RealGM

Who do you think is better?

Ewing, no question.

Parish was great, for sure, but Ewing would have been equally good in the same position. Maybe not quite as proficient with the baseball outlet passes, but making up for it in other ways.

Ewing

I agree. Ewing was a Knickerbocker! which wasn't the most amazing team, but Parish was a Celtic. they are two different teams. Go Ewing!

as much as I hate Ewing, this is an insult.

bastillon wrote:as much as I hate Ewing, this is an insult.

While I agree that it's Ewing, it's not that much of an insult. Parish was very good, and had a successful career. The thing is, While Parish was still somewhat spry, he did very good against Ewing head to head.

Ewing for sure, but Parish's longevity and rings mean this is close enough to not be an insult.

It's hardly an insult...Parish was a really good player for a really long time. His peak seems like it's a little underrated, too...I mean, he's an 18-11-2 guy with 54% plus shooting. And that's an 11 year average...and he averaged 79 games a year. And for people that are into PER40 numbers, Parish did that in less than 33 minutes a game. (If you're a PER40 guy, you might even have to go with Parish.)

Ewing's better on D and has more range, and he played more in every game. His 1990 and 1991 seasons are kind of outliers...but they're still markedly better than anything Parish put up. I'd go with the higher peak...but I'd also say we shouldn't kid ourselves about the value of Robert Parish.

Parish is as underrated here as Hakeem is overrated. And, yes, I realize Hakeem was the better player.

Let's be fair here--put Ewing on that team with Bird, McHale, et al, and he probably becomes third banana (at best) just like Parish. Would his career and stats look any better than Parish's? What I'm saying is no-one here knows what Parish would have looked like as a first option, a luxury Ewing had for the bulk of his career.

TrueLAfan wrote:It's hardly an insult...Parish was a really good player for a really long time. His peak seems like it's a little underrated, too...I mean, he's an 18-11-2 guy with 54% plus shooting. And that's an 11 year average...and he averaged 79 games a year. And for people that are into PER40 numbers, Parish did that in less than 33 minutes a game. (If you're a PER40 guy, you might even have to go with Parish.)

Ewing's better on D and has more range, and he played more in every game. His 1990 and 1991 seasons are kind of outliers...but they're still markedly better than anything Parish put up. I'd go with the higher peak...but I'd also say we shouldn't kid ourselves about the value of Robert Parish.

Disagree with you just a little bit here, TLAF...that mid-range game of Parish's was money in the bank. I don't know if there's any great difference in range between the two. If there's any difference in basic skill set, it would be primarily on D, where I'll give Ewing an edge, but it's not a huge gap. Parish was pretty solid on defense.

writerman wrote:Let's be fair here--put Ewing on that team with Bird, McHale, et al, and he probably becomes third banana (at best) just like Parish. Would his career and stats look any better than Parish's? What I'm saying is no-one here knows what Parish would have looked like as a first option, a luxury Ewing had for the bulk of his career.

True. But it's very possible Parish would have been exposed if he had been the first option for a team.

We'll never know, but my guess is the Celtics are at least as good and the Knicks regress if you switch.

Well... he had one year in GS in 79 where he was arguably the first option (shaded in FGA by Purvis Short by .8) where he averaged 17 / 11 / 1.7 (with 1.5 blocks) on 50.7% (and that's in 29 minutes).

Probably as close as we're going to get. For mine, the Celtics might have been even meaner defensively with Ewing, although a less effective fast-break team. Longevity swings it a bit Parish's way, but not by any decisive margin.

If Patrick Ewing got to play with Larry Bird and be a 2nd or 3rd option on offense like he was supposed to be for his career, he would have ended up with possibly 5 titles. Boston's defense would have been insane. Ewing had very little offensive talent on his teams, yet pushed Jordan and Hakeem to play at their absolute bests in order for their teams to beat Ewing's.

I really like Robert Parish. I think he might be the most underrated player on this board, mainly due to the overrating of Kevin Mchale (Parish imo was just as valuable to Boston.....Parish was the one going up against Moses, KAJ, Laimbeer, and Hakeem). Still, Ewing was clearly better in his prime/peak. And he's the better player despite Parish's edge in longevity.

ronnymac2 wrote:If Patrick Ewing got to play with Larry Bird and be a 2nd or 3rd option on offense like he was supposed to be for his career, he would have ended up with possibly 5 titles. Boston's defense would have been insane. Ewing had very little offensive talent on his teams, yet pushed Jordan and Hakeem to play at their absolute bests in order for their teams to beat Ewing's.

I really like Robert Parish. I think he might be the most underrated player on this board, mainly due to the overrating of Kevin Mchale (Parish imo was just as valuable to Boston.....Parish was the one going up against Moses, KAJ, Laimbeer, and Hakeem). Still, Ewing was clearly better in his prime/peak. And he's the better player despite Parish's edge in longevity.

Actually, I get the impression both Parish and McHale are underrated here. I polled McHale against Garnett and he got swamped. I think it's a close comparison.

^^^KG is much better than Mchale. That isn't a close comparison.

Laimbeer wrote:Actually, I get the impression both Parish and McHale are underrated here. I polled McHale against Garnett and he got swamped. I think it's a close comparison.

Parish being somewhat underrated, I can believe. McHale, not so much. KG >> McHale, no question.

ronnymac2 wrote:If Patrick Ewing got to play with Larry Bird and be a 2nd or 3rd option on offense like he was supposed to be for his career, he would have ended up with possibly 5 titles. Boston's defense would have been insane. Ewing had very little offensive talent on his teams, yet pushed Jordan and Hakeem to play at their absolute bests in order for their teams to beat Ewing's.

The Knicks pushed the Rockets to the brink, that's for sure. If Ewing hadn't sucked at one end of the floor in that series, they would have won. He played some pretty amazing team D, even if he was busy getting torched by Hakeem and failing to score himself. He's kind of a tough player to evaluate.

100%, if Ewing was on the Celtics of the 80s instead of Parish, they would have been even NASTIER.

Had Ewing been a Celtic, they would've been even more dominant.

Had Parish been a Knick, they would've never had those finals appearances in the 90s

I just don't think Parish would've been AS GOOD as Ewing in a 1st option situation

I'm not underrating Parish at all, dude had a career of like what, 22 years? Played for GSW, Boston, Chicago, and Charlotte.

The Chief deserves his props.

Ewing is probably my fav player of all-time, and though he never got a title, he deserves his respect for being one of the toughest and for pushing teams like the Bulls and Rockets to their max limit in the 90s. He was a true force to be reckoned with and honestly I think Pat gets overlooked a lot when talking about the great centers of the game, even when you just talk about the 90s era. He is one of the best big men to ever play the game.