RealGM

In a hypothetical scenario where there is no Russell.

This would leave Pettit most likely with this new resume as a result.

4 time NBA champion (1957) (1958) (1960) (1961)

3× NBA Most Valuable Player (1956, 1959 1961)

11× NBA All-Star (1955–1965)

4× NBA All-Star Game MVP (1956, 1958, 1959, 1962)

10× All-NBA First Team (1955–1964)

All-NBA Second Team (1965)

NBA Rookie of the Year (1955)

2× NBA scoring champion (1956, 1959)

NBA rebounding leader (1956)

Points 20,880 (26.4 PPG)

Rebounds 12,849 (16.2 RPG)

Assists 2,369 (3.0 APG)


Do you think that type of resume would get Pettit into the top ten nowadays?

As he would be known as the best player of the late 50s who led a dynasty while beating players such as Cousy and Wilt in the finals


Also it's worth noting that Pettit's efficiency went up even as the Nba became a much more talented league in the early 60's with a ts+ of at least 107 every year from 56 until when he retired

Depends on whose list. He probably should get a little more recognition. Modern style scoring game, decent range in-era. Acceptable drop in the playoffs, very good relative efficiency. Couple MVPs. LOTS of ASG MVPs. Beat the Celtics for a ring in 58, closing them out with 50 in a 1-point win.

coastalmarker99 wrote:In a hypothetical scenario where there is no Russell.

This would leave Pettit most likely with this new resume as a result.

4 time NBA champion (1957) (1958) (1960) (1961)

3× NBA Most Valuable Player (1956, 1959 1961)

11× NBA All-Star (1955–1965)

4× NBA All-Star Game MVP (1956, 1958, 1959, 1962)

10× All-NBA First Team (1955–1964)

All-NBA Second Team (1965)

NBA Rookie of the Year (1955)

2× NBA scoring champion (1956, 1959)

NBA rebounding leader (1956)

Points 20,880 (26.4 PPG)

Rebounds 12,849 (16.2 RPG)

Assists 2,369 (3.0 APG)


Do you think that type of resume would get Pettit into the top ten nowadays?

As he would be known as the best player of the late 50s who led a dynasty while beating players such as Cousy and Wilt in the finals


Also it's worth noting that Pettit's efficiency went up even as the Nba became a much more talented league in the early 60's with a ts+ of at least 107 every year from 56 until when he retired

Fwiw "where there is no Russell" can be a variety of scenarios (what happens with Macauley, Hagan etc).

Not sure it's "most likely" that Hawks win 4 titles without Russell there. I assume this is based on them winning every year they get to the finals. But the West is the much weaker conference. And the Hawks really aren't that good, especially early on.

year, SRS, SRS rank
'57: -0.27, 4th (of 8)
'58: 0.82, 4th (of 8)
'60: 1.77, 4th (of 8)
'61: 2.99, 2nd (of 8)

Of course they would still have the benefits of the easier conference (perhaps depending somewhat on reading of the question and any butterfly effects).

Is it plausible that he's more remembered with a bigger star of that era gone, and the one most closely aligned with his career years? Certainly. And there's a case he's too much dismissed or thought of/dismissed as part of the whiter league rather than overlapping a lot with, and being effective in the same league as, Baylor and Robertson and West.

Owly wrote:

coastalmarker99 wrote:In a hypothetical scenario where there is no Russell.

This would leave Pettit most likely with this new resume as a result.

4 time NBA champion (1957) (1958) (1960) (1961)

3× NBA Most Valuable Player (1956, 1959 1961)

11× NBA All-Star (1955–1965)

4× NBA All-Star Game MVP (1956, 1958, 1959, 1962)

10× All-NBA First Team (1955–1964)

All-NBA Second Team (1965)

NBA Rookie of the Year (1955)

2× NBA scoring champion (1956, 1959)

NBA rebounding leader (1956)

Points 20,880 (26.4 PPG)

Rebounds 12,849 (16.2 RPG)

Assists 2,369 (3.0 APG)


Do you think that type of resume would get Pettit into the top ten nowadays?

As he would be known as the best player of the late 50s who led a dynasty while beating players such as Cousy and Wilt in the finals


Also it's worth noting that Pettit's efficiency went up even as the Nba became a much more talented league in the early 60's with a ts+ of at least 107 every year from 56 until when he retired

Fwiw "where there is no Russell" can be a variety of scenarios (what happens with Macauley, Hagan etc).

Not sure it's "most likely" that Hawks win 4 titles without Russell there. I assume this is based on them winning every year they get to the finals. But the West is the much weaker conference. And the Hawks really aren't that good, especially early on.

year, SRS, SRS rank
'57: -0.27, 4th (of 8)
'58: 0.82, 4th (of 8)
'60: 1.77, 4th (of 8)
'61: 2.99, 2nd (of 8)

Of course they would still have the benefits of the easier conference (perhaps depending somewhat on reading of the question and any butterfly effects).

Is it plausible that he's more remembered with a bigger star of that era gone, and the one most closely aligned with his career years? Certainly. And there's a case he's too much dismissed or thought of/dismissed as part of the whiter league rather than overlapping a lot with, and being effective in the same league as, Baylor and Robertson and West.

The only year I can see the Hawks losing in the finals in is 1960 to Wilt and the Warriors .

But they did have a great h2h record against them that season.

57 - Hawks over Celtics: The Hawks played well in the postseason (sweep conference, push Celtics to 7). Hagan was 17ppg in the playoffs and they have Hannum. Celtics are improving but I'll give the Hawks the edge.

58 - Hawks over Celtics: The Hawks beat the real Celtics so we'll give it to them again of course

59 - Nationals over Lakers: Celtics best chance to win without Russell. The Nationals pushed Celtics with Russell to 7. Probably an underrated hard series in the Celtics dynasty. So we'll give them edge over Russell less Celtics and Lakers.

60 - Hawks over Warriors: Wilt is a problem but the non/Pettit and Wilt players favor Hawks.

61 - Celtics over Lakers: The Hawks did not have a great run this year beating the 36 W Lakers cause they won by 1 pt in game 4, 1 pt in game 6 and 2 pts in game 7, and then went down easily to the Celtics. They also have 3 titles and could be more tired and less motivated. So in this scenario they actually lose to the Lakers. However the Celtics beat the Lakers in the finals to win one for Cous.

62 - Warriors over Lakers: Bad year for Hawks. Wilt is bad matchup for Lakers

63 - Lakers over Royals. West vs Oscar finals - Lakers finally win.

64 - Warriors over Royals - Wilt's 2nd title.

Pettit is not rated top 10 as 57, 58 and 60 titles is considered a little bit too early, as it's claimed he never had to beat Wilt/West/Oscar for those titles, in particular Wilt who goes on to destroy the 2nd half of the 60s without Russell.

Yes, if he wins 2 titles head to head over Wilt and the Warriors, it would help him. If he plays well, in the playoffs in those years, something he did not have a history of except in that amazing 4th quarter to beat the actual Celtics, it would help him. But probably it would help him maintain top 20 status rather than making him top 10. Still not as dominant as Mikan and few put Mikan into the top 10.

He probably doesn't get Hagan and Easy Ed to help him out with no Russell.
So it's kind of cloudy.

coastalmarker99 wrote:In a hypothetical scenario where there is no Russell.

...

Do you think that type of resume would get Pettit into the top ten nowadays?

As he would be known as the best player of the late 50s who led a dynasty while beating players such as Cousy and Wilt in the finals


Also it's worth noting that Pettit's efficiency went up even as the Nba became a much more talented league in the early 60's with a ts+ of at least 107 every year from 56 until when he retired

I'll go through the first-pass analysis like this. I currently have Pettit 16th by my personal POY Shares. If I just naively remove Russell from existence and bump up Pettit and other contenders a spot in relevant years, Pettit would move up to 12th, being the 4th best man from his era behind Wilt, Oscar & West.

For the curious, I'll put the list up through 12 in spoilers, but there's going to be stuff in there that distracts from the topic of the thread.



Now, aside from the fact that I don't expect others to agree on specifics, there's also the matter that I personally would not want to just use that list as my GOAT list, so being 12th on it definitely doesn't mean he couldn't in theory be in my Top 10...

but it's hard to see how he'd be in my Top 10. 2 big things here:

1. I rank Pettit more like Top 30 than I do #16 right now for reasons that would generally match up pretty well with current GOAT list norms - guys from the deep past often "downgraded" for various reasons. So it'd be a high mountain to climb for my list, and I think for most others.

2. Your counterfactual query here implies that Pettit would be seen as the something like "the dominant player of that era", but I don't think "that era" is truly seen as a full-fledged era. We might call it a mini-era, and if it was impressive enough it could go down as an all-time peak...but while I am quite impressed with Pettit (and the way he kept pace with the advancing wave), I can't say that I see him as more impressive than Wilt or Oscar or West.

I think when we pose these kind of questions you have to acknowledge that not everyone weighs rings and longevity the same or is willing to give the same credence to rings won 50+ years ago relative to those won more recently. So when you bring up someone like Pettit there's a lot of wiggle room in how people are going to rank him even if you add in 2-3 rings to his resume. Just as some don't have Russell in their top 10 even with 5 mvps and 11 rings.