Do people here really think that a Bob Pettit was more talented that a David Lee?

[SCdac]

ben wallace would average 25/20

we talking about the same guy who can't dribble or shoot and has career averages of 5.7 PPG and .41 FT%?

[CavaliersFTW]

Wow how did I miss this topic

Anyways OP's trolling aside for those who entered this thread that were genuinely curious about Bob Pettit I have a rough-cut of a Bob Pettit mix in order right here:

http://youtu.be/g00Q-9Yj3Ic

- IMO Kevin Love is the modern player most analogous to him, not David Lee. The defensive rebounds turned to outlet passes, the offensive rebounding, the stretching of the floor. The overall approach of Bob Pettit's game is most similar to Loves. 'Talent'-wise he is also most similar to Kevin Love, in that he and Love are both basically 6-8 white guys in more or less the same weight class (After Love lost weight) who don't have any marketable advantage over their peers in terms of athleticism or length. For both Kevin Love or Bob Pettit, 'talent' isn't the defining characteristic and is the wrong word to use when trying to explain what makes them good players. Hard work, execution of fundamentals and determination are.

[MavsSuperFan]

Wow how did I miss this topic

Anyways OP's trolling aside for those who entered this thread that were genuinely curious about Bob Pettit I have a rough-cut of a Bob Pettit mix in order right here:

http://youtu.be/g00Q-9Yj3Ic

- IMO Kevin Love is the modern player most analogous to him, not David Lee. The defensive rebounds turned to outlet passes, the offensive rebounding, the stretching of the floor. The overall approach of Bob Pettit's game is most similar to Loves. 'Talent'-wise he is also most similar to Kevin Love, in that he and Love are both basically 6-8 white guys in more or less the same weight class (After Love lost weight) who don't have any marketable advantage over their peers in terms of athleticism or length. For both Kevin Love or Bob Pettit, 'talent' isn't the defining characteristic and is the wrong word to use when trying to explain what makes them good players. Hard work, execution of fundamentals and determination are.

Honestly if Love wasnt white (relax I am white), he would have a lot less hype.

This is a guy that hasnt even been to the playoffs. Weak post game, zero defense and a career FG% under 50% as a PF. He stat pads more than Lebron ever did.

[COLOR="White"]haha U mad[/COLOR]

[moe94]

He stat pads more than Lebron ever did.

[COLOR="White"]haha U mad[/COLOR]

I ****ing love this argument of "stat padding" as if terrible players can randomly put up superstar stats at will. Is it because of his terrible team, relative to his stats? Should we absolutely discard 09 Wade's all time season? What about Timberwolves Garnett? Was T-Mac stat padding 32 points on 46% shooting?

Garnett peaked at 24 PPG on 49% shooting and is considered a great offensive PF.

Love is averaging 27 PPG on 48% shooting. He is absolutely horrific.

[InspiredLebowski]

No idea. But Pettit was before his time is the idea of him I get from old timers that actually watched him.

[LAZERUSS]

If you took a non-fan, and asked them to compare photos of say Pettit, Lucas, Cousy, with Love, Nash, and Lee, do you think they could tell you who had been playing in the 50's and 60's, and those that were playing today?

The fact is, they are all physically comparable. If anything, the OP should ask...just how the hell does a 6-8 Love easily win a rpg title (and while only playing 36 mpg, too); a 37 year old Nash wins an apg title (and only playing 33 mpg in doing so); and a white 6-11 Bogut wins a bpg title...in THIS era?

How is that possible?

[Psileas]

ben wallace would average 25/20



6-5 elgin baylor averaged 19rpg one year. just a minor bit of athleticism made an undersized shooting guard type player one of the greatest rebounders in the nba

me saying wallace would average 20 rpg is an understatement. thats being fair


as for the 25ppg...

wallace would be a freak of nature in the 60's just like wilt. his strength, speed, athleticism would be too much for them. he would be dunking 10-12 field goals a game easy

defense's were horrible back in the day. the only competition in the nba that would even be able to body him would be russell and wilt.

Very compelling arguments, petergriffin.

[bukowski81]

There seems a bunch of guys here that argue the league was just as good in the 60s as it is now. For that reason they dont diminish the accomplishments of Wilt and Russell.

But common guys do you really think a Bob Pettit was more talented than say a David Lee or a Kevin Love? (both overrated stat padder)

Bob Pettit was an MVP level player purely because he played in a weak era. Yes both david lee and kevin love would have been MVP level players in that era.

When you rank Wilt and Russell ahead of guys like MJ (I have seen this atrocity on ISH), Shaq, Magic, Bird, Hakeem, Isaiah, Duncan, Kobe, Lebron, etc. you are totally ignoring the fact that they played in an incredibly weak era, where guys like Love and Lee would have been MVP level players.

Thats just unfair to say.Do you think David Lee would be the same player if he played in the 60s?? Of course not, the game evolves and it evolves thanks to great players like Bob Pettit, just like the great players from today are evolving the game. Probably in 30 years the game will be very different, it doesnt mean Kobe, Jordan, Duncan, Lebron etc will stop being great.

[La Frescobaldi]

Thats just unfair to say.Do you think David Lee would be the same player if he played in the 60s?? Of course not, the game evolves and it evolves thanks to great players like Bob Pettit, just like the great players from today are evolving the game. Probably in 30 years the game will be very different, it doesnt mean Kobe, Jordan, Duncan, Lebron etc will stop being great.

dude's argument was destroyed long ago; worse, he displays straw man action on David Lee & Kevin Love, as though they aren't (granted very early days of the season) showing MVP level potential in today's league.

Warriors are a great team that is built around David Lee. If he went down, would they win a lot of games? Absolutely. Thompson & Curry alone win you lots of games. But they don't go all the way without him, plain and simple. They could arguably have beat the Spurs last year if Lee hadn't gone down with hip trouble.
Love is more intangible. This is the first time we've seen him with a team around him... so maybe it's just coincidence that he's been tearing up the league. We shall see.

[MavsSuperFan]

Thats just unfair to say.Do you think David Lee would be the same player if he played in the 60s?? Of course not, the game evolves and it evolves thanks to great players like Bob Pettit, just like the great players from today are evolving the game. Probably in 30 years the game will be very different, it doesnt mean Kobe, Jordan, Duncan, Lebron etc will stop being great.

I agree with your point. In fact it is the point I was trying to make, perhaps I expressed myself poorly.

of course Bob Pettit is great I have never said he wasnt great. There is a difference between being greater than someone and being better than someone.

Isaac Newton is arguably the greatest physicist of all time. Many modern physicists know more about gravity than he did. (eg why planets revolve around the sun) In that sense they are better physicists than he was. But obviously he was greater than them.
Edit 1. Eg planetary bodies bend the fabric of space and cause smaller planetary objects to orbit them.


Newton of course knew that they did orbit them, but later we found out it was because of this.

I never said I thought Pettit was a bum. I said I think he played in an inferior league and people who played in that era should have their accomplishments/stats discounted when compared to modern players, because they couldnt put up those stats or win those awards today.

All I said was Pettit wouldnt win an MVP nowadays and would be a good role player or second option and that Love and Lee would have been MVP level player back then imo.

NBA players made a lot less money back then so their was less of an incentive to work towards improving your game. Lots of NBA players had to work second jobs to make ends meet. I even learned from CavaliersFTW that petitt got a law degree or something. How many lawyers do you see in the NBA nowadays? Zero, guys are too busy getting better at basketball.
Edit 2: You dont see highly educated people play professional sports like you did in the 60s anymore, because generally they need to concentrate on getting better at their sport. Take peyton manning for example, people always talk about how smart he is, but his degree is a communications degree.

Based on them making less money back in the 60s I am going to assume that less people worked hard at becoming great players and some people who might have had the talent to play in the NBA chose more financially rewarding careers. Overall the league had less talent, because it had less financial incentives to join it. Its all I am saying, but people act like I was saying commit genocide or something

[CavaliersFTW]

I agree with your point. In fact it is the point I was trying to make, perhaps I expressed myself poorly.

of course Bob Pettit is great I have never said he wasnt great. There is a difference between being greater than someone and being better than someone.

....(troll essay ensues)...

Except Bob Pettit is actually both greater and better than David Lee.