Robert Parish was not a "stiff"

[dark_lord]

it shouldn't be surprising, roy...afterall, there was a debate started a few weeks ago wondering whether larry bird would be an all-star or not...

my sentiments exactly!

[fairweatherfan]

it shouldn't be surprising, roy...afterall, there was a debate started a few weeks ago wondering whether larry bird would be an all-star or not...

my sentiments exactly!

Not to keep making the same point, but I'm still baffled by this...much like this thread, there never was a "debate" on whether Larry Bird would be an all-star today - somebody posed the question to the board, and everyone said "yes, of course he would".  Later on in the thread, people started railing against "posters who thought he wouldn't be an All-Star", neglecting to notice that there weren't any.  Like this thread, the "debate" was entirely in people's heads.  It puzzled me then and still does now that folks really think there was an actual, two-sided argument anywhere in that thread.  Seriously, read the thread:

http://www.celticsblog.com/index.php?option=com_smf&Itemid=64&topic=20292.0

Aside from a few sarcastic posts, everyone agrees, but most posters also manage to take a jab at "the idiots who think Bird wouldn't be an All-Star", failing to notice that none exist. 

Know it's a bit off-topic, but it's strange how these sorts of situations develop.  Just to throw it back on topic, according to Peter May (writing about Parish making the HOF), Parish in GS was widely seen as an underachiever who lacked heart and skills - obviously Red knew better, and soon so did everyone else, but the sentiment was still there. 

http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/columns/story?columnist=may_peter&id=1609347

[tenn_smoothie]

Parish was a great rebounder - and came up big on the boards in big games (note my earlier comment on his 1984 game 7 rebounding vs LA).

his outlet pass was ok, but it took him too long from rebound to actually getting the pass out - compare Bill Walton's beautiful rebound-to-release in one motion outlets that would really fuel the break with Robert's sorta awkward rebound-to-outlet halting motion.

the other thing about Parish was that turnaround-to-his-right jumper that looked very awkward to me, but that he would somehow make a good percentage of.

[Roy Hobbs]

Know it's a bit off-topic, but it's strange how these sorts of situations develop.  Just to throw it back on topic, according to Peter May (writing about Parish making the HOF), Parish in GS was widely seen as an underachiever who lacked heart and skills - obviously Red knew better, and soon so did everyone else, but the sentiment was still there. 

http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/columns/story?columnist=may_peter&id=1609347

There are few people whose opinion I trust less than Peter May's.  I'm not sure how a guy who averages 17 / 12 / 2.5 on 50% shooting is an "underachieving slug", or how those numbers are "unremarkable".

[SShoreFan 2.0]

There must have been something wrong with Robert Parish for GS to trade him....was Parish a "stiff"?

Well, I'm OLD enough to have seen Robert Parish play when he first came to the Celtics.  There was a "Knock" on Parish!  He had "butter fingers" and only could handle certain types of passes in the post.  Credit Larry Bird with having changed Robert!

Bird "continued" to feed Parish in the post, hitting him in the chest, on the head etc. until Parish...partly in self defense...started catching the ball and once he started doing that he only seemed to get better with time.  It seemed that Robert had a confidence issue or lack of focus on balls fed into the post. From "butter fingers" to "glue", Robert Parish became an integral part of the Celtic's offense.

What most fans remember was the "new" Parish, one who was looked for in the post INSTEAD of being the last option.  Again credit Bird who was determined to challenge Parish with passes until Robert raised his bar of reliability.

While Robert may never have been a "stiff" he did arrive as "butter-fingers" or "stone hands".  Such is the adjustments that great players (especially big men) have to make in order to be successful.  Perhaps Ainge, Doc and the rest of the coaching staff saw rudimentary skills yet-to-be-honed when they signed Parick Obryant. We do need to start developing BIGS for the future and all we have to rely on is their probable POTENTIAL!

The more I have thought about this post the more I disagree with it in the sense of this line:

Credit Larry Bird with having changed Robert!

This is much closer to being flat out wrong than being the truth.  Granted Larry made everyone around himi better, but Robert was well on his way to becoming a top notch center and his stats with the Celts are not that much better than they were the last two years at Golden State.  (roughly 17/11 at GS vs 19/10.5 in BOS)

Giving Larry the credit of "changing" Robert is not giving one of the greatest centers of all time his proper due. 

Parish was not a stiff he was a player growing into the position and he was well on the way of doing that by the time he got to Boston.  Robert would have been a force in the NBA with or without Larry as evident that his numbers in Boston did not evaporate when Larry's career did.

[fairweatherfan]

Know it's a bit off-topic, but it's strange how these sorts of situations develop.  Just to throw it back on topic, according to Peter May (writing about Parish making the HOF), Parish in GS was widely seen as an underachiever who lacked heart and skills - obviously Red knew better, and soon so did everyone else, but the sentiment was still there. 

http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/columns/story?columnist=may_peter&id=1609347

There are few people whose opinion I trust less than Peter May's.  I'm not sure how a guy who averages 17 / 12 / 2.5 on 50% shooting is an "underachieving slug", or how those numbers are "unremarkable".

Well, I wasn't watching basketball then, so I can't really have an opinion on how well he played at GS, but I'll say this - the first comparison that came to my mind when thinking "how could a guy with such (relatively) good numbers be seen as unremarkable?"

17.0 ppg / 10.9 rpg / 50.7 % / 1.6 bpg in 29.4 mpg
vs
12.3 ppg / 11.9 rpg / 53.5 % / 1.9 bpg in 32.5 mpg

Very comparable #s, it seems - the first is Parish the year before going to the Celtics.  The second is Erick Dampier (also at GS, ironically) the year before Dallas signed him.  Now, most observers, myself included, "knew" Dampier was going to drop off dramatically in Dallas, because it was easy to see he didn't play with a lot of heart and just put together a good season because it was a contract year.  It wouldn't surprise me if people saw Parish's stoic attitude and "knew" he didn't care enough to excel on a championship team.  Now, Dampier's detractors were right, and Parish's were wrong, but I could see how you could misinterpret Chief's attitude on the court and look past his numbers, the same way many people looked past Dampier's.  Not to mention that the Warriors had a 24-58 record that year, just a few years after taking the championship (and with Parish as the central guy on their offense).

Don't get me wrong, I'm not arguing Parish was a bad player or anything else - like I said, I never saw him play at GS, and obviously the rest of his career showed him to be the HOFer we know he is.  But most of what I've seen of the guy shows that he was widely THOUGHT to be a lazy, uncaring player at the time - I'm trying to figure out how that could be the case despite the solid numbers he put up. 

Just out of curiosity, whose opinion do you trust when it comes to the league?  It's hard to tell what writers are reliably unbiased and well-informed. 

[Steve Weinman]

Know it's a bit off-topic, but it's strange how these sorts of situations develop.  Just to throw it back on topic, according to Peter May (writing about Parish making the HOF), Parish in GS was widely seen as an underachiever who lacked heart and skills - obviously Red knew better, and soon so did everyone else, but the sentiment was still there. 

http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/columns/story?columnist=may_peter&id=1609347

There are few people whose opinion I trust less than Peter May's.  I'm not sure how a guy who averages 17 / 12 / 2.5 on 50% shooting is an "underachieving slug", or how those numbers are "unremarkable".

Well, I wasn't watching basketball then, so I can't really have an opinion on how well he played at GS, but I'll say this - the first comparison that came to my mind when thinking "how could a guy with such (relatively) good numbers be seen as unremarkable?"

17.0 ppg / 10.9 rpg / 50.7 % / 1.6 bpg in 29.4 mpg
vs
12.3 ppg / 11.9 rpg / 53.5 % / 1.9 bpg in 32.5 mpg

Very comparable #s, it seems - the first is Parish the year before going to the Celtics.  The second is Erick Dampier (also at GS, ironically) the year before Dallas signed him.  Now, most observers, myself included, "knew" Dampier was going to drop off dramatically in Dallas, because it was easy to see he didn't play with a lot of heart and just put together a good season because it was a contract year.  It wouldn't surprise me if people saw Parish's stoic attitude and "knew" he didn't care enough to excel on a championship team.  Now, Dampier's detractors were right, and Parish's were wrong, but I could see how you could misinterpret Chief's attitude on the court and look past his numbers, the same way many people looked past Dampier's.  Not to mention that the Warriors had a 24-58 record that year, just a few years after taking the championship (and with Parish as the central guy on their offense).

Don't get me wrong, I'm not arguing Parish was a bad player or anything else - like I said, I never saw him play at GS, and obviously the rest of his career showed him to be the HOFer we know he is.  But most of what I've seen of the guy shows that he was widely THOUGHT to be a lazy, uncaring player at the time - I'm trying to figure out how that could be the case despite the solid numbers he put up. 

Just out of curiosity, whose opinion do you trust when it comes to the league?  It's hard to tell what writers are reliably unbiased and well-informed. 

Jeff Clark? 

Well, he's a given.  I'm curious to see Roy's picks, too...

-sw

[Roy Hobbs]

Just out of curiosity, whose opinion do you trust when it comes to the league?  It's hard to tell what writers are reliably unbiased and well-informed. 

Not Peter May.

Locally, I like Spears, Bulpett, and Murphy.  Jackie, before she left.  David Aldridge, when he used to write.  Sometimes Mitch Lawrence, sometimes David D'Alessandro.  Most of the SI.com guys.

Guys I don't like:  Peter May, Sam Smith, John Hollinger (usually), David Thorpe, most of the ESPN.com guys, Charley Rosen

Peter Vecsey is very hit or miss.  He's fine, when he's not making stuff up

[BballTim]

Know it's a bit off-topic, but it's strange how these sorts of situations develop.  Just to throw it back on topic, according to Peter May (writing about Parish making the HOF), Parish in GS was widely seen as an underachiever who lacked heart and skills - obviously Red knew better, and soon so did everyone else, but the sentiment was still there. 

http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/columns/story?columnist=may_peter&id=1609347

There are few people whose opinion I trust less than Peter May's.  I'm not sure how a guy who averages 17 / 12 / 2.5 on 50% shooting is an "underachieving slug", or how those numbers are "unremarkable".

  Peter May's an idiot. But GS was down on Parish. I think a lot of it was his attitude. I don't recall the exact reason, but I know they were unhappy with him. That's why they traded him for the rights to Joe Barry Carroll. For what it's worth, Sampson was seen as something of a disappointment when he was averaging 20/11.

[Roy Hobbs]

Know it's a bit off-topic, but it's strange how these sorts of situations develop.  Just to throw it back on topic, according to Peter May (writing about Parish making the HOF), Parish in GS was widely seen as an underachiever who lacked heart and skills - obviously Red knew better, and soon so did everyone else, but the sentiment was still there. 

http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/columns/story?columnist=may_peter&id=1609347

There are few people whose opinion I trust less than Peter May's.  I'm not sure how a guy who averages 17 / 12 / 2.5 on 50% shooting is an "underachieving slug", or how those numbers are "unremarkable".

  Peter May's an idiot. But GS was down on Parish. I think a lot of it was his attitude. I don't recall the exact reason, but I know they were unhappy with him. That's why they traded him for the rights to Joe Barry Carroll. For what it's worth, Sampson was seen as something of a disappointment when he was averaging 20/11.

To me, there's a huge difference between being down on somebody's attitude, and that player being a "stiff" or a "slug".

Ron Artest is insane.  He's not a "stiff".  Same thing with probably 15 - 30 other guys on NBA rosters right now.

[fairweatherfan]

Know it's a bit off-topic, but it's strange how these sorts of situations develop.  Just to throw it back on topic, according to Peter May (writing about Parish making the HOF), Parish in GS was widely seen as an underachiever who lacked heart and skills - obviously Red knew better, and soon so did everyone else, but the sentiment was still there. 

http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/columns/story?columnist=may_peter&id=1609347

There are few people whose opinion I trust less than Peter May's.  I'm not sure how a guy who averages 17 / 12 / 2.5 on 50% shooting is an "underachieving slug", or how those numbers are "unremarkable".

  Peter May's an idiot. But GS was down on Parish. I think a lot of it was his attitude. I don't recall the exact reason, but I know they were unhappy with him. That's why they traded him for the rights to Joe Barry Carroll. For what it's worth, Sampson was seen as something of a disappointment when he was averaging 20/11.

To me, there's a huge difference between being down on somebody's attitude, and that player being a "stiff" or a "slug".

Ron Artest is insane.  He's not a "stiff".  Same thing with probably 15 - 30 other guys on NBA rosters right now.

Yes, but still, there was literally one post on the front page, or anywhere else I could find, that referred to GS Parish as a "stiff", and that appeared to be in jest.  And certainly no one in this thread has called him a stiff or a slug.  I think you may be attacking a straw man here - the people you really have this issue with are those who underestimated him back in 1980, and a lot of that was probably due to the horrible team record and his stoicism more than his actual numbers, which were obviously very solid. 

Good discussion all around though, and I learned a lot researching my posts, and reading everyone else's.  I love digging back through Celtics history during the offseason.  Now I am off to make my way through a few of my Top 10 beers.  Cheers!