Minstrel

How wasn't he? Barkley was a superior rebounder, much better passer and scored more on far higher efficiency.

__________________
You'll never live like common people
You'll never do what common people do
You'll never fail like common people
You'll never watch your life slide out of view
And dance and drink and screw
Because there's nothing else to do.

carlos710

Duncan definitively had less weapons in offense than either barkley or malone, but that doesnt means he wasnt as effective.

Both barkley and malone were more atletic than duncan, allowing them to take the ball to the basket in a way duncan could never do.

Barkley and Malone were likely the better mid-range shooters, however, duncan is pretty good himself. In his MVP years he used a lot more his bank shot than he is doing on these days, and he was pretty good at that. Dunno if he lost the confidence on his shoot, or is just part of the spurs offense to keep him most of the time in the post.

However, like i just said, the last couple of seasons he has played more and more close to the basket, which oftens allow players like parker and ginobilli to get free/better shoots.

Expending so much time in the post, where he gets consistently double teamed, opens a lot of oportunities for the rest of the team, and thats the main reason why i think he overall is as effective or impactful as Malone or Barkley on the offensive side of the ball.

I dont remember Malone nor barkley getting double teamed (or opening as big spaces in the court) so much, not because they werent as good in offense, but because they usually started their plays a little farther away from the basket. There is a reason why everyone wants to get a 'true center' who plays close to the basket.

However, i will give you that if i had to put only one player on my team to score two quick points, i would put barkley or malone first, because like i said, they had more ways to put the ball in the basket. (Either atacking the hole or shooting, while duncan would need to work for the post position or use his shoot)

I agree with Malone being pretty good man-to-man defender, however duncan still has the edge over him in my opinion. And like you said, duncan was clearly a better team defender, and has a considerable advantage in overall impact defense over barkley or malone.

JPSeraph

Are you serious? Pettit? I'm not even sure how you (or I) could make that judgement considering Pettit is such an unknown when comparing him to today's players.

If it's solely off of stats such as PER, then I can understand, but otherwise I'm not sure how Pettit could be included over all other power forwards in the history of the NBA and rank right behind Garnett for value in building a team right now (which I assume means today's NBA).

Not sure I agree with Malone and Barkley over Duncan, but I think most of the problem with comparing them is you are comparing the prototype power forward (Malone); with a physical freak who almost doesn't have a position but spent much time effectively as a power forward (Barkley); with a prototype center who had the unusual good fortune to land on another HOF center's team and has since played alongside anybody who could pretend to be a center (Duncan).

So it's essentially a comparison of three different positions or player types. I'd take the prototype center over the prototype power forward personally (but Barkley would be the most fun of the three).

__________________
On a given day, in a given circumstance, you think you have a limit...

Minstrel

Why? Do you feel all players from the '50s and '60s are suspect today? How would you feel about Bill Russell in today's game, or Bob Cousy?

As with all players who played long before I was born, I can only evaluate based on numbers. Pettit tore up his leagues and put up great PERs, a stat which is fairly league sensitive (but not perfectly accurate that far back, granted).

Who do you feel I'm passing over by including Pettit? McHale? Nowitzki? Bear in mind that Pettit ranks fifth all-time in PER, behind Jordan, Shaq, Robinson and Chamberlain. He's one of the all-time dominators.

It's possible that Pettit wouldn't make it in today's game, but all I can use to evaluate the question is statistics. Either that, or we have to eliminate all players from before a certain date, which would definitely leave out some of the best ever.

__________________
You'll never live like common people
You'll never do what common people do
You'll never fail like common people
You'll never watch your life slide out of view
And dance and drink and screw
Because there's nothing else to do.

JPSeraph

You could use your own judgement about players whom you never saw play (and whose PER is an estimate!) and how they might fit in today's league.

Pettit was 6'9" and what 225? Was he even athletic enough to play in today's NBA? Would his body develop comparable to today's players under modern conditioning regimens?

It's difficult to simply conclude "I don't know enough about this player to judge him against today's players or players from 20 years ago", but sometimes it's the best conclusion.

It's also hard to imagine that a player as dominant as Pettit in one era could potentially be obsolete or significantly less effective in another era.

Pettit's career was from '55-'65. He dominated the paint in an era with a narrower lane (the same narrow lane in which Wilt averaged 50ppg). He was remarkably consistent throughout his career and didn't stay in the game too long like many of today's stars, hence his estimated PER ranks so highly.

He played in an era when rebounding and scoring figures were skyhigh. Even if he was a 20/10 player today (which I consider a stretch to say, with so little concrete proof of his viability in today's game), that wouldn't make him the fifth best power forward of all time.

You'll have no argument from me about his effectiveness during the era in which he played, or his worthiness on an "all time greatest" list which focuses on a player's accomplishments, but saying he would be dominant in today's game based almost solely on PER is pushing the envelope too far.

__________________
On a given day, in a given circumstance, you think you have a limit...

Minstrel

But I'm not prepared to ignore everyone before the 1970s in discussion. I can't use my own judgement about Pettit's viability in this league, because all I've seen of him is highlights. From his highlights, yes, he could compete in this league.

His physical measurements don't say much. Russell was 6'9'' and 215 lbs. That's less than Pettit. Should we conclude that Russell probably couldn't compete at a high level today and therefore surely isn't a top center all-time?

It's definitely easy to imagine it. But we don't know, for any player, whether they would be obsolete or far less effective. IMO, the more they dominated their leagues, the less likely it is they would be obsolete today.

That would affect his career PER, sure. And I've never placed Pettit in my top-ten of all-time, so I obviously don't think fifth best career PER maps directly to fifth best player.

His seasonal PERs, though, were also fantastic. His prime compares very well to Malone, Barkley, Duncan and Garnett.

PER is adjusted for pace and rebounding opportunities.

In all sports, we have this argument. Would Babe Ruth be dominant today the way he was dominant back then? Could Johnny Unitas still be a fantastic quarterback today? In the end, I think you have to give a player his due for what he did. It's important to apply common sense, like not comparing raw stats across eras (Chamberlain wouldn't average 50 PPG in a season today), but I don't think it's reasonable to eliminate players from the rankings simply because they played a long time ago and we can't directly evaluate them against today's players.

Here's my take: Some of those players may not have the pure athleticism of many of today's players, but the skills are the same. If Pettit had dominant skills then, they'd still be dominant skills today. A player like Larry Bird shows that you don't have to have great NBA athleticism to dominate. Even Duncan is not hugely athletic...it's not a stretch in my mind to believe Pettit could have been as athletic as Duncan. Duncan dominates with skills that belie his size, not with tremendous leaping ability or explosive moves. Why is it hard to believe Pettit could do the same?

__________________
You'll never live like common people
You'll never do what common people do
You'll never fail like common people
You'll never watch your life slide out of view
And dance and drink and screw
Because there's nothing else to do.

JPSeraph

I'm not either. There's quite a bit of room to speculate how good Pettit would be in today's league without declaring him one of the top 5 of all time.

It depends on the "league" in question. The era of 1955-65 was VERY different from today's league.

Remember Pettit's PERs are estimates.

But not for level of competition or changes in rules. As an example, the rule changes for perimeter contact in effect from 04-05 onwards have given rise to career PER numbers for many of the league's top perimeter players.

Are these players better now than they were before? No.

This is why applying PER in this case as the chief means by which to assess Pettit's effectiveness in today's NBA is a flawed approach. You have to understand how the game was played and how it has changed.

My guess is that neither of us really knows enough about NBA ball from '55-'65 or about Bob Pettit (and not just his statline or meager video highlights) to make a cogent assessment of his chances in today's game.

With Bird, we have loads of highlights, games, personal experiences, players to compare him to who played well into the 90's etc. We also have PER that isn't an estimate.

I am willing to accept (even if I don't agree) that Bird is one of the top five forwards of all time in today's game. There's plenty of evidence for us to argue and valid comparisons to make.

__________________
On a given day, in a given circumstance, you think you have a limit...

Minstrel

Yes, and my speculation is that he's one of the five best power forwards of all-time.

I do understand a lot about how the game was played and how it has changed, from reading about past eras. That said, do you feel it would be insane to place Bill Russell in a similar top-five list for centers?

You're missing my point. I'm not comparing Pettit to Bird in terms of what we know. I'm saying that Bird illustrates that you don't need to have amazing athleticism to dominate modern basketball. If you have top-level skills, you can dominate. From what I've read of Pettit (and what his atstistics suggest), he had that type of incredible skills.

Such skills are just as valid today as then. What has mostly changed is the power and athleticism of the game. But Pettit didn't dominate by banging inside...back then, the game wasn't a physical one, so big men didn't dominate by blasting their way to the hoop. Therefore, Pettit didn't have a game dependant on overpowering smaller, '50s/'60s opponents that he couldn't hope to sustain today. His game was more about footwork, technique and shooting skill. All those things would allow him to be great today, as McHale or Duncan were/are great in modern basketball.

__________________
You'll never live like common people
You'll never do what common people do
You'll never fail like common people
You'll never watch your life slide out of view
And dance and drink and screw
Because there's nothing else to do.

Minstrel