Was Patrick Ewing overrated?

[nedleeds]

I think some of you are also vastly underestimating his defense. He was a monster for about 5 years and great for another 4.

Watch on YouTube

[Synciere]

Not sure how this even came up for the OP. Ewing was an All NBA player who just had to go through Jordan. Every. Single. Year. The Knicks taking those Bulls team to seven games every playoff series is a testament to Ewing’s greatness. Like most have said, he’s properly rated. He’s one of those guys who was hyped up well before his draft who didn’t disappoint. He was a legit first option on a contender. There aren’t usually more than ten of those in any given year. He might be slightly underrated, but again that’s the Jordan effect. It makes people forget about the Barkley’s and Malone’s and Stocktons of the game.

[dautjazz]

What the hell? He's a top 10 center of all time. Before the 1997-98 season where he suffered a near-career ending injury, he averaged 23.6ppg 10.4rpg 2.1apg 1.1spg 2.8bpg while shooting .513 FG% and .746 FT%. No centers shot 3PTers in this era, so lets not discredit him for that, and it's still fairly uncommon for centers to be good at it anyways. He had 3 seasons in the top 20 for eFG% and TS%, and he actually had a really good midrange shot for a center, so how was he inefficient offensively? Defensively he was probably even better, leading the league in defensive win shares three times, defensive rating twice, and being named to All-Defensive team three times. Want to know why he didn't make more All-Defensive teams? Eaton, Bol, Olajuwon, Robinson, Mutombo, Mourning, and Shaq. There was simply a lot of great defensive centers during his career.

To me Ewing is scarred for not winning a title, if not he would easily be viewed as a top 30 player IMO. He was selected as an All-Star his first 12 seasons (second season he didn't play because of injury), and it would of been 13 seasons if he didn't get injured in 1997-98. He has a first ballot Hall of Famer, honored in 1997 as one of the 50 greatest players of All-Time, made 7 All-NBA teams (1st once, 2nd six times), and a member of the 1984 and 1992 Olympic National Teams, and much more. The seven centers I'd place above him get praised regularly (Kareem, Wilt, Shaq, Olajuwon, Russell, Moses, and Robinson), which is fine they are arguably all top 20 players and had remarkable success and peaks, but Ewing seems to be completely forgotten when really he's the next best center the league has seen.

[Dave_R]

Ewing was very, very good - but not great. Why? First, he never hit a clutch free throw in his life. Second, when the Pacers removed Smits from the end of game 7, Ewing missed a finger roll (when he should have DUNKED it -- or at least tried [maybe he was scared he'd get fouled and have to go to the line]). A great player goes in for the dunk or draws a foul. Third, Ewing had terrible hands. Name a truly great player without soft hands.

There were two things that prevented Ewing from getting a ring. First, Charles Oakley. In the battles with Chicago, Pippen guarded him, giving away two inches and probably at least 25 pounds. Oak, however, had no post game to take advantage of this, resulting in Pippen floating on D and also having a head-start on fast breaks. Second, Pat Riley. He should have pulled Starks much earlier in the game and replaced him with Rolando Blackman. Although Starks, at the time, was much better at CREATING his own shot, the shots that Starks was missing were mostly catch-and-shoot opportunities. Riley ultimately put Blackman in the game too late. Think about it -- Hakeem was great -- in fact, if you switch Hakeem and Ewing in the Finals, the Knicks easily win.

[DavidDunn21]

Calling Ewing overrated because he wasn't quite Shaq or Hakeem is like calling Dame overrated cause he's not Steph

Sent from my moto g(7) power using RealGM mobile app

[SmoothLefty21]

You can tell who didn't see Ewing play because he during his time he sure as hell wasn't overrated. The media--especially locally and to a lesser extent nationally--were pretty hard on him. Saying he wasn't clutch, that he couldn't hit the big shot or win the big game. Out of all the 90s stars who MJ kept ringless, none of them were given as much grief as Ewing was.

Ewing's knees started going relatively early in his career, even by the time they reached the Finals in '94. He wasn't the same limber and mobile big that he was in the 80s. And of course, it's been discussed ad nauseam that Ewing never had enough help, never had a second star. Those Knicks teams were a situation of the "sum is greater than the individual parts" but it's still impressive that a team was moments away from a championship and was a title contender for years with Charles Oakley and John Starks being the best supporters. You give him Scottie Pippen or John Stockton and those Knicks teams win a couple of championships.

The best part is OP calling Ewing a "soft" jumpshooting center. You can find old interviews from guys like Shaq and MJ where they straight-up call Ewing "mean".

[RHODEY]

and i already said the bellamy/ewing comparison was about where both placed at the time they played. bellamy was not in russell/wilt/nate's league, and ewing was not in robinson/shaq/hakeem/moses/kaj's as i said before and as you pointed out. i think we're in agreement here....ewing is a third tier center. he's right there in the mix with the beatys and bellamys and laniers and howards and all those guys.

Outside of the elite seven (Kareem Abdul-Jabbar, Wilt Chamberlain, Bill Russell, Moses Malone, Shaquille O'Neal, Hakeem Olajuwon and David Robinson), the only center I would consider on the same tier as Patrick Ewing as George Mikan. Most of those other centers you named (Bob Lanier, Zelmo Beatty, Walt Bellamy, etc.) are at least two tiers below Ewing and maybe three or more.

Ewing was an 11-time all-star and seven-time all-NBA player who finished in the top five in MVP in 1988-89 (fourth), 1989-1990 (fifth), 1991-92 (fifth), 1992-93 (fourth), 1993-94 (fifth) and 1994-95 (fifth), along with finishing eighth in 1996-97. Ewing was the centerpiece of Knicks teams that were perennial contenders in the 1990s and went to Game 7 of the 1994 NBA Finals.

Beatty was a sporadic all-star level player (two in the NBA, three in the ABA) who I would list as not even one of the top 25 centers in NBA history. Beatty is several tiers below Ewing. The same applies to Bellamy, who was the proverbial productive player who toiled on expansion or rebuilding teams.

Lanier was an eight-time all-star whose teams barely made the playoffs. Lanier had three seasons where he ranked in the top 10 in league MVP voting (ninth, 1972; third, 1975; fourth, 1977); in those seasons, Detroit went 26-56 (1971-72), 40-42 (1974-75) and 44-38 (1976-77). Keep in mind, Lanier had another hall of fame player (Dave Bing) on his team for his best years. Lanier is at least two tiers below Ewing.

The next tier below Ewing probably would be players such as Dave Cowens and Willis Reed. Cowens was 1973 MVP, had had three more seasons in the top three in MVP voting and was arguably the greatest defensive rebounder in NBA history. But Cowens was not the scorer or shot-blocker Ewing was and had a shorter peak before his first retirement at 31.

Reed was the first player to be named the NBA regular season MVP, Finals MVP and All-Star Game MVP in the same season (1969-70) and was the second best player on the Knicks teams that won the 1970 and 1973 titles. But Reed had only seven quality NBA seasons before leg injuries ended his career. At best, you could argue Reed and Cowens were on Ewing's level, but they didn't have the run Ewing did.

Then I would consider players such as Robert Parish (complementary player with all-star years), Bob McAdoo (elite scorer with a short prime), Bill Walton (very short prime but MVP peak) and Wes Unseld (surprise MVP but largely a role player) on that fifth tier, with Lanier sliding in behind that group.

I really dont think David Robinson was better than Ewing. I consider them equals.

[Galloisdaman]

Ewing was cursed to play for the Knicks. The Knicks losses, the media put it all on him. Not saying he'd likely have won a ring elsewhere but consider Robinson who is held in higher regard, forget Duncan he never even had a Drexler, Starks went 2-20 in a finals game 7 in a game they lost by 6 points. Tell me with a straight face Ewing gets remembered no differently if Starks hadn't shat himself, even if Hakeem did outplay him.

Yeah, people are forgetting or not remembering how critics called David Robinson a choke artist in the playoffs before Tim Duncan's arrival in San Antonio. If Hakeem Olajuwon outplayed Patrick Ewing in the 1994 Finals, then Olajuwon flat-out embarrassed Robinson in the 1995 Western Conference finals. While Olajuwon's undressing of Robinson was the most memorable image of pre-Tim Duncan Robinson, there was also Utah pushing around a passive Robinson in the 1994 Western Conference first round and Charles Barkley hitting big shots over Robinson in the 1993 Western Conference semifinals.

The fact that Ewing nearly won a title with JOHN STARKS as his best offensive teammate should be a testament to how good of a player Ewing was. If the Knicks had typical Starks (42 percent shooting) instead of 2-for-18 Starks in Game 7 of the 1994 Finals, the Knicks would have won that game and the title.

Put Mitch Richmond in Starks' place, and the Knicks not only would have won the 1994 title but may have defeated Chicago in the 1993 Eastern Conference finals. After the Knicks went up 2-0 on the Bulls, Stark was pretty bad three of the next four games. As aggressive and consistent as Richmond was, Ewing would have a scoring teammate who could share the load easily, if not take over games when needed.

People forget that NY was up 3-2 going home. We should have won that series in game 6. We lost by 2 points. What a difference those 2 points meant. We basically only played 6 players in that game 6. In fact only 6 players scored for us in game 6.

[Got Nuffin]

A lot of great points already made in this thread. Starks, Mason, Oakley and whatever other ragtag role players they had surrounding him were hardly perennial all stars types (although their careers make great stories) and although Ewing had his shortcomings on offence, he was a monster defensively on what was considered one of the best defensive squads of the era. They were title contenders every year throughout the 90s and just couldn't find Ewing the wing player he needed to get them over the hump. Even so, they came awfully close a number of times.

It's funny that so many people put David Robinson ahead of him when at the time Robinson was seen as the generational talent who was soft and didn't have a drive to win, while Ewing was seen as the incumbent warrior with physical limitations (mostly due to injuries) who would do whatever it takes. The arrival of Tim Duncan, which turned DRob into a role player himself, really changed Robinsons legacy for the better.

Overall I might put Robinson slightly ahead of Ewing, but it's not like they were on completely different tiers as players.

[Soulcatcher33]

Ewing would've won multiple titles if Jordan made good on his threats and left the Bulls for the Knicks in the late 80s or the mid 90s.

If Patrick Ewing had another dependable scorer alongside him, those 1990s Knicks teams may have beaten some of those Bulls teams even with Michael Jordan playing for Chicago. The Ewing-led Knicks were arguably the Bulls' greatest opponents during the 1990s and typically played the Bulls the toughest, such as the 1992 Eastern Conference finals. They were a rugged, physical team that pounded teams on defense but had troubles scoring outside of Ewing.

There was a noticeable dropoff between Ewing and the second-best scorer on those Knicks teams -- first Charles Oakley (never a big scorer) and Gerald Wilkins (complementary player), then an aging Kiki Vandeweghe and ultimately a streaky John Starks (who likely would have been better suited as a fourth option). Maybe if Starks shot a somewhat more customary percentage in Game 7 of the 1994 NBA Finals instead of going 2 for 18 from the field, Ewing would have won an NBA title.

You talk as if Ewing had a good series offensively in 94 when he was awful. He averaged 18.9ppg on 22.9 shot attempts and had one SINGLE game where he actually had more points than shots. He was thoroughly outplayed by Hakeem.

[Soulcatcher33]

A lot of great points already made in this thread. Starks, Mason, Oakley and whatever other ragtag role players they had surrounding him were hardly perennial all stars types (although their careers make great stories) and although Ewing had his shortcomings on offence, he was a monster defensively on what was considered one of the best defensive squads of the era. They were title contenders every year throughout the 90s and just couldn't find Ewing the wing player he needed to get them over the hump. Even so, they came awfully close a number of times.

It's funny that so many people put David Robinson ahead of him when at the time Robinson was seen as the generational talent who was soft and didn't have a drive to win, while Ewing was seen as the incumbent warrior with physical limitations (mostly due to injuries) who would do whatever it takes. The arrival of Tim Duncan, which turned DRob into a role player himself, really changed Robinsons legacy for the better.

Overall I might put Robinson slightly ahead of Ewing, but it's not like they were on completely different tiers as players.

Prime for prime Robinson was the far more impactful player. However it was "seen" is complete nonsense. They are definitely on different tiers.

[knicksNOTslick]

This thread is exactly the reason why great players stack the deck and join up with other great players just to win a title.

Same posters who put down KD for joining a stacked team will be the same posters who think Ewing wasn't that great because he didn't win a ring. David Robinson was pretty much on par with Ewing, but he was fortunate enough to play with Duncan towards the latter end of his year and it helped his legacy. Now people will look at his rings and say yea he's better than Ewing. That is why you see great role players like Draymond Green think they're better than Charles Barkley.

Had Starks just played a bit better in the 1994 Finals, Ewing would've won a title and not be so underrated like he is now.

[Soulcatcher33]

This thread is exactly the reason why great players stack the deck and join up with other great players just to win a title.

Same posters who put down KD for joining a stacked team will be the same posters who think Ewing wasn't that great because he didn't win a ring. David Robinson was pretty much on par with Ewing, but he was fortunate enough to play with Duncan towards the latter end of his year and it helped his legacy. Now people will look at his rings and say yea he's better than Ewing. That is why you see great role players like Draymond Green think they're better than Charles Barkley.

Had Starks just played a bit better in the 1994 Finals, Ewing would've won a title and not be so underrated like he is now.

David Robinson carried teams like only a handful of players ever have. Ewing was never at that level of impact. Also again, you keep tossing Starks under the bus, but Ewing was the star player and he was awful offensively in that series vs the Rockets. It's not like Hakeem had a lot of help either, but he actually played like the star player he was.

[Got Nuffin]

A lot of great points already made in this thread. Starks, Mason, Oakley and whatever other ragtag role players they had surrounding him were hardly perennial all stars types (although their careers make great stories) and although Ewing had his shortcomings on offence, he was a monster defensively on what was considered one of the best defensive squads of the era. They were title contenders every year throughout the 90s and just couldn't find Ewing the wing player he needed to get them over the hump. Even so, they came awfully close a number of times.

It's funny that so many people put David Robinson ahead of him when at the time Robinson was seen as the generational talent who was soft and didn't have a drive to win, while Ewing was seen as the incumbent warrior with physical limitations (mostly due to injuries) who would do whatever it takes. The arrival of Tim Duncan, which turned DRob into a role player himself, really changed Robinsons legacy for the better.

Overall I might put Robinson slightly ahead of Ewing, but it's not like they were on completely different tiers as players.

Prime for prime Robinson was the far more impactful player. However it was "seen" is complete nonsense. They are definitely on different tiers.

The reason Robinson was "seen" in that manner at the time was his complete lack of post season success. Robinson faded in the playoffs every single year (before Duncan obv) when DRob really should have been the Michael Jordan of big men if you look at how talented he was. Memorably, he was eaten alive by Barkley and Olajuwon in most of their playoff encounters. Pre-Bulls Dennis Rodman even quit the team because he felt Robinson didn't care enough about winning.

[Soulcatcher33]

A lot of great points already made in this thread. Starks, Mason, Oakley and whatever other ragtag role players they had surrounding him were hardly perennial all stars types (although their careers make great stories) and although Ewing had his shortcomings on offence, he was a monster defensively on what was considered one of the best defensive squads of the era. They were title contenders every year throughout the 90s and just couldn't find Ewing the wing player he needed to get them over the hump. Even so, they came awfully close a number of times.

It's funny that so many people put David Robinson ahead of him when at the time Robinson was seen as the generational talent who was soft and didn't have a drive to win, while Ewing was seen as the incumbent warrior with physical limitations (mostly due to injuries) who would do whatever it takes. The arrival of Tim Duncan, which turned DRob into a role player himself, really changed Robinsons legacy for the better.

Overall I might put Robinson slightly ahead of Ewing, but it's not like they were on completely different tiers as players.

Prime for prime Robinson was the far more impactful player. However it was "seen" is complete nonsense. They are definitely on different tiers.

The reason Robinson was "seen" in that manner at the time was his complete lack of post season success. Robinson faded in the playoffs every single year (before Duncan obv) when DRob really should have been the Michael Jordan of big men if you look at how talented he was. Memorably, he was eaten alive by Barkley and Olajuwon in most of their playoff encounters. Pre-Bulls Dennis Rodman even quit the team because he felt Robinson didn't care enough about winning.

The only reason those Spurs teams were winning so many games in the first place was because Robinson was so dominant. He made them look better than they actually were. A good example of how dominant he was is the Spurs fall off from 96 to 97. Healthy Robinson plays all 82 games and they win 59 games. He misses all but six in 97...20 wins.

[NPZ]

It sounds to me that you're not really understanding what other people are elaborating about, actually.
Also because "people in this board" means nothing, people have different opinions and mine doesn't need to be consistent with yours. Unless you can call out the OP himself on something he stated in the past.

I understand SENSIBLE opinions. I don't understand people who apparently don't know how to interpret information, such as acting like a center averaging 22 points per game over a 17-year career at 50 percent field goal shooting is "inefficient." Or someone looking up a player he or she never saw play, find some outlier advanced metric and try to reinvent the player as being much better than he was when he actually played.

I am calling out the original poster and some of these other people who make inane statements, based on poor interpretation of information and nonsensical logic.

As an aside, Najee, on the same page, there's an all-time top PG poll thread where the OP didn't think to put Magic among the choices. Judging by the trickery that I see with Walt Bellamy namedrops and such, I can't in good faith say for certain that the kid didn't include Magic on purpose or if it was a simple screwup. You see a lot of bizarro things on this board and they're almost always held with conviction based on bad info or plain ignorance. That's the unfortunate aspect. You won't be able to get most of the hacks you come across to shed such opinions no matter how silly they are. There are those folks who get off on arguing for the sake of arguing and they'll move goalposts for eternity rather than concede. What they're arguing is mostly immaterial.

[Galloisdaman]

This thread is exactly the reason why great players stack the deck and join up with other great players just to win a title.

Same posters who put down KD for joining a stacked team will be the same posters who think Ewing wasn't that great because he didn't win a ring. David Robinson was pretty much on par with Ewing, but he was fortunate enough to play with Duncan towards the latter end of his year and it helped his legacy. Now people will look at his rings and say yea he's better than Ewing. That is why you see great role players like Draymond Green think they're better than Charles Barkley.

Had Starks just played a bit better in the 1994 Finals, Ewing would've won a title and not be so underrated like he is now.

David Robinson carried teams like only a handful of players ever have. Ewing was never at that level of impact. Also again, you keep tossing Starks under the bus, but Ewing was the star player and he was awful offensively in that series vs the Rockets. It's not like Hakeem had a lot of help either, but he actually played like the star player he was.

So Patrick's whole career is judged by a bad shooting finals at 31 or 32 after years of injuries?

That was a low scoring series. The Knicks actually outscored the Rockets for the series but they were games played with scoring around 85 points a game. Carl Herrera did a good job helping out on Patrick. Herrera had a underrated series helping out defensively off the bench.

Does Patrick get any credit for being the leading rebounder and shot blocker in that series? Or does he only get blame?

If Patrick was so bad why did your Celtics with Parrish, Bird, Reggie Lewis and Mchale let a Knicks team carried by Patrick come back from 0-2 and sweep the Celtics in 1990? That was with the Celtics having the deciding game in Boston.

Anyway Patrick is a top 15 center and top 50 player off all time. That is not overrated. I can not even believe somebody compared him to Aldridge, lol.

[NPZ]

His offense is a little overrated but his career efficiency took a hit after his wrist injury in "97 that basically took away his fadeaway while his athleticism was fading. Prior to this, a very efficient player.

Defensively, he was the definition of an anchor. With today's cast of centers he'd make all defensive first team annually. Especially early in his career where he could press with the best of them.



Put another way - where does John Starks rank on your all time list? That was his best second option during his prime years. Ewing was great. Deal.

If Ewing is akin to Walt Bellamy, then Whitey Skoog was the John Starks of the 50s.

[The_Hater]

Watching Ewing play never excited me. To his credit, I always thought he needed more help, but the Knicks never provided him with any.


Sent from my SM-N975U using RealGM mobile app

Ya I was thinking about this part earlier. Oakley was his best, consistent teammate, a solid player for years but much closer to role player than star. John Starks was probably the 2nd best player other years and I think he squeezed into 1 allstar game.

Their depth was usually pretty good but it’s hard to compete for titles when you lack a 2nd star. Ewing deserves credit for pushing most of those teams to 50+ wins but they weren’t going to beat the Jordan led Bulls. He was clearly a top 10 player for a majority of his prime just not likely top 5.

[Jeffrey]

I watched the 90s Knicks like a hawk through my teenage years.

1.) Knicks 2nd best scorer was cut by a couple of teams. John Stark would've been a nice 3rd option.

2.) Knicks had one of the deepest team but never had a true All-Star to play with Ewing. They had some great teams but was seriously missing a true star next to him

3.) Knicks made some horrible blunders in the draft and until this day.. Knicks can't draft for sh.it