Why SHOULDN'T Bob Pettit be considered the 2nd greatest PF ever behind Duncan?

[CavaliersFTW]

Rookie of the year
10x All NBA First Team
11x NBA All Star (all 11 seasons of his career) and 4x ASG MVP
2x League MVP (With Scoring and Rebounding title the first MVP, and a scoring title the 2nd MVP)
NBA Champion (and would be FMVP with 50point closing game performance, 19 of teams 20 4th quarter points)
Five NBA Finals appearances

26.4ppg 16.2rpg (~18TRB%) 3apg

And throughout his career he was always near the top in MVP rankings even when he didn't win MVP (he retired in '65):
http://i.imgur.com/mmskUBi.jpg

And now that I've uncovered his footage we can clearly see he had a thoroughly modern game:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jdeiZRW7gSo

So why shouldn't he be considered the 2nd greatest PF of all time behind only Duncan? What other PF has a solid case over him? :confusedshrug:

[pudman13]

I think the most likely argument for someone else (as opposed to against him) is the same argument used against Bill Russell, that his championships came in a league with far fewer teams than in the modern game. Karl Malone, who had a much longer career than Pettit, could have won two championships if not up against Jordan, for example. Maybe the same could be said of Barkley, who also had a longer career. Then again, Pettit could have won more if not up against Russell's Celtics.

I know you can't stand the guy, but it's notable that Simmons puts Pettit one notch above those two players on his pyramid, making Pettit indeed the #2 power forward on that list. I tend to wonder what McHale would have been like if he were the top option on any team, but based on his actual career (which, like Pettit's, was a bit short) it's hard to make an argument for him.

One reasonable argument against Pettit (though it's mitigated a bit by when he played) is that a good PF should have a high FG%.

Pettit: .436
Barkley: .541
Malone: .516
McHale: .554
Duncan: .506

Also...it's still kind of debatable whether Duncan is a PF or not.

[moe94]

Simmons.

http://img594.imageshack.us/img594/3001/9sm.gif

[BlackWhiteGreen]

What was he like defensively?

[russwest0]

Because there is this guy, maybe you've heard of him, his name is Karl Malone

[SilkkTheShocker]

:oldlol:

[bdreason]

Because he played in an inferior, non-integrated NBA.

[moe94]

Because there is this guy, maybe you've heard of him, his name is Karl Malone
repped

[pudman13]

By the way, I find it really hard to assess Malone because of the effect of playing with Stockton (and vice versa.)

[Deuce Bigalow]

I think the most likely argument for someone else (as opposed to against him) is the same argument used against Bill Russell, that his championships came in a league with far fewer teams than in the modern game. Karl Malone, who had a much longer career than Pettit, could have won two championships if not up against Jordan, for example. Maybe the same could be said of Barkley, who also had a longer career. Then again, Pettit could have won more if not up against Russell's Celtics.

I know you can't stand the guy, but it's notable that Simmons puts Pettit one notch above those two players on his pyramid, making Pettit indeed the #2 power forward on that list. I tend to wonder what McHale would have been like if he were the top option on any team, but based on his actual career (which, like Pettit's, was a bit short) it's hard to make an argument for him.

One reasonable argument against Pettit (though it's mitigated a bit by when he played) is that a good PF should have a high FG%.

Pettit: .436
Barkley: .541
Malone: .516
McHale: .554
Duncan: .506

Also...it's still kind of debatable whether Duncan is a PF or not.
FG% was low for everybody in the 50s, even Wilt his first couple of seasons shot below 50% in the 60s.

[moe94]

By the way, I find it really hard to assess Malone because of the effect of playing with Stockton (and vice versa.)

By far the worst argument I face whenever trying to discuss either. People need to pick a lane and stick to it. Was Stockton shit because he was feeding the GOAT finishing PF or was Malone shit because he was being fed by the greatest passer of all time? Which is it? Is it so unfathomable that the Jazz acquired the best PF and PG of the generation? :coleman:

[pudman13]

FG% was low for everybody in the 50s, even Wilt his first couple of seasons shot below 50% in the 60s.

I mentioned that, and I know that his was continually higher than the league average, but to put it in context, his long-time teammate Cliff Hagan (a 6'4" SF) had a lifetime FG% of .454.

[CavaliersFTW]

What was he like defensively?
I was reading some sports illustrated articles this past week from the late 50's and early 60's and they indicated he (and Baylor too) in their primes were two of the better defenders at the forward spot in the league at the time (this being before Satch Sanders and Gus Johnson rose to prominance as defensive forwards). That's all I have to go by, as there is no actual games of Pettit to see his habits on the defensive end, only fragments of footage from random documentaries and newsreels.

[pudman13]

By far the worst argument I face whenever trying to discuss either. People need to pick a lane and stick to it. Was Stockton shit because he was feeding the GOAT finishing PF or was Malone shit because he was being fed by the greatest passer of all time? Which is it? Is it so unfathomable that the Jazz acquired the best PF and PG of the generation? :coleman:

I'm not making an argument one way or the other, just saying it's harder to make comparisons to other players. I'm certainly not saying either one wasn't great. My own instinct, from watching a lot of Jazz games over the years, is that Malone got more of a bump from Stockton than the other way around, but that's not really a knock on him as a player. I'm sure he would have been great with any PG. And---with anyone who played on good or great teams, similar discussions can occur. How much did playing with Kareem help Magic Johnson's career, for example?

[CavaliersFTW]

Because there is this guy, maybe you've heard of him, his name is Karl Malone
Karl Malone is the next obvious choice - but Pettit's resume includes 5 NBA Finals appearances and a near-as-makes-no-difference "Finals MVP" (award didn't exist) after a 50 point NBA Finals closing performance with 19 points in the 4th. Sorry, but that can't really be ignored.

[Odinn]

It's not 'shouldn't'. He has a case but his era was even before Russell&Chamberlain era. And it is truly hard to evaluate. It is way too hard to publish a healthy opinion about him. He was great but how great was he? Even you do not know OP although you have many more infos about Russell&Chamberlain era.

[CavaliersFTW]

It's not 'shouldn't'. He has a case but his era was even before Russell&Chamberlain era. And it is truly hard to evaluate. It is way too hard to publish a healthy opinion about him. He was great but how great was he? Even you do not know OP although you have many more infos about Russell&Chamberlain era.
His career overlapped with the Russell/Chamberlain era and he made repeat finals and playoff appearances throughout it - he won a ring against Russell's Celtics. I think it's safe to say if he could compete with them at a high level he would compete with anyone at a high level. And a resume is a resume, he's a 2x MVP with 10 all NBA first team selections and a 'FMVP'. He has two scoring titles and a rebounding title.

I think it's time basketball fans start giving this guy his due and stop treating him like a taboo subject. The biggest question mark really was 'could he play' because nobody had seen footage. Now I've laid out 13 minutes of footage - with additional audio that explains what he did and why he did it, and he looks very solid with a thoroughly modern game. Not sure what else needs to be done for that guy to get his due. I think it's time we stop shying away from him when talking about all-time PF's simply because of his era. The biggest question marks of how he played and what his skillset was like have more or less now been answered.

[inclinerator]

cuz he's balding and would work at an office environment in this era

[FKAri]

cuz he's balding and would work at an office environment in this era

Just like KAJ.

[Rose'sACL]

His career overlapped with the Russell/Chamberlain era and he made repeat finals and playoff appearances throughout it - he won a ring against Russell's Celtics. I think it's safe to say if he could compete with them at a high level he would compete with anyone at a high level. And a resume is a resume, he's a 2x MVP with 10 all NBA first team selections and a 'FMVP'. He has two scoring titles and a rebounding title.

I think it's time basketball fans start giving this guy his due and stop treating him like a taboo subject. The biggest question mark really was 'could he play' because nobody had seen footage. Now I've laid out 13 minutes of footage - with additional audio that explains what he did and why he did it, and he looks very solid with a thoroughly modern game. Not sure what else needs to be done for that guy to get his due. I think it's time we stop shying away from him when talking about all-time PF's simply because of his era. The biggest question marks of how he played and what his skillset was like have more or less now been answered.
you are hugely biased even though you actually watch basketball and yet you expect casual fans to care about a player who played in an era where very few cared about nba.
if i say that 50s and 60s were really good decades talent wise for the nba then people would ask me for proof and if i showed a few 10-20 mins videos to prove my point then any intelligent person can easily come up with the fact that you can make highlight videos for Andre Iguodala that makes him look like one of the best players of all time.
comparing players of modern era to players 50s 60s or even most of the 70s is a really bad idea even if wilt was twice the player jordan was and guys like you must realize this. i still have no idea why people don't get this.

[97 bulls]

Great video Cavs. I must say that based on the info you provided and his highlights, I'd have to agree he should be considered number two behind only Duncan.

From watching the video footage, he looks like a cross between Dirk Nowitzki and Duncan. I loved that nickname "Lazy Sally"


And for those who want to separate eras, then it is only fair that Wikt, Russell, and Baylor be seperated from the players from 80 on.

Nice find Cavs

[97 bulls]

you are hugely biased even though you actually watch basketball and yet you expect casual fans to care about a player who played in an era where very few cared about nba.
if i say that 50s and 60s were really good decades talent wise for the nba then people would ask me for proof and if i showed a few 10-20 mins videos to prove my point then any intelligent person can easily come up with the fact that you can make highlight videos for Andre Iguodala that makes him look like one of the best players of all time.
comparing players of modern era to players 50s 60s or even most of the 70s is a really bad idea even if wilt was twice the player jordan was and guys like you must realize this. i still have no idea why people don't get this.
Then how do you compare players? Do you seperate the 50, 60, and 70s from today? Basically 30 year intervals? How do you account for players overlapping?

[CavaliersFTW]

you are hugely biased even though you actually watch basketball and yet you expect casual fans to care about a player who played in an era where very few cared about nba.
if i say that 50s and 60s were really good decades talent wise for the nba then people would ask me for proof and if i showed a few 10-20 mins videos to prove my point then any intelligent person can easily come up with the fact that you can make highlight videos for Andre Iguodala that makes him look like one of the best players of all time.
comparing players of modern era to players 50s 60s or even most of the 70s is a really bad idea even if wilt was twice the player jordan was and guys like you must realize this. i still have no idea why people don't get this.
Well, I don't 'expect' anything - I'm just voicing my opinion, I had questions about his game too before I put forward the effort to find his footage and discover how he played the game and what he accomplished. Now I feel I've seen enough that I at least should put his name out there. If no one ever repeats it, that's fine - but as long as I'm around I'll repeat that I think he isn't being given his due if he is left out of GOAT PF discussions.

[fpliii]

you are hugely biased even though you actually watch basketball and yet you expect casual fans to care about a player who played in an era where very few cared about nba.
if i say that 50s and 60s were really good decades talent wise for the nba then people would ask me for proof and if i showed a few 10-20 mins videos to prove my point then any intelligent person can easily come up with the fact that you can make highlight videos for Andre Iguodala that makes him look like one of the best players of all time.
comparing players of modern era to players 50s 60s or even most of the 70s is a really bad idea even if wilt was twice the player jordan was and guys like you must realize this. i still have no idea why people don't get this.

The thing is, highlight videos for these players comes from a much smaller sample. Russell, Wilt, Oscar, West, Baylor, Pettit, etc. were all out of the league by 73-74 or earlier. How many total games are out there? According to trading sites, this is the list:

Mar 31, 1954 F 1 Syracuse Minneapolis

Oct 19, 1961 Chicago New York
Dec 1, 1961 Syracuse New York
Apr 18, 1962 F 7 LA Lakers Boston

Apr 24, 1963 F 6 Boston LA Lakers

Apr 24, 1964 F 4 Boston San Francisco

Feb 24, 1965 New York Baltimore
Apr 18, 1965 F 1 LA Lakers Boston

Mar 16, 1966 New York Baltimore
Mar 30, 1966 QF 4 Boston Cincinnati
Apr 1, 1966 QF 5 Cincinnati Boston
Apr 28, 1966 F 7 LA Lakers Boston

Apr 9, 1967 SF 4 Philadelphia Boston

Dec 9, 1967 Detroit New York
Dec 24, 1967 San Francisco Seattle
Feb 20, 1968 San Francisco New York

May 5, 1969 F 7 Boston LA Lakers

Oct 18, 1969 Detroit Milwaukee
Oct 28, 1969 Atlanta New York
Oct 30, 1969 Milwaukee Detroit
Nov 28, 1969 New York Cincinnati
Feb 5, 1970 San Francisco Chicago
Feb 25, 1970 Chicago San Francisco
Mar 7, 1970 Cincinnati San Francisco
Apr 11, 1970 SF 1 Milwaukee New York
May 4, 1970 F 5 LA Lakers New York
May 8, 1970 F 7 LA Lakers New York


Oct 17, 1970 Milwaukee Atlanta
Oct 20, 1970 Milwaukee Detroit
Nov 27, 1970 New York Milwaukee
Dec 25, 1970 Atlanta Phoenix
Jan 10, 1971 Philadelphia Boston
Apr 4, 1971 QF 6 LA Lakers Chicago
Apr 30, 1971 F 4 Milwaukee Baltimore

Jan 9, 1972 LA Lakers Milwaukee
May 7, 1972 F 5 New York LA Lakers

Nov 18, 1972 Milwaukee New York
Mar 4, 1973 Baltimore New York
Mar 30, 1973 QF 1 Baltimore New York
Apr 18, 1973 SF 2 Boston New York
Apr 22, 1973 SF 4 Boston New York
Apr 29, 1973 SF 7 New York Boston
May 10, 1973 F 5 New York LA Lakers

Nov 17, 1973 Milwaukee New York
Jan 4, 1974 Golden State LA Lakers
May 10, 1974 F 6 Milwaukee Boston
May 12, 1974 F 7 Boston Milwaukee

---

That's everything.

So you're looking at a few hours of footage from these players, from random games, that aren't anywhere close to their best performances. I can pull up ANY game from Iggy's career in a matter of minutes, so that's what, 100x the sample size for putting together highlights videos? No cherry-picking here.

It's up to you to decide if a given era was "strong enough" in your opinion, but you guys really have to stop going into every single thread and acting as if it's blasphemous for somebody not to categorically dismiss the NBA pre-Jordan.

[Rose'sACL]

Then how do you compare players? Do you seperate the 50, 60, and 70s from today? Basically 30 year intervals? How do you account for players overlapping?
take players who played most of their primes in era where more people watched and more videos of full games are available.
even though i believe 50s and 60s were inferior to modern era, i wouldn't say it with much confidence because i just wasn't there to see the games and there isn't much video to prove me right or wrong.
there have been so many great players who have played with a lot of full game videos available for every season of their prime so compare them. it is not like you are running out of players to compare.

[westside_baller]

Rookie of the year
10x All NBA First Team
11x NBA All Star (all 11 seasons of his career) and 4x ASG MVP
2x League MVP (With Scoring and Rebounding title the first MVP, and a scoring title the 2nd MVP)
NBA Champion (and would be FMVP with 50point closing game performance, 19 of teams 20 4th quarter points)
Five NBA Finals appearances

26.4ppg 16.2rpg (~18TRB%) 3apg

And throughout his career he was always near the top in MVP rankings even when he didn't win MVP (he retired in '65):
http://i.imgur.com/mmskUBi.jpg

And now that I've uncovered his footage we can clearly see he had a thoroughly modern game:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jdeiZRW7gSo

So why shouldn't he be considered the 2nd greatest PF of all time behind only Duncan? What other PF has a solid case over him? :confusedshrug:

Pettit's offensive skillset was years, if not decades, ahead of it's time. He was an extraordinary athlete, especially for the era, with incredible grace and cat like quickness.

If one were to inquire about a modern equivalent to pettit, the closest comparison would be to olajuwon. Obviously, olajuwon's array of moves is far more varied, but we're talking about a gap of 3 decades between players.

Pettit is one of the most under-rated players in the game's history.

[Rose'sACL]

The thing is, highlight videos for these players comes from a much smaller sample. Russell, Wilt, Oscar, West, Baylor, Pettit, etc. were all out of the league by 73-74 or earlier. How many total games are out there? According to trading sites, this is the list:

Mar 31, 1954 F 1 Syracuse Minneapolis

Oct 19, 1961 Chicago New York
Dec 1, 1961 Syracuse New York
Apr 18, 1962 F 7 LA Lakers Boston

Apr 24, 1963 F 6 Boston LA Lakers

Apr 24, 1964 F 4 Boston San Francisco

Feb 24, 1965 New York Baltimore
Apr 18, 1965 F 1 LA Lakers Boston

Mar 16, 1966 New York Baltimore
Mar 30, 1966 QF 4 Boston Cincinnati
Apr 1, 1966 QF 5 Cincinnati Boston
Apr 28, 1966 F 7 LA Lakers Boston

Apr 9, 1967 SF 4 Philadelphia Boston

Dec 9, 1967 Detroit New York
Dec 24, 1967 San Francisco Seattle
Feb 20, 1968 San Francisco New York

May 5, 1969 F 7 Boston LA Lakers

Oct 18, 1969 Detroit Milwaukee
Oct 28, 1969 Atlanta New York
Oct 30, 1969 Milwaukee Detroit
Nov 28, 1969 New York Cincinnati
Feb 5, 1970 San Francisco Chicago
Feb 25, 1970 Chicago San Francisco
Mar 7, 1970 Cincinnati San Francisco
Apr 11, 1970 SF 1 Milwaukee New York
May 4, 1970 F 5 LA Lakers New York
May 8, 1970 F 7 LA Lakers New York


Oct 17, 1970 Milwaukee Atlanta
Oct 20, 1970 Milwaukee Detroit
Nov 27, 1970 New York Milwaukee
Dec 25, 1970 Atlanta Phoenix
Jan 10, 1971 Philadelphia Boston
Apr 4, 1971 QF 6 LA Lakers Chicago
Apr 30, 1971 F 4 Milwaukee Baltimore

Jan 9, 1972 LA Lakers Milwaukee
May 7, 1972 F 5 New York LA Lakers

Nov 18, 1972 Milwaukee New York
Mar 4, 1973 Baltimore New York
Mar 30, 1973 QF 1 Baltimore New York
Apr 18, 1973 SF 2 Boston New York
Apr 22, 1973 SF 4 Boston New York
Apr 29, 1973 SF 7 New York Boston
May 10, 1973 F 5 New York LA Lakers

Nov 17, 1973 Milwaukee New York
Jan 4, 1974 Golden State LA Lakers
May 10, 1974 F 6 Milwaukee Boston
May 12, 1974 F 7 Boston Milwaukee

---

That's everything.

So you're looking at a few hours of footage from these players, from random games, that aren't anywhere close to their best performances. I can pull up ANY game from Iggy's career in a matter of minutes, so that's what, 100x the sample size for putting together highlights videos? No cherry-picking here.

It's up to you to decide if a given era was "strong enough" in your opinion, but you guys really have to stop going into every single thread and acting as if it's blasphemous for somebody not to categorically dismiss the NBA pre-Jordan.
i am not saying that it is blasphemous. i am just saying that seeing is believing. i take stats and combine them with what i see to make sense of it all. even just based on stats, wilt is the only player that truly stands out from that era as the pace was really high and i am just going by stats here but it was the players who gave a few mvps to Russell instead of wilt so i can't make sense of it all without a lot of video evidence available. may be players saw what stats don't fully show but i only have stats to go by so why would i even compare that era to today's era when i can't explain things that happened in that era with any good proof.

so what i am asking is that if i am not saying that 50s and 60s was not as good as modern game because of lack of evidence then you don't have any reason to to say that it was as good as modern era as you don't have any proof either.

[FatComputerNerd]

Duncan is a Center.

Pettit could be the GOAT PF, although arguments could be made for Garnett.

Very well done video in any case. :applause:

[WillC]

Sporting News' 125th Anniversary All-Time Team was as follows:

First Team

PG Magic Johnson
SG Michael Jordan
SF Larry Bird
PF Bob Pettit
C Bill Russell

Looks good to me.

[fpliii]

i am not saying that it is blasphemous. i am just saying that seeing is believing. i take stats and combine them with what i see to make sense of it all. even just based on stats, wilt is the only player that truly stands out from that era as the pace was really high and i am just going by stats here but it was the players who gave a few mvps to Russell instead of wilt so i can't make sense of it all without a lot of video evidence available. may be players saw what stats don't fully show but i only have stats to go by so why would i even compare that era to today's era when i can't explain things that happened in that era with any good proof.

so what i am asking is that if i am not saying that 50s and 60s was not as good as modern game because of lack of evidence then you don't have any reason to to say that it was as good as modern era as you don't have any proof either.

I take issue with so much of what you've said here, that's it's not worth going on IMO. Nothing against you, but we're going to end up agreeing to disagree, so it's pointless.

Let me ask you this...why don't we just stop calling it a GOAT list, and instead call it "greatest I've seen" list?

[Rose'sACL]

I take issue with so much of what you've said here, that's it's not worth going on IMO. Nothing against you, but we're going to end up agreeing to disagree, so it's pointless.

Let me ask you this...why don't we just stop calling it a GOAT list, and instead call it "greatest I've seen" list?
i always make the greatest i have seen list. if the full game videos are available then i am telling whoever wants to watch greats of the past to make their own opinion.
i think nobody should put any player in the top 10 of all time if he hasn't seen a lot of full games of that player.

[fpliii]

i always make the greatest i have seen list. if the full game videos are available then i am telling whoever wants to watch greats of the past to make their own opinion.
i think nobody should put any player in the top 10 of all time if he hasn't seen a lot of full games of that player.

Then let's not call it that, I guess.

[Rose'sACL]

Then let's not call it that, I guess.
i don't but if someone is 80 yrs old then go ahead and make it but don't expect others to agree with you without any video evidence.

[97 bulls]

take players who played most of their primes in era where more people watched and more videos of full games are available.
even though i believe 50s and 60s were inferior to modern era, i wouldn't say it with much confidence because i just wasn't there to see the games and there isn't much video to prove me right or wrong.
there have been so many great players who have played with a lot of full game videos available for every season of their prime so compare them. it is not like you are running out of players to compare.
Fair enough. So what about players like Shaq, Jabaar, and James? Shaq spent most of his prime years in the 90s. But won in the 00s. Jabaars personal accomplishments most of his prime took place in the 70s. But he won most of his championships in the 80s. Most of James accomplishments happened in the 00s. But hes probably gonna be more known for what hes done in the 10s.

[pudman13]

One person who *did* see a whole lot of Pettit's games is Bill Russell, and he ranked him in his own personal top 7-8 players.

[Rose'sACL]

Fair enough. So what about players like Shaq, Jabaar, and James? Shaq spent most of his prime years in the 90s. But won in the 00s. Jabaars personal accomplishments most of his prime took place in the 70s. But he won most of his championships in the 80s. Most of James accomplishments happened in the 00s. But hes probably gonna be more known for what hes done in the 10s.
anyone can go look at those games and make an informed opinion on which version lebron or shaq was better which is not the case for eras where videos are not available. if nba has the videos of games on that era then if and when they release them, i will watch those videos and make my opinion. i would just be happy with all the playoff games.

[CavaliersFTW]

anyone can go look at those games and make an informed opinion on which version lebron or shaq was better which is not the case for eras where videos are not available. if nba has the videos of games on that era then if and when they release them, i will watch those videos and make my opinion. i would just be happy with all the playoff games.
Oh come on cut the shit, most people age 20 to 30 who make rankings for say, Larry Bird or Magic Johnson era players (which everyone does without hesitation) have seen not more than 10 minutes of highlights of most of the top 20 players of that era and they've simply combined that brief visual glance with testimonial and stats/accolades and considered that enough to rank them appropriately, and they put together their lists accordingly. The 13 minutes of footage that I put together is more than enough to analyze the way Bob Pettit played the game of basketball the exact same way most people who didn't 'witness' the 1980's or early 90's analyze players from that era. The mix I made is particularly useful for this because I included dialogue of Pettit explaining his own game to go along with the footage. There's more content about Bob Pettit's abilities in that 13 minutes about him than you'll find in most 1 hour documentaries on players because I cut out all the interviews and overlayed them over clips of him playing. If anyone watches all 13 minutes they'll probably see more of Bob Pettit than they have seen of Ralph Sampson or Mark Eaton or even Isiah Thomas or Alex English. Just because they 'could easily watch games of _____' doesn't mean they do - and they go ahead and make their rankings and lists anyways.

Your just mad because you don't like the idea of a 1950's player seriously being considered in peoples all-time rankings. It's a stigma thing. Suck it up and deal with it - and the more mixes people like me make the more basketball fans are going to be talking about and accepting how good players from ANY 'era' were, which is how it should be. Basketball has been played at an elite level for a lot longer than just the 1980's.

[Round Mound]

There Never Was Or Will Ever Be, A Better Powerforward Than Prime and Healthy Sir Charles. :no:

[CavaliersFTW]

There Never Was Or Will Ever Be, A Better Powerforward Than Prime and Healthy Sir Charles. :no:
Sir Charles might very well have the best peak I love sir Charles, he's actually one of Wilt's all-time favorites too - but peak ability = / = rankings on peoples subjective greatness' lists.

Peak ability is often a factor, but to most it is not the end all be all, accomplishments, longevity, consistency, certain traits etc all go into peoples lists. Pettit did it all and was consistently at the top. It's difficult to look at everything he did and not rank him at or near the top as far as PF's go. If peak value is your #1 asset than I won't knock you for taking Charles #1.

[pudman13]

That's true...even people like myself who watched basketball regularly in the 80s have seen very very little of very highly regarded people like, say, Sidney Moncrief or Alex English. How do we know that these guys are necessarily better than Dan Issel or Marques Johnson or Kelly Tripucka or other guys who have comparable numbers? Also, though some of us saw a lot of Dr. J., it was all in the NBA. We don't have the evidence of how good he was in his younger days..actually ranking players is an exercise in bias, really.

I think that at some point you have to look at the stats and make some judgements, since we simply don't have enough video of some people. There are guys like Mel Daniels, who won two ABA MVPs...almost no video footage at all. Very little footage of Richie Guerin, a yearly 60s all-star. We know he's a set-shooter, which makes him old hat, but every video I've seen of him shows him driving to the basket like a modern slashing guard.

Also...to put some of this in perspective, Gus Johnson played in the 60s and had as much athleticism as any player of today. He was an all-star, yes, but never an MVP candidate or top player in the league. If today's players are so superior, why didn't a "modern" player like him completely dominate? Ditto for, say, Randy Smith in the early 70s.

[CavaliersFTW]

That's true...even people like myself who watched basketball regularly in the 80s have seen very very little of very highly regarded people like, say, Sidney Moncrief or Alex English. How do we know that these guys are necessarily better than Dan Issel or Marques Johnson or Kelly Tripucka or other guys who have comparable numbers? Also, though some of us saw a lot of Dr. J., it was all in the NBA. We don't have the evidence of how good he was in his younger days..actually ranking players is an exercise in bias, really.

I think that at some point you have to look at the stats and make some judgements, since we simply don't have enough video of some people. There are guys like Mel Daniels, who won two ABA MVPs...almost no video footage at all. Very little footage of Richie Guerin, a yearly 60s all-star. We know he's a set-shooter, which makes him old hat, but every video I've seen of him shows him driving to the basket like a modern slashing guard.

Also...to put some of this in perspective, Gus Johnson played in the 60s and had as much athleticism as any player of today. He was an all-star, yes, but never an MVP candidate or top player in the league. If today's players are so superior, why didn't a "modern" player like him completely dominate? Ditto for, say, Randy Smith in the early 70s.
You know what's interesting is several players today still use a set shot - it still works and is potentially high percentage if your left open. Mostly just a few big men use it now - Andy V and particularly Joakim Noah shoot set shots - Noah's looks very 1950's. So it isn't even extinct people just don't pay attention to the guys that shoot it, it still has it's place in the league though 50-60 years after it became out of style.

[pudman13]

You know what's interesting is several players today still use a set shot

Jason Kidd is another one who used it.

[Rose'sACL]

Oh come on cut the shit, most people age 20 to 30 who make rankings for say, Larry Bird or Magic Johnson era players (which everyone does without hesitation) have seen not more than 10 minutes of highlights of most of the top 20 players of that era and they've simply combined that brief visual glance with testimonial and stats/accolades and considered that enough to rank them appropriately, and they put together their lists accordingly. The 13 minutes of footage that I put together is more than enough to analyze the way Bob Pettit played the game of basketball the exact same way most people who didn't 'witness' the 1980's or early 90's analyze players from that era. The mix I made is particularly useful for this because I included dialogue of Pettit explaining his own game to go along with the footage. There's more content about Bob Pettit's abilities in that 13 minutes about him than you'll find in most 1 hour documentaries on players because I cut out all the interviews and overlayed them over clips of him playing. If anyone watches all 13 minutes they'll probably see more of Bob Pettit than they have seen of Ralph Sampson or Mark Eaton or even Isiah Thomas or Alex English. Just because they 'could easily watch games of _____' doesn't mean they do - and they go ahead and make their rankings and lists anyways.

Your just mad because you don't like the idea of a 1950's player seriously being considered in peoples all-time rankings. It's a stigma thing. Suck it up and deal with it - and the more mixes people like me make the more basketball fans are going to be talking about and accepting how good players from ANY 'era' were, which is how it should be. Basketball has been played at an elite level for a lot longer than just the 1980's.
i have provided great reasons why it is a bad idea to compare players of those era to modern era players. i never called them bad. may be they were better than even what their stats suggest as stats is all we have to go by here. mixtapes are a shitty way to judge players unless you are willing to accept that you are on the level of those people who watch a few mix tapes of lebron and call him the GOAT.
Both things are wrong and you have to watch a lot of full games to fully understand how good bird, magic , jordan , kobe or lebron are. what is so hard to understand?
if you want then i can just go by stats and then i will take the pace of the game into consideration and i don't think many greats who played in faster paced league(pre-90s) will look as great as they look judging by raw stats but that would be wrong on my part and that is why i don't do it.
the most biased threads on this forums are made by people who just go by stats or just the "eye test". you have to combine both to have a true understanding of the game. just by stats alone i know that wilt would be a beast in any era but not having seen a lot of full games of that era, i can't decide how good he would be or how good players from the modern era would be if they played during those days.

[avonbarksdale]

he played in the 1950s.

[pudman13]

Both things are wrong and you have to watch a lot of full games to fully understand how good bird, magic , jordan , kobe or lebron are.

This is why it pains me so much that these games aren't available.

It wasn't until I saw a few full games (all that exist, apparently) that I understood Oscar Robertson's greatness, for example.

[bizil]

Frankly, I think Pettit has a case to be ranked as high as number three. But u gotta give him props for being the GOAT PF for many, many years. It wasn't till Barkley, McHale, and Mailman came around that his standing was starting to come to an end. Sure u had guys like Elvin Hayes, but I think it took the guys in the 80's and later to finally drop Bob off the GOAT PF status. As of now, I got Bob at #6 or #7 all time. But if somebody had him as high as #3 I wouldn't complain too hard.

[Hamtaro CP3KDKG]

There Never Was Or Will Ever Be, A Better Powerforward Than Prime and Healthy Sir Charles. :no:
For offense Charles was one of the worst defenders ever that nikka could only grab boards on d:lol

[Round Mound]

For offense Charles was one of the worst defenders ever that nikka could only grab boards on d:lol

[B]What Are You Talking About? :facepalm :rolleyes: :no: Charles Barkley Was One of the Greatest Offensive Rebounders Ever. He Averaged 4.0 Offensive RPG for His Whole Season Career and 4.1 Offensive RPG for His Whole Play-Off Career. He Had Records for Offensive Rebounds in 1 Quarter With 11.

His Defense is Underrated. He Was The Best Stealing Powerforward Ever and in His Prime He Was Blocking 1.5 BPG. He Wasn

[moe94]

Offensively, Rebounding and Passing Wise...He Is By Far The Greatest Powerforward Ever

By far, huh? :roll:

[Round Mound]

By far, huh? :roll:

Highest 2-Point FG% Among PFs: Second Only To Shaq as a 1st Option in the Last 25 Years Plus
Highest Ever Offensive Rating Among All Time Powerforwards.
Highest Offensive Rating Per Possesion/Play Among All Time Powerforwards: 2nd All Time After Magic

And He Was The Best Passing and Ballhandling Powerforward Ever. Watch The Videos and Game and See For Yourself. :confusedshrug:

[Alan Ogg]

Pettit's rookie year 54-55, they still hadn't started giving the MVP award. Had they had the award then, Pettit would likely have come in the top 5. He was top 4 in scoring and rebounding. He was on the all nba first team every single year of his career except for his last (2nd team).

[pudman13]

Highest 2-Point FG% Among PFs:
That would be Kevin McHale.

[pudman13]

That would be Kevin McHale.

Actually, and I apologize...it would be Bo Outlaw, of all people.

Top lifetime FG% among forwards:

Bo Outlaw .567
Bobby Jones .560
Kevin McHale .554
Buck Williams .550
Larry Nance .546
Otis Thorpe .546
Cedric Maxwell .546
Barkley .541
Adrian Dantley .540

Jones was more of a 3 than a 4, depending on the matchup, which makes his numbers even more remarkable.

It's notable that two of these guys played on the same team at the same time: McHale and Maxwell

[Clifton]

I'm glad you asked such an easy question. I don't know anything about the guy and I can answer it. It's the only question about Pettit I could probably answer.

If there's no real footage of a player, I don't see how we could really rank him. Malone played almost every game for 20 straight years and is universally known as an all-time great scorer, rebounder, and all-around pro. Because we've seen him play. Ranking Pettit at all is mere guesswork. Ranking him above guys like Barkley and Malone is pretension.

[Round Mound]

That would be Kevin McHale.

As a 2nd Option Focal Scorer to Bird 1st Option...(lets not forget Parish and DJ sharing the ball movement for easier shots)

[russwest0]

A Charles Barkley stan :lol :lol :lol

My life is complete

[Round Mound]

Actually, and I apologize...it would be Bo Outlaw, of all people.

Top lifetime FG% among forwards:

Bo Outlaw .567
Bobby Jones .560
Kevin McHale .554
Buck Williams .550
Larry Nance .546
Otis Thorpe .546
Cedric Maxwell .546
Barkley .541
Adrian Dantley .540

Jones was more of a 3 than a 4, depending on the matchup, which makes his numbers even more remarkable.

It's notable that two of these guys played on the same team at the same time: McHale and Maxwell

Only These 2 Where The 1st Option Focal Scorers.

[Round Mound]

A Charles Barkley stan :lol :lol :lol

My life is complete

:no: You Pissed Cause I Give Out The True Evidence

[pudman13]

Only These 2 Where The 1st Option Focal Scorers.

Right. I'm just being a stickler on the stats. If you want my opinion, I'd probably rank Barkley second. I sure would love to see a full Pettit game though.

Dantley doesn't really get his due, does he? I remember him being unstoppable, but I guess he must not have been a good chemistry guy.

[Round Mound]

Right. I'm just being a stickler on the stats. If you want my opinion, I'd probably rank Barkley second. I sure would love to see a full Pettit game though.

Dantley doesn't really get his due, does he? I remember him being unstoppable, but I guess he must not have been a good chemistry guy.

Barkley "might" be 2nd to Duncan who is a CF. Prime & Healthy Barkley, though, was Easily the Best Powerforward Ever.

Dantley Is The GOAT Scoring SF. :applause:

Pettit is the Mold of a True PF. He Set The Standard :applause:

[bizil]

Barkley "might" be 2nd to Duncan who is a CF. Prime & Healthy Barkley, though, was Easily the Best Powerforward Ever.

Dantley Is The GOAT Scoring SF. :applause:

Pettit is the Mold of a True PF. He Set The Standard :applause:

I agree that peak value wise Chuck is the greatest PF of all time. In terms of Barkley's D, I just think his physical stature was so unique. At his height, he usually was giving up a minimum of three inches every night. He was just as strong as those guys or stronger and could jump out of the gym. But still, defending great players 6'10 and up is gonna be difficult for a 6'5 PF. And at 250-265 pounds, he's not gonna be able to stay in front of guys like Nique, Worthy, King, Pippen, etc. if he's playing SF for that night. Only a guy like Bron at 250-260 pounds can defend those perimeter guys like that effectively. But NO PF could force his will on a game like Charles in my book. Dominate scoring, passing, and rebounding at the highest levels. And can easily swing to SF and play that spot as well.

[Round Mound]

I agree that peak value wise Chuck is the greatest PF of all time. In terms of Barkley's D, I just think his physical stature was so unique. At his height, he usually was giving up a minimum of three inches every night. He was just as strong as those guys or stronger and could jump out of the gym. But still, defending great players 6'10 and up is gonna be difficult for a 6'5 PF. And at 250-265 pounds, he's not gonna be able to stay in front of guys like Nique, Worthy, King, Pippen, etc. if he's playing SF for that night. Only a guy like Bron at 250-260 pounds can defend those perimeter guys like that effectively. But NO PF could force his will on a game like Charles in my book. Dominate scoring, passing, and rebounding at the highest levels. And can easily swing to SF and play that spot as well.

[B]He Didn

[TheCorporation]

Karl Malone is the next obvious choice - but Pettit's resume includes 5 NBA Finals appearances and a near-as-makes-no-difference "Finals MVP" (award didn't exist) after a 50 point NBA Finals closing performance with 19 points in the 4th. Sorry, but that can't really be ignored.

So he went to the Finals 5 times, and won it all once? While shooting a career 43% from the field?

I'll take Malone.

[bizil]

[QUOTE=Round Mound][B]He Didn

[CavaliersFTW]

So he went to the Finals 5 times, and won it all once? While shooting a career 43% from the field?

I'll take Malone.
Cool - but having vs not having a FMVP 50 point Finals performance with a ring is a pretty big deal on most peoples 'greatness' lists, mine included. Malones efficiency may make him a better player in your eyes but he still accomplished less than Pettit did when it counted and he played for what, 19 seasons to Pettit's 11?. Also, Pettit may have a less efficient shooting percentage than Malone but he was the superior rebounder. Rebounding isn't just a footnote. And Pettit's efficiency came when the league's efficiency was pretty much at all-time low's - his era's playing style has a lot to do with his efficiency just like Karl Malone's era's playing style has a lot to do with players from his era's inflated efficiency numbers. Comparing their fg% directly w/o accounting for this is as silly as comparing their rebounding numbers straight up. Should we compare Pettit's and Malone's rebounding as 16.2rpg vs Malone's 10.1? Or would 18% vs 16% TRB percentage be the better gauge? Pettit is still the superior rebounder but the gap is much closer than a ridiculous 16.2 vs 10.1 when viewed in this manner, and a similar reasoning should probably be applied to efficiency. If you don't want to than that's fine but we should then directly compare their rebounding numbers too which more than makes up for any efficiency difference anyways.

[avonbarksdale]

Cool - but having vs not having a FMVP 50 point Finals performance with a ring is a pretty big deal on most peoples 'greatness' lists, mine included. Malones efficiency may make him a better player in your eyes but he still accomplished less than Pettit did when it counted and he played for what, 19 seasons to Pettit's 11?. Also, Pettit may have a less efficient shooting percentage than Malone but he was the superior rebounder. Rebounding isn't just a footnote. And Pettit's efficiency came when the league's efficiency was pretty much at all-time low's - his era's playing style has a lot to do with his efficiency just like Karl Malone's era's playing style has a lot to do with players from his era's inflated efficiency numbers. Comparing their fg% directly w/o accounting for this is as silly as comparing their rebounding numbers straight up. Should we compare Pettit's and Malone's rebounding as 16.2rpg vs Malone's 10.1? Or would 18% vs 16% TRB percentage be the better gauge? Pettit is still the superior rebounder but the gap is much closer than a ridiculous 16.2 vs 10.1 when viewed in this manner, and a similar reasoning should probably be applied to efficiency. If you don't want to than that's fine but we should then directly compare their rebounding numbers too which more than makes up for any efficiency difference anyways.



jesus shut up if this guy played in the 2000's you wouldn't care about him at all

[pudman13]

Pettit's efficiency came when the league's efficiency was pretty much at all-time low

This is why I pointed out that his teammate (also a forward) Cliff Hagan had a better FG% than Pettit. It's still kind of nitpicky thing, I suppose, considering the proportion of scoring Pettit was expected to do, and Hagan ws continually near the league lead, but it needs to be put in context both ways to get the proper perspective. In '58-'59, to pick a year when Pettit won the scoring title, only one person (Kenny Sears, a guy I'd never heard of until now, but looking at the numbers he had a couple of very good years then faded way) had a FG% above .457 (Bill Russell was the one at .457, which should be pointed out to those people who claim that Russell had a low FG% for a center.) Pettit ranked 7th, which isn't bad at all, especially for someone who's carrying the scoring load. Also, Pettit led the league in FT attempts by a large margin, which maks him that much more efficient.

In other years, Pettit only made the top 10 in FG% two other times, so if comparison to the rest of the league matters, he does fall below Malone, Barkley, McHale and Duncan and about the same as Garnett, for those who are listing him as a PF.

As to rebounds, Pettit never led but was in the top 5 every year of his career except his last. Malone was in the top 10 8 times in 19 years (thogh, of course, there were many more teams and players at the time).

[MiseryCityTexas]

Rookie of the year
10x All NBA First Team
11x NBA All Star (all 11 seasons of his career) and 4x ASG MVP
2x League MVP (With Scoring and Rebounding title the first MVP, and a scoring title the 2nd MVP)
NBA Champion (and would be FMVP with 50point closing game performance, 19 of teams 20 4th quarter points)
Five NBA Finals appearances

26.4ppg 16.2rpg (~18TRB%) 3apg

And throughout his career he was always near the top in MVP rankings even when he didn't win MVP (he retired in '65):
http://i.imgur.com/mmskUBi.jpg

And now that I've uncovered his footage we can clearly see he had a thoroughly modern game:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jdeiZRW7gSo

So why shouldn't he be considered the 2nd greatest PF of all time behind only Duncan? What other PF has a solid case over him? :confusedshrug:

only reason why pettit's hawks won that championship against russell's celtics was because that nba finals was rigged like a mother****er because of racial tension, because the Celtics had a couple of black players on their team, and the refs were racist as shit, and the st louis hawks had an all white basketball team. also, basketball fans of that era were pretty much getting tired of the celtics winning all them championships.

[pudman13]

also, basketball fans of that era were pretty much getting tired of the celtics winning all them championships.

Um, no. When the Hawks won, the Celtics had only one championship.

[Owl]

This is why I pointed out that his teammate (also a forward) Cliff Hagan had a better FG% than Pettit. It's still kind of nitpicky thing, I suppose, considering the proportion of scoring Pettit was expected to do, and Hagan ws continually near the league lead, but it needs to be put in context both ways to get the proper perspective. In '58-'59, to pick a year when Pettit won the scoring title, only one person (Kenny Sears, a guy I'd never heard of until now, but looking at the numbers he had a couple of very good years then faded way) had a FG% above .457 (Bill Russell was the one at .457, which should be pointed out to those people who claim that Russell had a low FG% for a center.) Pettit ranked 7th, which isn't bad at all, especially for someone who's carrying the scoring load. Also, Pettit led the league in FT attempts by a large margin, which maks him that much more efficient.

In other years, Pettit only made the top 10 in FG% two other times, so if comparison to the rest of the league matters, he does fall below Malone, Barkley, McHale and Duncan and about the same as Garnett, for those who are listing him as a PF.

As to rebounds, Pettit never led but was in the top 5 every year of his career except his last. Malone was in the top 10 8 times in 19 years (thogh, of course, there were many more teams and players at the time).
If Russell had remained in that position relative to league average then nobody (except those with no grasp of context) would say Russell had bad %s. But through the 60s the leagues %s (specifically fg% and ts%) rose, and Russell's relative efficiency sank. Throughout the 60's he was almost always the league's lowest ts% center amongst those who played 30+mpg.

Anyway, to the general conversation, Pettit has a (fairly strong) case as 2nd best PF and most playe listings have recognised that. Then again there are a number of other viable candidates. Malone's combination of MVP contention level play combined with great longevity is particularly enviable.

[MiseryCityTexas]

Um, no. When the Hawks won, the Celtics had only one championship.
my bad. i see what you're saying. the celtics did only have one chip in that celtics hawks series. my bad, but the hawks were mad as shit that the hawks lost to some black players the year before, that's a known fact because i read about that shit in school awhile ago, and a bunch a people in boston suspected that the refs rigged them games due to racism.

[MiseryCityTexas]

i read about how all the hawks players would give russell obvious extremely hard fouls, borderline wrestling moves on russell and other black celtics players, and the racist white refs would not even call shit.:facepalm

[pudman13]

Yeah, when you read about that time period, there's no doubt that racism affected games. Even many years after that teams had unofficial quotas for how many black players they would carry on a team.

[CavaliersFTW]

i read about how all the hawks players would give russell obvious extremely hard fouls, borderline wrestling moves on russell and other black celtics players, and the racist white refs would not even call shit.:facepalm
Total Bullshit. Nobody including spectators media or even Red Aurbach or Bill Russell himself - in books interviews or otherwise that I've read or watched have ever indicated or alluded to the story your pushing and they are the two most vocal and outspoken individuals towards incidence like this.

[CavaliersFTW]

Yeah, when you read about that time period, there's no doubt that racism affected games. Even many years after that teams had unofficial quotas for how many black players they would carry on a team.
Mysery city is making shit up - you should know better. Your taking his bait, getting sidetracked and encouraging him to tell you more made up info. Don't believe a single thing he has said until he cites it.

[CavaliersFTW]

my bad. i see what you're saying. the celtics did only have one chip in that celtics hawks series. my bad, but the hawks were mad as shit that the hawks lost to some black players the year before, that's a known fact because i read about that shit in school awhile ago, and a bunch a people in boston suspected that the refs rigged them games due to racism.
It doesn't get anymore childish than when someone pretends he is telling the truth when in fact he is spreading nothing but hear-say, or in this particular situation just making stuff up entirely.

[CavaliersFTW]

only reason why pettit's hawks won that championship against russell's celtics was because that nba finals was rigged like a mother****er because of racial tension, because the Celtics had a couple of black players on their team, and the refs were racist as shit, and the st louis hawks had an all white basketball team. also, basketball fans of that era were pretty much getting tired of the celtics winning all them championships.
The only reason you talk is to make up stuff from your imagination that you cannot cite.

Cite your assertions please, support it with facts - oh wait you can't, because you just make everything up.

[pudman13]

Eh...considering everything I've read, I see no reason to disbelieve the stories (repeated again and again) about quotas, about fan treatment, the media, or about some racist guys on some of the teams. As to refs showing bias, it seems that at a certain time the refs were considered clean by the players, both black and white. If the refs had anything against the Celtics, it was probably more that Auerbach was such a colossal pain in the arse.

As with most rumors and innuendo, there's probably some truth to them but it's also probably exaggerated.

[CavaliersFTW]

Eh...considering everything I've read, I see no reason to disbelieve the stories (repeated again and again) about quotas, about fan treatment, the media, or about some racist guys on some of the teams. As to refs showing bias, it seems that at a certain time the refs were considered clean by the players, both black and white. If the refs had anything against the Celtics, it was probably more that Auerbach was such a colossal pain in the arse.

As with most rumors and innuendo, there's probably some truth to them but it's also probably exaggerated.
Racism is real pudman - the particular story and narrative mysery city is pushing is fake (rigged playoffs, whole hawks team 'wrestling' russell and refs not calling it), literally it's all made up by mysery city himself on the fly. There isn't even a way for him to cite his rumors because he made it up.

What don't you understand about that? Your just going to assume it as truth? Your just as bad as him then if your going to blindly accept any narrative someone tells you because you think it 'could' be real. The only source to this story is him, why not dig a little deeper and ask him to cite it before you assume there's "truth" behind it? :hammerhead:

[pudman13]

I'm not accepting his story, and I called him on not knowing when the Celtics won their championships. You're right though--it's ridiculous to make assumptions about things that have no verification. Mea culpa, OK?

Let me ask you a question...do you think game 6 of the 2002 Lakers-Kings series was compromised? (I won't say "rigged," but you get the idea.) Never mind what the unreliable Tim Donaghy said--I wonder what you think and what you thought at the time if you watched it live.

[CavaliersFTW]

I'm not accepting his story, and I called him on not knowing when the Celtics won their championships. You're right though--it's ridiculous to make assumptions about things that have no verification. Mea culpa, OK?

Let me ask you a question...do you think game 6 of the 2002 Lakers-Kings series was compromised? (I won't say "rigged," but you get the idea.) Never mind what the unreliable Tim Donaghy said--I wonder what you think and what you thought at the time if you watched it live.
Okay apologies, I've been around ISH long enough and done enough research on this topic to pick up on who's being disengenuous and who has actually done sincere research and misery city appears to be making a narrative up on the fly to try and downplay Pettit and the series he won - I was just trying to make that clear not come off so harsh. As far as the 2002 Lakers-Kings series goes I have not watched that series through, but I'm aware there is a lot of controversy and buzz about the way the games were called that particular series. There's even a couple of Youtube videos about it highlighting all of the controversial calls.

That series would be an example of series with a well known questionable reputation on how it was reffed, unlike the 1958 Finals - where when browsing through archives and listening to testimonial no such controversies have been been brought forward by either the media, opposition (Celtics, with very vocal individuals like Russell and Aurbach), or the fans. By all accounts, the series was played and won fair and square. Why else would Bill Russell think so highly of Pettit - would he even be in Russell's top 7 if he couldn't win against the Celtics fairly?

[pudman13]

Because I grew up a Celtics fan, I always rooted against the Lakers (though, oddly, for some reason I hated the Kobe Lakers much more than the Magic/Kareem Lakers. It's hard to dislike Magic.) I remember watching that 2002 series and thinking something was severely wrong. It wasn't just my bias, but a feeling, based on what I was watching, that there was no way in a million years it wasn't going to go to 7 games.

To give you an idea how important that series was, the defacto finals (kind of like the Celtics against Wilt's Sixers in '66 and '68), I don't even remember who the Lakers played in the finals.

[L.Kizzle]

I always rank Pettit at the #2 PF.

He has either equal or more MVP's then Malone, Barkley, Dirk, KG?

Has equal or more rings than KG and Dirk.

McHale is no where near discussion. Also, Dolph Schayes is madly underrated too.

[Round Mound]

[B]Its kind of hard to rank a player who you never saw play. You can rank him there or so, according to accolades or videos but its difficult still.

From the powerforwards that i