote count just rough estimate of era positional ranking) by absence of a "third team" All-NBA.

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.

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.