RealGM 2017 Top 100 List #50 (Robert Parish)

[trex_8063]

Vote: Bill Walton

One of the best center peaks ever, better longevity than gets given credit, was the main dog in a championship team

Lähetetty minun LG-M250 laitteesta Tapatalkilla

Give us a little more than a single line. For instance, state why you think his longevity is better than he gets credit for. Also, need your alternate vote.

[trex_8063]

Thru post #21 (just *7 votes):

Russell Westbrook - 1 (pandrade83)
Robert Parish - 1 (trex_8063)
Alex English - 1 (penbeast0)
Elvin Hayes - 1 (scabbarista)
Chauncey Billups - 1 (Joao Saraiva)
Bill Walton - 1 (janmagn)
*Tracy McGrady - 1 (twolves97)

*arguments required

Thread will go to runoff in about 20 hours.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

[dhsilv2]

Vote: Bill Walton

One of the best center peaks ever, better longevity than gets given credit, was the main dog in a championship team

Lähetetty minun LG-M250 laitteesta Tapatalkilla

2 time allstar, 2 all nba's, and an MVP. However even during this 2 year peak, he missed 41 games. He also missed most of the 78 playoffs, playing 2 of the team's games. After that you have a 6th man of the year award which was given to him in a season he played 19 minutes a game. That was however the only season he was healthy for the entire year.


I'm all about peaks vs longevity, but a 65 game season and a good first half the following year is hardly justifiable as even being a peak. His MVP seems rather suspect, for starters he was 19th in the league in WS that year, in part due to only playing 58 games, but how do we ignore that? Kareem meanwhile had a better WS/48 and BPM. A peak WS of 10 is hardly mind blowing, I feel like the legend of how good Walton's peak was seems to grow with time, and the fact that he missed a massive number of games in his good years...

As for longevity. His career winshare is under 40. that puts him around 500th all time (NBA only). He played in 21 playoff games as a starter, only playing in the playoffs 4 times in his career and two of those were as a reserve for the celtics.

Basketball reference as a "similar player" tool they have based on WS. His best career comps are Tom Boerwinkle, Robin Lopez, Chuck Share, Ray Felix...

I'm fine with people voting for walton, I certainly respect and value peaks over longevity, but by no means did he have better longevity than he gets credit for. If anything it is the opposite.

[dhsilv2]

Vote Reed - Reed remains the best career of an MVP here, slightly pushing out Cowen and Iverson. A big man who was an above average defender, had a solid jump shot, and was considered a high intangibles guy on two title teams. Sure you only get 6 maybe 7 stand out seasons from him, but his career carried with it some rather iconic moments.

Alt Iverson Of the volume scorers that are getting traction, the best season/playoff run imo is strongly in favor of Iverson. Iverson was given a rather odd career, it wasn't until he was older that he had his first legit "star" level co player in Melo, but Melo as we all know was hardly the right mix for Iverson. Iverson gave his body to the game, he was wearing what looked like battle armor by the end. I tend to think Iverson was also a better play maker than he's given credit for. If influence on the game matters to you, Iverson would have been in ages ago. For all the coach issue he had, I have to pause and point out Larry Brown was known as a tough coach to play for, and yet somehow they had a pretty good run together.

HM - Manu Ginobili. 992 games played, longevity is there without much debate despite joining the league well over the normal rookie age and being held back by pop. The burn here is that he's averaged 25.8 minutes a game for his career, by far the lowest here. His 349 starts however is fairly comparable to McHale who we already put in and Manu has him beat in titles and tied in all nba selections. And with this we begin the Manu playoff story.

Manu is one of the greatest playoff performers in NBA history.

Games played 213 (9th)
Minutes played 5968 (27th)
Field Goal 941 (35th)
Free Throws 809 (17th)
TRB 859 (66th)
AST 811 (24th)
STL 285 (11th)
PTS 3009 (25th)
PER 19.4 (62nd)
WS 20.6 (20th)
WS/48 .1657 (44th)
BPM 5.24 (25th)
VORP 10.87 (17th)

I get that the playoffs are longer and that a lot of this is a function of playing with Duncan and being in the Spurs system, we don't need to go there, but there are very few players who weren't with other great players and who didn't have strong coaches who we rank this highly. I want to however point out how darn good those playoff stats are, and in a 213 game sample. That's nearly 3 seasons for those who miss games and still 2.6 82 game seasons. Manu averaged 28 minutes a game in the playoffs and during the title era (03-13) he was just a hair under 30 a game.

For those who are fans of RAPM, well Manu he was the top guy in 05, 3rd in 06, 3rd in 07, and 2nd in 08. But he doesn't start? Well during that 4 year span he started 189 out of 288 regular season games and played 29 minutes a game in the regular season.

His 10 year RAPM from 02-11 (he didn't play in 02) ranks 4th.

He is a 7 time top 10 BPM guy, with 4 3rd place finishes. He was top 10 in VORP 4 times (peaking at 4th). 5 top 10 WS/48 seasons peaking at 2nd. 75th all time in WS and 35th all time in VORP.

For every reason that Manu is too high here (other MVP's on the board, bench player, minutes played, etc) there is a reason he should be here. Manu has flat out been one of the most impactful players in the NBA for over decade. There is zero negative baggage on him as a locker room guy. He has had injury issue, even in the playoffs, but has more than made up for that.

If you're skeptical of the 70's MVPs left, not a fan of the 80's and 90's volume scorers, or aren't ready for defensive only big men. I present you Manu. Manu truly needs to be somewhere in the 50's. I don't expect him to get traction for a bit, but he absolutely needs to be somewhere in the 50's. For me manu is perhaps the best player, I'm pretty sure couldn't have been the number 1 guy on a team, but as a number 2 he was just so special.

[trex_8063]

1st vote Chauncey Billups

Tremendous pace controller. Great scorer when needed. Gave the ball to his teammates when needed, made it happen by himself when needed.

As a PG he was definitely not a liability on D.

I know I stopped voting at some point but it can get frustrating when you vote too much for a guy and he doesn't even have consideration. Do people really think Isiah was a better player than Billups? If yes, why so?



2nd vote Adrian Dantley

fwiw, you don't HAVE to vote for the very next guy on your own list; you can defer temporarily and go to the next guy who has some small/reasonable amount of traction.


re: Billups vs Isiah....
JoeMalburg did make some very nice arguments in favor of Isiah somewhere around the 30's, fwiw.

Also Billups I think is hurt a little bit by impact metrics that seem to lag behind his box-based advanced metrics (RAPM doesn't exactly love him, for instance, nor on/off). Defensively in particular, there's definitely some indication that his reputation may be marginally overstated.
Dantley too, for that matter, has every appearance of offensive impact decidedly behind his box-based metrics.


Isiah, otoh, appears [based on the admittedly limited info] to have had impact that goes well beyond his box-based advanced metrics, when we start looking at with/without records, SRS, and so forth:

Isiah WOWY (as much of his prime as I have compiled presently)
‘82: 36-36 (.500) with, 3-7 (.300) without
-0.25 SRS with, -3.40 SRS without

‘83: 37-44 (.457) with, 0-1 without
-0.13 SRS with, -3.80 SRS without

‘84: 49-33 (.598) with

‘85: 46-35 (.568) with, 0-1 without
+2.81 SRS with, -3.83 SRS without

‘86: 45-32 (.584) with, 1-4 (.200) without
+1.90 SRS with, -5.63 SRS without
108.83 ORtg with, 111.68 ORtg without
107.13 DRtg with, 119.72 DRtg without

‘87: 52-29 (.642) with, 0-1 without
+3.65 SRS with, -6.96 SRS without
109.2 ORtg with, 106.5 ORtg without
105.6 DRtg with, 120 DRtg without

***In first six seasons: 265-209 (.559) +1.96 SRS with, 4-14 (.222) -4.26 SRS without

‘88: 53-28 (.654) with, 1-0 without
+5.22 SRS with, *+25.02 SRS without (*played at home against a basement-level team who also happened to be missing TWO of their starters.....Pistons won by 35)
110.5 ORtg with, 108.1 ORtg without
105.7 DRtg with, 73.7 DRtg without

‘89: 61-19 (.763) with, 2-0 without
+6.06 SRS with, +13.56 SRS without
110.4 ORtg with, 127.2 ORtg without
104.6 DRtg with, 108.7 DRtg without

‘90: 59-22 (.728) with, 0-1 without
+5.62 SRS with, -11.55 SRS without
110.1 ORtg with, 96.0 ORtg without
103.4 DRtg with, 108.5 DRtg without

‘91: 31-17 (.646) with, 19-15 (.559) without

OVERALL THRU '91: 469-295 (.614) with, 26-30 (.464) without
OVERALL THRU '90: 438-278 (.612) and +3.20 SRS with Isiah, 7-15 (.318) and -1.64 SRS without


Speaking for myself, it also raised my attention when drza lent Isiah his support in the late 30's. drza's a poster whom I consider very knowledgeable, discerning, and relatively unmoved by status quo narratives. His criteria/method on rating players also tends to lean heavy on both impact and scouting report, the latter being the lens thru which he teases apart all the nuance and context to discover how that impact is occurring. So when he says he feels Isiah belongs there, that suggests [to me] there's more there than what his advanced metrics show (if that's what you're basing your opinion of Isiah on), and suggests that maybe the above "WOWY effect" I've outlined above isn't just smoke and mirrors.


Anyway, if you're frustrated by a lack of support for a specific candidate, mount some larger arguments to shift opinion (shouldn't have long to wait on Billups now; mid-30's was hard, because it wasn't just Isiah......we still had PG/wings like Payton, Barry, Frazier, Miller, Gervin, etc on the table; to say nothing of Gilmore, Howard, Schayes, McHale and so forth at that time).

[Outside]

Vote: Nate Thurmond
Alternate: Sam Jones

Thurmond is one of the greats for defensive impact. A feared shotblocker in the era before blocks were recorded. Great individual defender, great team defender who made anyone who came inside account for his presence. Great rebounder.

-- NBA record for rebounds in a quarter - 18
-- One of only four players with 40 rebounds in a game (Russell, Chamberlain, Lucas)
-- One of only five players to average 20 rebounds for a season (Russell, Chamberlain, Pettit, Lucas);
-- One of only five players to average 15 rebounds for a career (Russell, Chamberlain, Pettit, Lucas)
-- 10th all time in career rebounds
-- Averaged 15.0 points and 15.0 rebounds for his career
-- Had five straight 20-PPG seasons

[iggymcfrack]

Vote: Bill Walton
2nd vote: Robert Parish

One of the best center peaks ever, better longevity than gets given credit, was the main dog in a championship team

So, let's talk about his longevity. Yes, he missed a ton of games. Yes, advanced career stats show that he is as good as Robin Lopez. But you have to look into the context. Lopez is playing full seasons consistenly, while Walton always missed a ton of games.

But why I think his longevity gets underrated? It's always like "he played only 30 games he's bad." But when you really look at him, the skills never faded even with injuries, a reason he won 6MOTY when he was healthy for a season. He could've done much more if he ever was healthy, and even with that body he did a lot.

Ultimately his peak is the main reason I'm voting him here, but there was some insight on why his longevity is underrated in my opinion.

Lähetetty minun LG-M250 laitteesta Tapatalkilla

Don't see how he compares to Westbrook. Both had one MVP season, but whereas Westbrook played 81 games in his MVP season while smashing the BPM record, Walton put up a line of 19/13/5 in his while only managing to play 58 games and then only 2 in the playoffs before missing the entire next season. In fact, the only season Walton ever managed to play 70 games was when he was coming off the bench in Boston. For their careers, Westbrook has played 668 games to Walton's 468.

If you really only care about absolute peak, why not give Kawhi Leonard a look? If you include playoffs, he's only 30 games short of Walton and he just put up a 27.6 PER and 31.5 postseason PER all while playing arguably the best defense in the entire league. That's gotta be at least a Top 15 all-time peak season which is rarefied air that Walton certainly can't sniff.

[pandrade83]

Vote: Bill Walton
2nd vote: Robert Parish

One of the best center peaks ever, better longevity than gets given credit, was the main dog in a championship team

So, let's talk about his longevity. Yes, he missed a ton of games. Yes, advanced career stats show that he is as good as Robin Lopez. But you have to look into the context. Lopez is playing full seasons consistenly, while Walton always missed a ton of games.

But why I think his longevity gets underrated? It's always like "he played only 30 games he's bad." But when you really look at him, the skills never faded even with injuries, a reason he won 6MOTY when he was healthy for a season. He could've done much more if he ever was healthy, and even with that body he did a lot.

Ultimately his peak is the main reason I'm voting him here, but there was some insight on why his longevity is underrated in my opinion.

Lähetetty minun LG-M250 laitteesta Tapatalkilla

In the pre-title years, Portland didn't make the playoffs and Walton only had one full season. The '77 magical run - get that. I wouldn't say he outplayed Kareem in the '77 series, but if you want to say he played him to a draw and was the best player on a title team - absolutely. Then he wins the MVP but isn't a factor in the playoffs.

So, we're still just talking one year where he's an impact guy in the playoffs. Then 4 years of basically nothing. Then 2 mostly complete seasons in limited minutes for the Clippers where they go nowhere. Then the Boston 6MOY season.

The longevity is not there at all. He has that one year - which is one hell of a peak. But if you don't get a title in that year, you're screwed - and you're not guaranteed a title. People have had better years without getting a chip. If you value his peak that much - take him - but there's no sort of longevity argument here imo.

[dhsilv2]

Vote: Nate Thurmond
Alternate: Sam Jones

Thurmond is one of the greats for defensive impact. A feared shotblocker in the era before blocks were recorded. Great individual defender, great team defender who made anyone who came inside account for his presence. Great rebounder.

-- NBA record for rebounds in a quarter - 18
-- One of only four players with 40 rebounds in a game (Russell, Chamberlain, Lucas)
-- One of only five players to average 20 rebounds for a season (Russell, Chamberlain, Pettit, Lucas);
-- One of only five players to average 15 rebounds for a career (Russell, Chamberlain, Pettit, Lucas)
-- 10th all time in career rebounds
-- Averaged 15.0 points and 15.0 rebounds for his career
-- Had five straight 20-PPG seasons

Do you have a reason for Jones as an alt? I'm interested in the case for him.

[dhsilv2]

Vote: Bill Walton
2nd vote: Robert Parish

One of the best center peaks ever, better longevity than gets given credit, was the main dog in a championship team

So, let's talk about his longevity. Yes, he missed a ton of games. Yes, advanced career stats show that he is as good as Robin Lopez. But you have to look into the context. Lopez is playing full seasons consistenly, while Walton always missed a ton of games.

But why I think his longevity gets underrated? It's always like "he played only 30 games he's bad." But when you really look at him, the skills never faded even with injuries, a reason he won 6MOTY when he was healthy for a season. He could've done much more if he ever was healthy, and even with that body he did a lot.

Ultimately his peak is the main reason I'm voting him here, but there was some insight on why his longevity is underrated in my opinion.

Lähetetty minun LG-M250 laitteesta Tapatalkilla

Don't see how he compares to Westbrook. Both had one MVP season, but whereas Westbrook played 81 games in his MVP season while smashing the BPM record, Walton put up a line of 19/13/5 in his while only managing to play 58 games and then only 2 in the playoffs before missing the entire next season. In fact, the only season Walton ever managed to play 70 games was when he was coming off the bench in Boston. For their careers, Westbrook has played 668 games to Walton's 468.

If you really only care about absolute peak, why not give Kawhi Leonard a look? If you include playoffs, he's only 30 games short of Walton and he just put up a 27.6 PER and 31.5 postseason PER all while playing arguably the best defense in the entire league. That's gotta be at least a Top 15 all-time peak season which is rarefied air that Walton certainly can't sniff.

If someone has walton this high, I'd assume they think he's at or near the Russel level defensively at his best. I've tried to watch some of the videos of him and from what I did see, he was certainly a very VERY smart defender, so that argument at least from limited viewing seems a possibility to make.

But PER is not a good stat for peaks as it is scaled for league averages, and doesn't work well as a measurement for peak play. And I think there is a LOT of reason to be somewhat suspect of the high praise he got defensively. However it sounds like you're talking about Leonard's defense last year, and his defense dropped of considerably. I've not heard anyone claim he remotely had a case for the best defender last year. He went from 9th in DRAMP in 16 to late 80's last year for example. There is no possibly way Leonard had a top 15 peak last year.

[janmagn]

Vote: Bill Walton
2nd vote: Robert Parish

One of the best center peaks ever, better longevity than gets given credit, was the main dog in a championship team

So, let's talk about his longevity. Yes, he missed a ton of games. Yes, advanced career stats show that he is as good as Robin Lopez. But you have to look into the context. Lopez is playing full seasons consistenly, while Walton always missed a ton of games.

But why I think his longevity gets underrated? It's always like "he played only 30 games he's bad." But when you really look at him, the skills never faded even with injuries, a reason he won 6MOTY when he was healthy for a season. He could've done much more if he ever was healthy, and even with that body he did a lot.

Ultimately his peak is the main reason I'm voting him here, but there was some insight on why his longevity is underrated in my opinion.

Lähetetty minun LG-M250 laitteesta Tapatalkilla

Don't see how he compares to Westbrook. Both had one MVP season, but whereas Westbrook played 81 games in his MVP season while smashing the BPM record, Walton put up a line of 19/13/5 in his while only managing to play 58 games and then only 2 in the playoffs before missing the entire next season. In fact, the only season Walton ever managed to play 70 games was when he was coming off the bench in Boston. For their careers, Westbrook has played 668 games to Walton's 468.

If you really only care about absolute peak, why not give Kawhi Leonard a look? If you include playoffs, he's only 30 games short of Walton and he just put up a 27.6 PER and 31.5 postseason PER all while playing arguably the best defense in the entire league. That's gotta be at least a Top 15 all-time peak season which is rarefied air that Walton certainly can't sniff.

I was arguing Kawhi over Parish in my head

Lähetetty minun LG-M250 laitteesta Tapatalkilla

[Clyde Frazier]

Vote 1 - Willis Reed

Vote 2 - Bob Lanier

Reasoning: viewtopic.php?p=58629578#p58629578

[trex_8063]

Thru post #32 (9 votes):

Willis Reed - 2 (dhsilv2, Clyde Frazier)
Russell Westbrook - 1 (pandrade83)
Robert Parish - 1 (trex_8063)
Alex English - 1 (penbeast0)
Elvin Hayes - 1 (scabbarista)
Chauncey Billups - 1 (Joao Saraiva)
Bill Walton - 1 (janmagn)
Nate Thurmond - 1 (Outside)

So Reed is once again in the runoff as the leader in 1st place votes. For all those receiving one 1st place vote, the 2nd place votes will be used to determine who enters the runoff with Reed: among them, Parish and Westbrook are the only ones who also received a 2nd place vote (one each).

So we will enter a 3way runoff between Reed/Parish/Westbrook:

Willis Reed - 2 (dhsilv2, Clyde Frazier)
Robert Parish - 2 (trex_8063, janmagn)
Russell Westbrook - 1 (pandrade83)

If your name is not shown there, please indicate your pick among these three.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

[penbeast0]

I think I have to go with Westbrook, he was coming up very quickly for me and his career seems to be as long as Reeds while peaking higher. I know Reed has the intangibles advantage and Parish a very major longevity advantage, but Russ was also a top level 1B to Durant's 1A on a finals team so it's not just last year.

[iggymcfrack]

Seems like the choice is clearly between Westbrook and Parish. On the one hand, you've got a crazy unprecedented peak, and 3 genuinely elite seasons out of 9 total. On the other hand, you've got someone who never reached the same peak but maintained a decently high level for 18 of his 21 seasons. Personally, I think a super high peak is more valuable in the NBA since superstars are so rare and can do so much for a team, but I can see arguments for either player.

Then in Reed, you have someone who never really reached a better peak than Parish, but also didn't play any longer than Westbrook. I really don't see any argument for him whatsoever other than RANGZ and awards. Here's the BBRef comparison:

https://www.basketball-reference.com/play-index/pcm_finder.fcgi?request=1&sum=1&player_id1_hint=Russell+Westbrook&player_id1_select=Russell+Westbrook&y1=2017&player_id1=westbru01&idx=players&player_id2_hint=Willis+Reed&player_id2_select=Willis+Reed&y2=1974&player_id2=reedwi01&idx=players&player_id3_hint=Robert+Parish&player_id3_select=Robert+Parish&y3=1997&player_id3=parisro01&idx=players

Note that Parish beats Reed in a great many of the rate stats even though he played 2.5x as many games. And while I hear a lot about Reed's defense, Parish was no slouch on that end himself, and I doubt there's any meaningful edge for Reed on that side of the ball.

[Outside]

Vote: Nate Thurmond
Alternate: Sam Jones

Thurmond is one of the greats for defensive impact. A feared shotblocker in the era before blocks were recorded. Great individual defender, great team defender who made anyone who came inside account for his presence. Great rebounder.

-- NBA record for rebounds in a quarter - 18
-- One of only four players with 40 rebounds in a game (Russell, Chamberlain, Lucas)
-- One of only five players to average 20 rebounds for a season (Russell, Chamberlain, Pettit, Lucas);
-- One of only five players to average 15 rebounds for a career (Russell, Chamberlain, Pettit, Lucas)
-- 10th all time in career rebounds
-- Averaged 15.0 points and 15.0 rebounds for his career
-- Had five straight 20-PPG seasons

Do you have a reason for Jones as an alt? I'm interested in the case for him.

Squeezed for time, so I can't give you the full rundown, but here's the gist.

-- Top scorer in multiple seasons for a championship team known for distributed scoring
-- Very good efficiency for his era
-- Came up big in the postseason, particularly in elimination games

I posted some stats in a previous thread, so I'll have to find those or re-create them. On his clutch performances in the playoffs, here's a nice rundown:

https://prohoopshistory.net/2013/08/20/sam-jones-in-the-clutch/

Here's another article I found listing his game-winning shots and providing general context to his career.

https://basketballscholar.wordpress.com/2015/04/05/game-winners-series-sam-jones/

[Outside]

Runoff vote: Reed

Reed has the most well-rounded game of the three. There's almost nothing he didn't do well. The only reason he's fallen this far is longevity.

Parish has the advantage in longevity, but he was always a supplementary player on his teams, a distant third in the Celtics' big three. Reliable, steady, important, but not a foundation like Reed was.

Westbrook has athleticism and blunt force stats, but Reed has the edge in defense and in intangibles like leadership and chemistry. Westbrook's tendency toward hero-ball bothers me, particularly at the end of games, as does Angry Russ being difficult on his teammates. I'm hopeful that he'll find a better version of himself now that he has a better surrounding cast, but until I see that play out, or until Westbrook builds up his longevity, I give Reed the edge.

[trex_8063]

Seems like the choice is clearly between Westbrook and Parish. On the one hand, you've got a crazy unprecedented peak, and 3 genuinely elite seasons out of 9 total. On the other hand, you've got someone who never reached the same peak but maintained a decently high level for 18 of his 21 seasons. Personally, I think a super high peak is more valuable in the NBA since superstars are so rare and can do so much for a team, but I can see arguments for either player.

Then in Reed, you have someone who never really reached a better peak than Parish, but also didn't play any longer than Westbrook. I really don't see any argument for him whatsoever other than RANGZ and awards. Here's the BBRef comparison:

https://www.basketball-reference.com/play-index/pcm_finder.fcgi?request=1&sum=1&player_id1_hint=Russell+Westbrook&player_id1_select=Russell+Westbrook&y1=2017&player_id1=westbru01&idx=players&player_id2_hint=Willis+Reed&player_id2_select=Willis+Reed&y2=1974&player_id2=reedwi01&idx=players&player_id3_hint=Robert+Parish&player_id3_select=Robert+Parish&y3=1997&player_id3=parisro01&idx=players

Note that Parish beats Reed in a great many of the rate stats even though he played 2.5x as many games. And while I hear a lot about Reed's defense, Parish was no slouch on that end himself, and I doubt there's any meaningful edge for Reed on that side of the ball.

Although I'm plugging for Parish here and had Westbrook as my alternate (so Reed is the 3rd of the three choices for me too), there's something I want to address wrt the above......

*Reed undoubtedly peaked higher than Parish.
When looking at the rate metrics, realize that in certain eras in the league there was a greater degree of parity (that is: less deviation from the mean), potentially for a variety of reasons. In the last thread a few of us were discussing this trend, and I'd linked to some studies I'd done last year and posted some pertinent results pertaining to Reed:

In terms of what's tangible (not going to say how much you should value the intangible):

Westbrook already has Reed beat on career WS. It's not huge - but it is a 7% differential, and for me that already puts Reed behind the 8 ball in terms of the quality longevity argument.

So, from a tangible standpoint, Westbrook has a higher peak for because . . .

* - he's one of Ten guys to hit a 30 PER season
* - he has a pair of the Top Ten BPM Seasons ever
* - Westbrook has had a 3 year "next level" type impact run; I'd give Reed two of those caliber years ('69-'70).
* - Reed did lead the league in WS in '69 - that's something for sure and I'd be dis-honest to not note it.
* - Westbrook did all of this in a stronger league.

For me, the peak is higher & longer. I don't view Westbrook as a negative intangible guy - and obviously everyone weights intangibles differently. But off what is tangible, give me Westbrook.

Not the quibble over this, but PER can't be directly compared year to year outside of the league average should be 15ish. The top end however seems to have wide variance. Reed has 4 top 10 PER seasons. Westbrook has 6. Reed peaked at 4th in PER. So I'm fine if you want to value westbrooks PER peak, leading the league as better, but looking at Reed's 19's and 20's doesn't tell the full story was to where he was vs peers at the time.

fwiw, I'd done some limited studies to sort of break PER and WS/48 down to standard deviations from the mean (year-by-year) to determine scaled PER and WS/48 values.

Here is the link to rs results and here are the playoff results.**
**I have NOT updated this to include the '17 season, fwiw.

Pertaining to Reed....
'69 Reed measured out as a scaled PER of 23.39 and scaled WS/48 of .2553 in the rs (that's in 37.9 mpg). He was a 24.22 scaled PER and .2739 WS/48 in the playoffs (42.9 mpg).
'70 Reed was a scaled PER of 21.90 and scaled WS/48 of .2651 in rs (in 38.1 mpg). Didn't figure his playoff numbers for that year.

Note in scaled terms, Reed's peak seasons soundly trump Parish's best (Parish's scaled terms are little changed from his actual) once taking into account mpg----as you noted, these are rate metrics after all; and then especially so when noting Reed's playoff performance vs Parish (despite my supporting him, I have to concede playoff drop-off is a relevant criticism of Parish).


Also note Reed was a good team defender and reasonable defensive anchor. As evidence I could site:
1) some eye-test details (very good pnr defender---especially for era---who was also willing to step out on mid-range shooters, physical low-post defender who you'll consistently see bumping guys and forcing the entry pass to happen a little further from the hoop than desired and bodying up hard on shots down low, boxes out reasonably well, and a fair/decent rim protector (was still getting 1.9 blk/100 possessions on his last legs in '74).
2) Admittedly he had a lot of competition for it disappear in '70 (Russell had just retired, Wilt misses most of the season, Nate Thurmond missed 39 games).....but still, he took All-Defensive 1st Team honors that year (rookie Kareem took 2nd Team).
3) Look at the trends in the Knicks team rDRTG (Reed's career is '65-'74; contextual details noted below):

'64: +6.6
'65: +2.8
'66: +5.0
'67: +4.4
'68: -0.3
'69: -2.2
'70: -6.6
'71: -3.9
'72: -1.6
'73: -4.3
'74: -3.0
'75: +0.6

Although they were a poor +2.8 rDRTG in '65 (Reed's rookie season), note they'd been a godawful +6.6 rDRTG the year before (-3.8 improvement).
Then they shifted Reed to the PF after obtaining a (defensively weak) Walt Bellamy at C the following year, which appears to create another slip in the defense for a couple years (though never as bad as that +6.6 seen in '64).
They show sharp improvement in '68 with the additions of good defensive rookies (even in role player minutes) Walt Frazier and Phil Jackson, the coaching switch to Red Holzman, as well as reduced minutes for Bellamy.
They improve further in '69 with the mid-season trade of Bellamy for DeBusschere (moving Reed back to C), and now starter minutes for Frazier. Beginning here they go on a streak of years where they're one of the most elite defenses in the league.
They take noticeable dips in both '72 and '74 (when Reed is injured and missing most of the year); and then the sort of drop off a cliff in '75 after the retirement of both Reed and DeBusschere.

Note (when looking at Reed's rate metrics) that while for Parish defensive stats were being recorded, they didn't record defensive stats AT ALL in Reed's career until his final season (19 games); though those stats don't consistently paint an accurate picture of a player's defensive value.


And then there are some of Reed's leadership qualities:
*Was well-liked by teammates and fairly universally accepted as the "team leader" (denoted by his nickname "The Captain").
**A brilliantly talented offensive player, he was not surly in demanding more touches, but rather humbly accepted Holzman's vision of team basketball with everyone contributing on the offensive end (which sort of sets the tone for team culture when you're "The Captain"). This has repercussions on the aforementioned rate metrics.
***Was also somewhat the enforcer who would stand up for teammates when things got rough.


Food for thought on Willis Reed.
I still think he's the weakest candidate of the three because of his weakest (of the three) longevity, and I'd also rate Westbrook's peak a little ahead. But as much as I'm going for Parish here, I have to concede Chief's is the clear weakest peak of the three, imo.

[penbeast0]

Do you have a reason for Jones as an alt? I'm interested in the case for him.

...
-- Top scorer in multiple seasons for a championship team known for distributed scoring
-- Very good efficiency for his era
-- Came up big in the postseason, particularly in elimination games...

For those who argue that Russell played on stacked teams, Sam Jones is probably the best player he played with. Cousy was declining and a playoff bricklayer during the Russell years; Havlicek shot poorly and was not the player he would eventually become in the 70s (one of the rare players who improved after 30). Sam Jones was the main offensive weapon of the Celtics during their great run.

[trex_8063]

Do you have a reason for Jones as an alt? I'm interested in the case for him.

...
-- Top scorer in multiple seasons for a championship team known for distributed scoring
-- Very good efficiency for his era
-- Came up big in the postseason, particularly in elimination games...

For those who argue that Russell played on stacked teams, Sam Jones is probably the best player he played with. Cousy was declining and a playoff bricklayer during the Russell years; Havlicek shot poorly and was not the player he would eventually become in the 70s (one of the rare players who improved after 30). Sam Jones was the main offensive weapon of the Celtics during their great run.

Just by way of playing devil's advocate (since I believe you're in the camp of believing the pre-merger 70's NBA to somewhat of a water-down era), could it simply be declined level of competition that, in part, provides the perception that Hondo improved significantly in the 70s?
Also (and I've elaborated on this at some point in the past, iirc, and this applies to Havliceck as well as Cousy et al), I believe hyper-inflated pace has a deleterious effect on team offensive performance/efficiency. And I have the correlation studies to back up this opinion. This bears relevance because it's in the 70's that league average pace began to return to earth (also worth noting that in the mid-60's and earlier, the Celtics typically had one of the fastest paces in the league).