Is Patrick Ewing in your top 20?

[tsherkin]

Swap him with Hakeem or Robinson and I think they win a title in sans Jordan years.

There's basically no question that they win in 94 if Olajuwon OR Robinson were on that team. Even with Starks AND Ewing both playing incompetent offensive basketball in the final game, they were still pretty close. You add one half-competent performance to that game, it's all over and the Knicks have a title.

[feyki]

23 - Wade
24 - Hondo
25 - Admiral
26 - Stockton
27 - Ewing
28 - Isiah
29 - Rick Barry
30 - Walt Frazier

..

[pelifan]

So you don't think Ewing set the tone? What about when he turned the 19th ranked defense in the league into a top 5 defense as a rookie even though he missed 32 games without a good defensive F next to him?

What? Knicks being good enough defensively to be top 5 without Ewing in there for 32 games says the team as a whole improved to me.

[lorak]

What? Knicks being good enough defensively to be top 5 without Ewing in there for 32 games says the team as a whole improved to me.

In games without Ewing Knicks were 19th on defense (in 23 team league) in his rookie year, but in games he played their drtg was 3rd best in the NBA.

[pelifan]

What? Knicks being good enough defensively to be top 5 without Ewing in there for 32 games says the team as a whole improved to me.

In games without Ewing Knicks were 19th on defense (in 23 team league) in his rookie year, but in games he played their drtg was 3rd best in the NBA.

mmm ok. Maybe I have underrated Ewing's defense. But I still think I have him right on offense. But I'd still prefer D12 defensively...

[E-Balla]

What? Knicks being good enough defensively to be top 5 without Ewing in there for 32 games says the team as a whole improved to me.

In games without Ewing Knicks were 19th on defense (in 23 team league) in his rookie year, but in games he played their drtg was 3rd best in the NBA.

Beat me to it. Not only that but I calculated it myself and they played almost all of their games against the Sixers and all of their games against the Celtics and Lakers already before he got hurt iirc.

Also pelifan you saw they went 5-27 when he was hurt why not think he obviously made them way better?

mmm ok. Maybe I have underrated Ewing's defense. But I still think I have him right on offense. But I'd still prefer D12 defensively...

Why would you prefer D12 and what makes you think you have him right offensively? Remember his best 2nd option was John Starks over his whole career. Dwight has had teams with 3 better offensive players on it and defensively its hard to ignore that the Pat Riley Knicks are the best defense ever over a 4 year period and a lot of that is because of Ewing.

Swap him with Hakeem or Robinson and I think they win a title in sans Jordan years.

There's basically no question that they win in 94 if Olajuwon OR Robinson were on that team. Even with Starks AND Ewing both playing incompetent offensive basketball in the final game, they were still pretty close. You add one half-competent performance to that game, it's all over and the Knicks have a title.

Olajuwon definitely but Robinson? DR didn't do too good in the playoffs either (I've mentioned this before but against good teams in the playoffs they performed equally offensively once DRob started playing on ball) and defensively Hakeem ate him 1 on 1 when they matched up. Remember Pat still held Hakeem to 27 ppg on 55 TS% with a 105 ORTG (the worst offensive series he had between 93 and 95) and possibly had the GOAT defensive Finals series next to Tim Duncan in 2003. DR isn't doing that 1 on 1 vs Hakeem in the playoffs and I'm not sure if he's anchoring them better. I think he'd perform better offensively but defensively he'd get eaten alive by Hakeem. Probably still lose in 7.

[lorak]

What? Knicks being good enough defensively to be top 5 without Ewing in there for 32 games says the team as a whole improved to me.

In games without Ewing Knicks were 19th on defense (in 23 team league) in his rookie year, but in games he played their drtg was 3rd best in the NBA.

mmm ok. Maybe I have underrated Ewing's defense. But I still think I have him right on offense. But I'd still prefer D12 defensively...

Ewing was one of the best defensive anchors in history, but so was Dwight, so I have no problem with DH>PE on defense. On offense I also think Pat is overrated. He was high turnover big who relied on his jumper too much and thus wasn't that efficient. It can be explained by his knees as in late 80s he played more around the basket and was great scorer (high volume with around 60 TS%), but later focused on jumpers more and that wasn't good for his offensive game. And yes, I agree overall he is closer to Dwight than DRob. However I love to watch how he played with relatively good knees:

Watch on YouTube

[Warspite]

Not even top 40 probably. A very overrated guy for mine. Go back and watch some of his games and you'll be stunned by how underwhelming he can be. He failed to really carry teams too. One thing that struck me from all his old game footage was how much trouble he'd be in playing today's game, without the benefit of the illegal D rules. This is something even Hakeem had a lot of problems with (when the Sonics were blurring the rules as much as possible to get around it, and as a consequence the Sonics owned Hakeem through his prime years), but Ewing looks so mechanical in the post it's painful. He's just trying to force everything, and relying on the fact that the other team can't send 2 guys without creating an overlap. More sophisticated defences today are better at being able to load up on the strong side, and keep the ball from even being entered into the post. Between that and the spacing I think Ewing would have been notably worse today.

What is so important about 2016 that all players must be compared to its play style? 2016 is almost 30 years post peak NBA. Should we always compare people, places and things to what they were like 30 yrs past there peak? Is 2016 music always better than every other year? If you cant be successful in the 2016 music climate does that mean your success in the 60s or 80s or 2000s doesn't count? Elvis never uploaded a video to youtube so he wouldn't have a hit record?


Many of todays greats would seriously struggle in other eras. I don't blame todays players for not being able to adapt to 1950s color barrier, 1960s pace, 1970s brutalty or 80s illegal defense rules. Why would yesterdays players be blamed for not exploiting todays rules before the fact?

[NBAMythbuster]

Not even top 40 probably. A very overrated guy for mine. Go back and watch some of his games and you'll be stunned by how underwhelming he can be. He failed to really carry teams too. One thing that struck me from all his old game footage was how much trouble he'd be in playing today's game, without the benefit of the illegal D rules. This is something even Hakeem had a lot of problems with (when the Sonics were blurring the rules as much as possible to get around it, and as a consequence the Sonics owned Hakeem through his prime years), but Ewing looks so mechanical in the post it's painful. He's just trying to force everything, and relying on the fact that the other team can't send 2 guys without creating an overlap. More sophisticated defences today are better at being able to load up on the strong side, and keep the ball from even being entered into the post. Between that and the spacing I think Ewing would have been notably worse today.

What is so important about 2016 that all players must be compared to its play style? 2016 is almost 30 years post peak NBA. Should we always compare people, places and things to what they were like 30 yrs past there peak? Is 2016 music always better than every other year? If you cant be successful in the 2016 music climate does that mean your success in the 60s or 80s or 2000s doesn't count? Elvis never uploaded a video to youtube so he wouldn't have a hit record?


Many of todays greats would seriously struggle in other eras. I don't blame todays players for not being able to adapt to 1950s color barrier, 1960s pace, 1970s brutalty or 80s illegal defense rules. Why would yesterdays players be blamed for not exploiting todays rules before the fact?

Pretty sure not everyone agrees with you, not even on the first 2 sentences.

[tsherkin]

Olajuwon definitely but Robinson? DR didn't do too good in the playoffs either

You're not wrong, but Ewing was savagely incompetent in the 94 Finals on the offensive end. Even in playoff form, Robinson was a more effective scoring force than was Ewing in the Houston series, and was himself a better rebounder and at WORST a comparable defender.

Olajuwon had a pretty singular series in 95, for sure, but there were other factors involved in that, and again, Olajuwon was still pretty nasty on offense in 94 anyway... and a lot of that suppression comes from Game 7, where Olajuwon was pretty quiet offensively. Don't forget that the game before, he'd stuffed 30 on them on 11/21 shooting and 61%+ TS, you know what I mean? Small sample makes specific averages require some level of contextual examination if you intend to use them to any specific effect, and Olajuwon was 10/25 from the field in Game 7 during the 94 Finals. Some of that was Ewing, sure, but a lot of it was just him missing some jumpers he normally makes, which happens when you use them that often as a part of your offensive repertoire. It's just that he was more consistent with those Js than Robinson or Ewing that really set him apart as a postseason performer, as much as anything else.

I think Robinson would have done enough better on offense that the defense wouldn't have been a major issue given how good he was himself. It's hard to overstate how much of an embarrassment Ewing was on offense in those Finals.

[Point-Forward]

I won't speak for Quot, but I don't think there is any inconsistency here. The difference (i.e. why it's OK to have Malone top 15, but not have Ewing in top 20 while acknowledging playoff short-comings for both) is two-fold: 1) the rs standards (the ones not being "played up to") are higher in Malone's case. In other words, his rs resume exceeds that of Ewing. And 2) Malone had better longevity.

Bearing those factors in mind, there's no bending of criteria that need take place to have them separated by that much.

The difference (i.e. why it's OK to have Malone top 15, but not have Ewing in top 20 while acknowledging playoff short-comings for both) is two-fold: 1) the rs standards (the ones not being "played up to") are higher in Malone's case. In other words, his rs resume exceeds that of Ewing.

Fair enough.

I don't agree with Malone being a top-15 (don't want to derail the thread because there is already one to discuss that), but it's true that Karl was a better RS player than Ewing. So I understand where you and Quotatious might be coming from.

Although one could argue the 90s Knicks had more success overall than the 90s Jazz, but that's not dependant on Ewing and Malone only.

And 2) Malone had better longevity.

But you could argue Ewing had a better and more dominant peak.

It depends on what you value. I've never been a big fan of longevity when comparing legends. It can be used as a tiebreaker in some cases, but I'm never going to rank Malone over Barkley on the basis of longevity. Which is Malone's strongest argument in most comparisons, btw.

Malone didn't have this 'just hang on" longetivity some of the guys retiring now do. Malone was basically a major star until age 39. he didn't just last, he might have had the longest run as a franchise player in league history.

Never claimed otherwise. I even celebrated Malone's incredible longevity in other threads.

But that doesn't change the fact that this impressive longevity is his strongest argument because he doesn't compare favorably in other regards like postseason performance, or even peak play (in some cases, not others).

And, despite that longevity, which is obviously amazing, I'm not taking him over guys like Barkley, Nowitzki (who is having a pretty good longevity himself, btw), etc.

Ewing is a different story because, as Quotatious and trex_8063 correctly pointed out to me, his RS play wasn't that good compared to Malone, and thus can serve as an effective tiebreaker considering Ewing also suffered in the Playoffs, and that his peak was too short.

[E-Balla]

Olajuwon definitely but Robinson? DR didn't do too good in the playoffs either

You're not wrong, but Ewing was savagely incompetent in the 94 Finals on the offensive end. Even in playoff form, Robinson was a more effective scoring force than was Ewing in the Houston series, and was himself a better rebounder and at WORST a comparable defender.

Olajuwon had a pretty singular series in 95, for sure, but there were other factors involved in that, and again, Olajuwon was still pretty nasty on offense in 94 anyway... and a lot of that suppression comes from Game 7, where Olajuwon was pretty quiet offensively. Don't forget that the game before, he'd stuffed 30 on them on 11/21 shooting and 61%+ TS, you know what I mean? Small sample makes specific averages require some level of contextual examination if you intend to use them to any specific effect, and Olajuwon was 10/25 from the field in Game 7 during the 94 Finals. Some of that was Ewing, sure, but a lot of it was just him missing some jumpers he normally makes, which happens when you use them that often as a part of your offensive repertoire. It's just that he was more consistent with those Js than Robinson or Ewing that really set him apart as a postseason performer, as much as anything else.

I think Robinson would have done enough better on offense that the defense wouldn't have been a major issue given how good he was himself. It's hard to overstate how much of an embarrassment Ewing was on offense in those Finals.

I agree they're comparable defenders but this is the best defensive series between the two. Ewing was way more amazing than usual in this series and I wouldn't say Robinson's expected defensive level is as good as Ewing was in that series. And yeah you can remove Hakeem's game 7 where he shot 40% (even though he shot 40% in another game and was under 50% 4 times) but Hakeem also shot 70% in one game which seems way more like an outlier compared to one of his 2 40% games. And I remember Ewing beating Hakeem's shot in this series. IIRC he had single games where he blocked Hakeem like 2-3 times on post moves. He was terrorizing Hakeem (I mean you'll never stop him when he's hot but Pat came closest).

And I wouldn't say Hakeem's jumper set him apart his ability to create separation did. When it came down to it Ewing relied on his jumper falling a lot especially when the second half came, DRob relied on getting fouled a lot, and Hakeem just relied on being able to create space.

I totally agree Ewing was an embarrassment offensively but I think you're underrating his defense at least in those 7 games. Robinson can perform like that but given 10 chances to play that series I can say I don't think he plays that good defensively even once. I'll admit its pretty close though because the Knicks already were 1 shot from winning it all so technically if DRob is 2 timely points better they get the W.

[2klegend]

God no. Just no. He is not even top 40 for me.

[Winsome Gerbil]

God no. Just no. He is not even top 40 for me.

That would take some explaining.

[Winsome Gerbil]

Fair enough.

I don't agree with Malone being a top-15 (don't want to derail the thread because there is already one to discuss that), but it's true that Karl was a better RS player than Ewing. So I understand where you and Quotatious might be coming from.

Although one could argue the 90s Knicks had more success overall than the 90s Jazz, but that's not dependant on Ewing and Malone only.



But you could argue Ewing had a better and more dominant peak.

It depends on what you value. I've never been a big fan of longevity when comparing legends. It can be used as a tiebreaker in some cases, but I'm never going to rank Malone over Barkley on the basis of longevity. Which is Malone's strongest argument in most comparisons, btw.

Malone didn't have this 'just hang on" longetivity some of the guys retiring now do. Malone was basically a major star until age 39. he didn't just last, he might have had the longest run as a franchise player in league history.

Never claimed otherwise. I even celebrated Malone's incredible longevity in other threads.

But that doesn't change the fact that this impressive longevity is his strongest argument because he doesn't compare favorably in other regards like postseason performance, or even peak play (in some cases, not others).

And, despite that longevity, which is obviously amazing, I'm not taking him over guys like Barkley, Nowitzki (who is having a pretty good longevity himself, btw), etc.

Ewing is a different story because, as Quotatious and trex_8063 correctly pointed out to me, his RS play wasn't that good compared to Malone, and thus can serve as an effective tiebreaker considering Ewing also suffered in the Playoffs, and that his peak was too short.

Barkley is my favorite PF of all time, and IMO the most talented PF of all time. He was flat fun to watch, and one of the all time freakish physical specimens. But that said, much as I loved his game, I can't put him over Mailman, who was so much steadier and relentless. Never hurt, never seeming to age. Year, after year after game after game. A rock. Also a rock who outplayed Barkley head to head (with the help of his string of giant rim protecting centers).

And of course the problem with both Barkley and Dirk is that they only played half the game. Dirk in particular is given a ridiculous pass on that. Barkley is normally scored down for it in more appropriate fashion. But Mailman was good at everything there is to be good at as a PF for longer than any other PF. He basically epitomized the position. The prototype.

Ewing on the other hand falls in as roughly the #7 all time center, or maybe #8 depending on how you feel about ranking Mikan. The core of his career was high level HOF stuff, but it started slow and disappointing, and ended in injury and ego writing checks the body could no longer deliver. If Malone was just a tad stodgy and lacked the oomp of special magic of a Bird or Hakeem to leave him out of the Top 10 despite Top 10 or even Top 5 numbers, Ewing's workmanlike grind was even a step further back, and he didn't sustain it for anywhere near the same length.

[tsherkin]

Ewing was way more amazing than usual in this series and I wouldn't say Robinson's expected defensive level is as good as Ewing was in that series

I'm not arguing that he was a monster on D in that series. I absolutely respect Ewing's defense, in that series and in general. That's the series where he set what I believe to STILL be the Finals records for blocks in a game, and he generally made life a pain for the rest of the Rockets. He was always a defensive monster. I think you're underselling Robinson's D a little, though.

And I wouldn't say Hakeem's jumper set him apart his ability to create separation did.

The J was a major part of his game, though. It opened up the number of locations he could use, it was the end-point of a variety of moves he used and some of his favored scoring spots were short and mid-range jumpers, not hook shots or layups/dunks. It was a critical component of his game and he was better at it, and particularly more consistent with it as well, than either of the other two of Ewing/Robinson.

I totally agree Ewing was an embarrassment offensively but I think you're underrating his defense at least in those 7 games.

My counterpoint is that I think you're underestimating how useless he was on offense and how badly that destroyed New York's ability to compete. A slight decline in defense, if such would even occur, would pale in relevance next to an improvement to even league-average scoring efficiency, such as Robinson usually provided.

[90sgoat]

I was never much of a fan of Ewing, he was in the bottom of the great 90s centers:

Hakeem
Shaq
D-Rob
Ewing
Mourning

He'd still easily be the best center today and he would eat Dwights lunch, even in Dwights prime.

[tsherkin]

Ewing was an interesting guy. I rocked the 33s back in the 90s. He wasn't consistently good on offense, I mean he had his troubles early and late, but he had a really nice regular-season peak. His problem was that he had crap handles, wasn't a great passer and was heavily jumper-reliant. Pre-injury, though, he was a 7-footer who moved like he was 6'6 and was very strong. He wasn't a really smart choice as a first option, primarily because he wasn't a hot playmaker and he wasn't typically an ultra-efficient scorer either, and then also because his jumper-reliance and lack of consistency had him declining in the postseason more than was good... but it's also true that his offensive supporting cast kind of blew, and that really served to make his life far more difficult than it otherwise might have been with a more decent team.

He was an excellent defender and a decent, if unremarkable, rebounder. He was a fine choice as a franchise player, he was just misdeployed by the Knicks on offense, because he wasn't a hot choice to shoulder the offense (as one could see by the results)... but that's also true of anyone who isn't an ultra-elite offensive player. Those guys are super-rare, and to be a big AND that is even less common, so who's really that surprised?

[Bklynborn682]

Ewing was way more amazing than usual in this series and I wouldn't say Robinson's expected defensive level is as good as Ewing was in that series

I'm not arguing that he was a monster on D in that series. I absolutely respect Ewing's defense, in that series and in general. That's the series where he set what I believe to STILL be the Finals records for blocks in a game, and he generally made life a pain for the rest of the Rockets. He was always a defensive monster. I think you're underselling Robinson's D a little, though.

And I wouldn't say Hakeem's jumper set him apart his ability to create separation did.

The J was a major part of his game, though. It opened up the number of locations he could use, it was the end-point of a variety of moves he used and some of his favored scoring spots were short and mid-range jumpers, not hook shots or layups/dunks. It was a critical component of his game and he was better at it, and particularly more consistent with it as well, than either of the other two of Ewing/Robinson.

I totally agree Ewing was an embarrassment offensively but I think you're underrating his defense at least in those 7 games.

My counterpoint is that I think you're underestimating how useless he was on offense and how badly that destroyed New York's ability to compete. A slight decline in defense, if such would even occur, would pale in relevance next to an improvement to even league-average scoring efficiency, such as Robinson usually provided.

I don't know if your question about finals blocks was rhetorical or not but he tied it with 8 which was the record until 09 (tied with Walton 77,Hakeem 86,Shaq 01,) than in 09 Dwight had 9 against the lakers in game 4 of those finals.

[tsherkin]

I don't know if your question about finals blocks was rhetorical or not but he tied it with 8 which was the record until 09 (tied with Walton 77,Hakeem 86,Shaq 01,) than in 09 Dwight had 9 against the lakers in game 4 of those finals.

I'd forgotten that Dwight broke that!