A PF who averaged 26.4-16.2-3.0 for his career.
A 2-time MVP winner.
A championship trophy with the St. Louis Hawks.
One of only 3 (4?) players to have a 20-20 season.
10 straight All-NBA 1st Team selections.
Led the league twice in ppg.
10 straight years Top-5 in rebounding.
In terms of his impact on the game and dominance during his era, he's clearly one of the all-time greats. At worst, a top 3 power forward of all time. He was a great competitor who wanted the win, and wanted the ball. A great rebounder despite having a pretty slight build, and could score every which way.
He takes a hit in the eyes of folks who want to compare him head-to-head to more modern superstars, or imagine him playing in the NBA in 2007. But those are rarely fair analyses, in my opinion. In today's game, he'd have a much harder time holding his own inside and on the glass. However, his perimeter game might allow him to slide out to SF and still play at an all-star level. On the other hand, in today's game he'd have benefited from the same diet patterns, fitness regimes, and coaching strategies as everyone else, so I think he'd still be one of the all-time greats.
__________________ Favorite players: Hakeem Olajuwon, Moses Malone, Bill Russell, Alex English, Kiki Vandeweghe, Sidney Moncrief, Lafayette Lever, Dan Issel, Bobby Jones, Julius Erving, Rick Barry, John Havlicek, Oscar Robertson, Jerry West...and Brooks Thompson
I see no reason to think he would have any trouble holding his own inside and on the glass today . . . he was 6'10 and tough as nails. His shooting percentage was never great, even for his day, though a lot of that is being a high post jump shooter who shot a lot of 20 footers. Question is whether the athleticism, etc. would be enough today just as it is for most players of his day but his game seemed to be the type that would translate to today's system (or even improve with enforcement of the rules against thuggery that people used to get away with back then). Of the key pre-Wilt players, I think he and Cousy would translate reasonably well (his shooting percentages did consistently improve as the league's did, even with the influx of Wilt, Russell, Thurmond, etc. to play against). I don't think Sharman or Neil Johnston's game would translate. Mikan, Arizin, and Schayes were somewhere between these two stylistic poles in terms of today's game I would think.
__________________
If you have to shoot, shoot, don't talk
I think Bob Pettit's the second best PF of all time. It's a close race between him and Karl Malone for that second spot, but Pettit did carry a team to an NBA championship. If Malone hits a quick turnaround in the 1998 NBA Finals instead of letting Jordan strip the ball from his blindside, he's probably better than Pettit historically. That's basically the class he's in. He's unquestionably a top 15 player of all time.
Here's a question how many of us watched Petit? I don't give a crap about youtube highlight clips.
Going by stats and accolades the man has to be up there but having never seen multiple full games of him it is hard to say if he would be able to translate his success to the modern NBA.
I'd take him before Karl Malone, but after Tim Duncan or Larry Bird.
__________________
Quote:
You know, you shouldn't jump around when this nice woman is holding a sharp pair of scissors. If you move she could slip and slice your jugular man, on accident. There is no way to stitch the jugular. All of your blood will be on the floor in four minutes. I have seen this. I have done this. You don't want this.
Here's a question how many of us watched Petit? I don't give a crap about youtube highlight clips.
Going by stats and accolades the man has to be up there but having never seen multiple full games of him it is hard to say if he would be able to translate his success to the modern NBA.
This is a false question. Better yet, a question that doesn't need to be asked...
If one can only accept the greatness of players from the Early Years if one can forecast how would they fare against the players of today, the whole system is ruined...
Elgin Baylor was a monster scorer and rebounder as a SF/PF. Would he be better than T-MAc if he played today? Would Russell be Hakeem Olajuwon or Emeka Okafor= Or Ben Wallace?
By this train of thought, How would Michael Jordan do facing zone defenses?
While regarding All-Time Greats, one just can't ask theForbidden Question. Petitt's stats and accolades stand for themselves.
This is a false question. Better yet, a question that doesn't need to be asked...
If one can only accept the greatness of players from the Early Years if one can forecast how would they fare against the players of today, the whole system is ruined...
Elgin Baylor was a monster scorer and rebounder as a SF/PF. Would he be better than T-MAc if he played today? Would Russell be Hakeem Olajuwon or Emeka Okafor= Or Ben Wallace?
By this train of thought, How would Michael Jordan do facing zone defenses?
While regarding All-Time Greats, one just can't ask theForbidden Question. Petitt's stats and accolades stand for themselves.
Then where would that put Mikan?
Mikan was the most dominant force in the NBA back in his day. Some would even argue that his dominance rivaled Wilt's.
Elgin won't grab 19.8 RPG in today's game.
Who here actually watched Pettit enough that they are brave enough to say he would translate well to today's NBA or are we just basing everything off accolades?
Like I said based on stats and accolades the man has to be up there but I'm not gonna say for certainty that he is better than Malone, Duncan, Barkley, or even Kevin Garnett without having seen him play.
Have to agree with Gilgamesh here. Without really knowing much about how Pettit actually played, I just wouldn't rank him at all against power forwards from around 1980 onward. Of course he'd be in the top 2 or 3 of all time if we're just talking about career accomplishments or how well he dominated his peers.
__________________
On a given day, in a given circumstance, you think you have a limit...
I recently had Pettit as the greatest PF of all-time. But with Duncan again being the best player in the playoffs and about to win another championship, I'll move him to #1 PF even though he's really a center playing PF. Pettit I think is clearly second, followed by Karl Malone. He's certainly a top 15 player of all-time.
If I had to rank the elite power forwards in NBA history, these six in no particular order are a cut above the field:
Charles Barkley, Tim Duncan, Kevin Garnett, Elvin Hayes, Karl Malone and Bob Pettit.
I believe all six are fairly interchangeable, but if I had to rank them today the order would be:
1.) Pettit (the prototype for the position)
2.) Duncan (really a center playing power forward)
3.) The Mailman (durabilty gives him the edge)
4.) The Big E (dominance, consistency are overlooked)
5.) Sir Charles (better than Malone, didn't take care of body)
6.) KG (most athletic, but power game not as strong as the others)
If I had to rank the elite power forwards in NBA history, these six in no particular order are a cut above the field:
Charles Barkley, Tim Duncan, Kevin Garnett, Elvin Hayes, Karl Malone and Bob Pettit.
I believe all six are fairly interchangeable, but if I had to rank them today the order would be:
1.) Pettit (the prototype for the position)
2.) Duncan (really a center playing power forward)
3.) The Mailman (durabilty gives him the edge)
4.) The Big E (dominance, consistency are overlooked)
5.) Sir Charles (better than Malone, didn't take care of body)
6.) KG (most athletic, but power game not as strong as the others)
Personally, I find it hard to rank The Big E above Barkley. Barkley was just so much more dominant of an offensive force, as well as being a better rebounder. Hayes was clearly the better defender, but I'm not sure it's enough to bridge the gap.
__________________
"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less."
"The question is," said Alice, "whether you can make words mean so many different things."
"The question is," said Humpty Dumpty, "which is to be master— that's all."
Personally, I find it hard to rank The Big E above Barkley. Barkley was just so much more dominant of an offensive force, as well as being a better rebounder. Hayes was clearly the better defender, but I'm not sure it's enough to bridge the gap.
Elvin Hayes is sixth all-time in NBA history in points scored (27,313); Charles Barkley finished 16th (23,757).
The scoring averages are close (Barkley averaged 22.1 points per game for his career, compared to Hayes' 21.0) and Barkley has 11 seasons where he averaged at least 20 points per game, compared to Hayes' 10.
Hayes was clearly the better defender. The Big E has the higher career rebounding average (12.5 boards per game for his career vs. Barkley's 11.7 per game), but I'm inclined to say Barkley was a better offensive rebounder than Hayes.
Where Hayes also has the big edge is in durability and conditioning -- The Big E missed a total of nine games in 16 years. Hayes is 11th all-time in games played (1,303) and third all-time in minutes (50,000). In his last five seasons alone, Barkley missed 126 games. Sir Charles played 10,670 fewer minutes than Hayes despite also playing 16 seasons.
Had Barkley taken care of his body like Hayes and Karl Malone did, Barkley's unique talent, athleticism and dominance would have landed him higher on my list. But combined with that and Hayes' decided advantage in defense (and Barkley holding only arguable advantages in scoring and rebounding), I can't put Sir Charles ahead of The Big E.
Where do you rate Bob Pettit All.-Time?
Linear Mode
