For today: Moses vs Ewing vs Mourning

[durantbird]

How will you rate those guys in terms of who you'd prefer to build around supposing his peak form is transported to today's NBA?

[tsherkin]

Ewing was the best defender of the bunch and had the most range. He had the best chance to translate into today's game, particularly in his younger, pre-injury self.

[lessthanjake]

Ewing was the best defender of the bunch and had the most range. He had the best chance to translate into today's game, particularly in his younger, pre-injury self.

It’s worth noting that in his play-by-play era years with the Heat (i.e. 1997 through to him being out the whole 2003 season), Alonzo Mourning actually made an impressive 45.1% of his shots from 16 feet to the three-point line. And those shots actually made up a higher percent of his shot profile than the data we have for Ewing. I also think he’d probably be the most versatile and switchable of these guys on defense. So I’d say it may actually be the case that Mourning would translate the best (though that doesn’t exactly answer the question, since he was probably the least good of the three within his era).

Moses was the best of these guys in his own era. And I think he had a better jump shot than people typically remember. But so much of his value was off of offensive rebounds, and those are de-emphasized now so it’s not clear to me he would translate as well.

So, to me, it’s a tough question because the order I’d put them in terms of quality within their era is the exact opposite of the order I’d put them in if just thinking about how much their skill set would translate to this era.

[Verticality]

The one with 3 Most Valuable Season awards a NBA Championship and Finals MVP.

[tsherkin]

It’s worth noting that in his play-by-play era years with the Heat (i.e. 1997 through to him being out the whole 2003 season), Alonzo Mourning actually made an impressive 45.1% of his shots from 16 feet to the three-point line. And those shots actually made up a higher percent of his shot profile than the data we have for Ewing.

We have data for old Ewing, though, so I don't know that a comparison of that sort is super viable. I'd love to see tracking on that from when Ewing's back was healthy and he was still volume scoring. Ewing had 2 seasons of 20+ ppg in the PBP tracking era, and he was barely shooting from 16+ feet. In that same period of time, Mourning was a lower-volume guy, much worse at the line, and had only a single season where he was both volume scoring and healthy. And he shot worse from 10-16 as well.

So again, I have very little confidence in using a single season from Mourning to make much of a point, especially given how it was so outsized compared to basically any other year of his career, and his FT%.

Moses was the best of these guys in his own era. And I think he had a better jump shot than people typically remember. But so much of his value was off of offensive rebounds, and those are de-emphasized now so it’s not clear to me he would translate as well.

Moses was definitely the best of these guys in-era, he just doesn't translate forward super well. He'd probably still be quite good because of his relentless offensive rebounding, his strength and post play and all that. Would be more trouble trying to defend modern offenses, and he didn't have tons of range, though what he did have was fine for his time.

[70sFan]

I have no idea how you can believe that someone like Mourning was a better shooter than Moses. No, he wasn't.

[lessthanjake]

It’s worth noting that in his play-by-play era years with the Heat (i.e. 1997 through to him being out the whole 2003 season), Alonzo Mourning actually made an impressive 45.1% of his shots from 16 feet to the three-point line. And those shots actually made up a higher percent of his shot profile than the data we have for Ewing.

We have data for old Ewing, though, so I don't know that a comparison of that sort is super viable. I'd love to see tracking on that from when Ewing's back was healthy and he was still volume scoring. Ewing had 2 seasons of 20+ ppg in the PBP tracking era, and he was barely shooting from 16+ feet. In that same period of time, Mourning was a lower-volume guy, much worse at the line, and had only a single season where he was both volume scoring and healthy. And he shot worse from 10-16 as well.

So again, I have very little confidence in using a single season from Mourning to make much of a point, especially given how it was so outsized compared to basically any other year of his career, and his FT%.

I’m not talking about one season though. I’m talking about his numbers in the six straight seasons from 1997 through 2002 (though one of the years he barely played, so it’s more like five seasons). In that six-season span (337 games), Mourning shot 45.1% from 16ft-3P. That’s actually really good! Especially given the era. I think it’s suggestive of someone who could translate to shooting threes well. His mediocre FT shooting is a counterpoint to that though.

I have no idea how you can believe that someone like Mourning was a better shooter than Moses. No, he wasn't.

I don’t really think the question is who was the better in-era shooter, though. The answer to that is Moses, since he was a high-volume scorer, who could make difficult mid-range shots with people draped on him, while Mourning wasn’t a huge volume scorer. But I’m talking about translating to this era, which I think is more about a big man that can be a good spot-up three-point shooter in order to spread the floor. The fact that we have a 337-game sample of Mourning shooting 45.1% from 16ft-3P range suggests to me that he could do that. We don’t have data on Moses, but I doubt he was shooting at that kind of FG% from those ranges, not because he was a bad shooter (I actually specifically called out that that’s not the case at all), but because 45% from that range is genuinely *really* good, so in the absence of data I wouldn’t assume it for almost anyone, especially in the kinds of eras these guys played in.

Of course, this is all inferences, because none of these guys shot virtually any threes so we don’t have any direct evidence. And one could draw a different inference by looking at their FT%. I tend to think shooting from 16-3P is probably a better indicator than FT shooting though (but I’m not actually sure if that’s empirically the right assumption).

[tsherkin]

I’m not talking about one season though. I’m talking about his numbers in the six straight seasons from 1997 through 2002 (though one of the years he barely played, so it’s more like five seasons). In that six-season span (337 games), Mourning shot 45.1% from 16ft-3P. That’s actually really good! Especially given the era. I think it’s suggestive of someone who could translate to shooting threes well. His mediocre FT shooting is a counterpoint to that though.

Code: Select all

GP, PPG, FGA/g, Proportion from 16-23, FG%
97: 66, 19.8, 13.4 7.8%, 60.9%
98: 58, 19.2, 12.6, 9%, 40.9%
99: 46, 20.1, 13.8, 14%, 36.0%
00: 79, 21.7, 15.0, 18%, 47.9%
01: 13, 13.6, 10.8, 11.3%, 31.3%
02: 75, 15.7, 11.5, 15.5%, 42.5%


During that same stretch, he shot 38.2% on 21.5% of his shots (which came from 10-16 feet).

Do you see why I am skeptical? Not only was he wildly inconsistent, he was also injured almost the entire time and has only one good season on volume relevant in a comparison with Ewing.

Ewing was roast by the time the tracking came along, so I don't think it makes for an effective comparison of their shooting ability at all.

[Ollie Coraline]

Patrick Ewing is one of the greatest unsung heroes of basketball.

He deserves more notoriety both in and outside of Basketball circles, to be spoken in the same light as one of greatest like Barkley and Jerry West for his accomplishments, dedication, and playstyle. As the only opposing player you could say ever outplayed prime Michael Jordan, Patrick doesn’t get enough love or respect in today’s climate… And debatably didn’t in his time when he was robbed of 93’s MVP. Patrick carried rubbish teams to relevance in the 80s, always the best player on the team, and never wanted to join anyone else’s. He was a real menace to Chicago’s dynasty.

For today's game I have to take Ewing for his range and free-throw shooting, while also excelling at defending rim and man.

[lessthanjake]

I’m not talking about one season though. I’m talking about his numbers in the six straight seasons from 1997 through 2002 (though one of the years he barely played, so it’s more like five seasons). In that six-season span (337 games), Mourning shot 45.1% from 16ft-3P. That’s actually really good! Especially given the era. I think it’s suggestive of someone who could translate to shooting threes well. His mediocre FT shooting is a counterpoint to that though.

Code: Select all

GP, PPG, FGA/g, Proportion from 16-23, FG%
97: 66, 19.8, 13.4 7.8%, 60.9%
98: 58, 19.2, 12.6, 9%, 40.9%
99: 46, 20.1, 13.8, 14%, 36.0%
00: 79, 21.7, 15.0, 18%, 47.9%
01: 13, 13.6, 10.8, 11.3%, 31.3%
02: 75, 15.7, 11.5, 15.5%, 42.5%


During that same stretch, he shot 38.2% on 21.5% of his shots (which came from 10-16 feet).

Do you see why I am skeptical? Not only was he wildly inconsistent, he was also injured almost the entire time and has only one good season on volume relevant in a comparison with Ewing.

Ewing was roast by the time the tracking came along, so I don't think it makes for an effective comparison of their shooting ability at all.

Yeah, I suppose the 10-16 ft stuff is also a counterpoint, but I see that data as less relevant to spot-up three point shooting. I think we’re wanting to think about how these guys would do when taking generally open spot-up three-point shots. Not only are 10-16 foot shots just not as similar range-wise, but the shots from 10-16ft that these guys take are much more often shots that aren’t spot-up shots and/or are with people draped on them. Mourning’s 16-3P shots tended to be pick-and-pop type shots, which seems much more pertinent to a question of whether he could be a valuable three-point shooting big in this era.

Also, I’m not sure why you’re saying he only has one season as a volume scorer. He averaged over 20 PPG for the first four years of that time period we have data in! And that’s in a slow and low-scoring era. Overall, for the entire era, he averaged 30.5 points per 100 possessions. Roughly accounting for differences in league offensive efficiency, that’s probably roughly equivalent to KATs scoring rate.

You mentioned that he “had only a single season where he was both volume scoring and healthy” but I’m not sure why it matters that he missed a good number of games in several of these seasons. That matters when looking at data from a single season, because it means the sample is small. But I’m aggregating his data from over half a decade, so the sample is over 337 games! I don’t see reason to discount most of those 337 games because they happened to come in seasons where he missed time. (That said, if the point is that he wouldn’t be great in today’s game because he wouldn’t play much, then that’s definitely a valid point! I just don’t think him missing a lot of time is important for purposes of considering whether he’d be able to shoot threes in this era).

[tsherkin]

Yeah, I suppose the 10-16 ft stuff is also a counterpoint, but I see that data as less relevant to spot-up three point shooting. I think we’re wanting to think about how these guys would do when taking generally open spot-up three-point shots. Not only are 10-16 foot shots just not as similar range-wise, but the shots from 10-16ft that these guys take are much more often shots that aren’t spot-up shots and/or are with people draped on them. Mourning’s 16-3P shots tended to be pick-and-pop type shots, which seems much more pertinent to a question of whether he could be a valuable three-point shooting big in this era.

It's all salient to his ability as a shooter, though.

Also, I’m not sure why you’re saying he only has one season as a volume scorer. He averaged over 20 PPG for the first four years of that time period we have data in! And that’s in a slow and low-scoring era. Overall, for the entire era, he averaged 30.5 points per 100 possessions. Roughly accounting for differences in league offensive efficiency, that’s probably roughly equivalent to KATs scoring rate.

It matters by volume of shots and what have you relative to Ewing in the same era. Low volume, so even the proportion of shots he takes from the range we're discussing ends up producing a pretty small volume of actual FGA, and that's on top of his limited games played.

You mentioned that he “had only a single season where he was both volume scoring and healthy” but I’m not sure why it matters that he missed a good number of games in several of these seasons.

Less than full seasons, small volume of FGA in relevant range... weak sample. Heavily inconsistent from year to year...

But I’m aggregating his data from over half a decade, so the sample is over 337 games!

But it isn't. It's mostly the 99-00 season, which was kind of my point. Unless you want to look at his sample in 02 and 97.

In 97, it was a shade over 1 FGA/g over 66 games. In 02, it was about 1.8 FGA/g over 75 games (and at a lower percentage than you quoted).

In the other years, if you refer back to the block I quoted, he shot 36% or worse in two years and shot 40.9% over 58 games on 9% of his shooting volume. Which is actually worse than Ewing from 97 forward in his career.

You're building this reputation of significant percentage primarily based off of a single season by volume, for a guy who was fairly inconsistent with the shot in the given period.

[tsherkin]

Patrick doesn’t get enough love or respect in today’s climate

I don't think that's very accurate. His defense gets discussed often.

… And debatably didn’t in his time when he was robbed of 93’s MVP.

Mmm, that's hyperbolic. Barkley, Olajuwon and Jordan all had excellent arguments over Ewing. He had a great season, but MVP was a rough run that year.

What you WANTED to go with is how he was probably robbed of a DPOY. He had as many first place votes as.... John Starks? That's wild. Definitely didn't get enough love for captaining the first of consecutive -8 (or better) defenses. It's offensive that some shmuck voted for Starks at all, let alone in first place. Did they give his mother a vote that year? Sheesh.

[One_and_Done]

I wouldn't want to build around any of them, but Ewing is the least bad.

[lessthanjake]

Yeah, I suppose the 10-16 ft stuff is also a counterpoint, but I see that data as less relevant to spot-up three point shooting. I think we’re wanting to think about how these guys would do when taking generally open spot-up three-point shots. Not only are 10-16 foot shots just not as similar range-wise, but the shots from 10-16ft that these guys take are much more often shots that aren’t spot-up shots and/or are with people draped on them. Mourning’s 16-3P shots tended to be pick-and-pop type shots, which seems much more pertinent to a question of whether he could be a valuable three-point shooting big in this era.

It's all salient to his ability as a shooter, though.

Also, I’m not sure why you’re saying he only has one season as a volume scorer. He averaged over 20 PPG for the first four years of that time period we have data in! And that’s in a slow and low-scoring era. Overall, for the entire era, he averaged 30.5 points per 100 possessions. Roughly accounting for differences in league offensive efficiency, that’s probably roughly equivalent to KATs scoring rate.

It matters by volume of shots and what have you relative to Ewing in the same era. Low volume, so even the proportion of shots he takes from the range we're discussing ends up producing a pretty small volume of actual FGA, and that's on top of his limited games played.

You mentioned that he “had only a single season where he was both volume scoring and healthy” but I’m not sure why it matters that he missed a good number of games in several of these seasons.

Less than full seasons, small volume of FGA in relevant range... weak sample. Heavily inconsistent from year to year...

We can do some back-of-the-napkin math based on the BBREF numbers and see that the data I’m referring to includes upwards of 600 shots from 16ft-3P. That’s not an enormous sample, but it’s definitely not tiny either. It’s small enough that we shouldn’t have absolutely confidence in that 45% number, but we can probably be sure that his true ability on those shots was pretty close to that one way or the other.

But I’m aggregating his data from over half a decade, so the sample is over 337 games!

But it isn't. It's mostly the 99-00 season, which was kind of my point. Unless you want to look at his sample in 02 and 97.

I’m confused. How can you say “it isn’t” a sample of 337 games? That’s literally the sample I’m using. It’s not “mostly the 1999-2000 season.” That’s less than a quarter of the games, and more like a third of the 16ft-3P shots. And regardless of when those shots occurred, we are talking about 337 games worth of shots. There’s no reason to talk about this as if I’m just reporting out data from one season of a low-volume shooter. He may not have shot these shots at high volume, but it wasn’t super low either and I’m reporting the data from 337 games! As I said, this ends up involving almost 600 shots, most of which are *not* from the season you’re saying the data is “mostly” from.

In the other years, if you refer back to the block I quoted, he shot 36% or worse in two years and shot 40.9% over 58 games on 9% of his shooting volume. Which is actually worse than Ewing from 97 forward in his career.

You're building this reputation of significant percentage primarily based off of a single season by volume, for a guy who was fairly inconsistent with the shot in the given period.

Again, I just don’t understand this point. Obviously if you take a larger sample and cut it up into smaller pieces, you will be able to identify time periods where the player did a lot better or a lot worse than the overall average. That’s why we take an average over a larger sample! The fact that the average of the larger sample is as high as it is because of smaller pieces that are the best is always true and to argue that that invalidates the larger sample is basically just to advocate for cherry picking the lesser data points, just as the opposite would be true if I’d advocated for taking out the worst data points.

That said, one thing I will note is that he only made like 37% of these shots in the playoffs in those years. Granted, playoffs are tougher (and the Heat played incredibly good defenses almost every series), so we’d expect the FG% on shots to be lower, but if we added those shots to the mix, we increase the sample at least a little and it’s more like 44.1% overall. Still good though, especially when we’re including playoff data!

[doogie_hauser]

Moses for My money.

[doogie_hauser]

Ewing was the best defender of the bunch and had the most range. He had the best chance to translate into today's game, particularly in his younger, pre-injury self.

Unfortunately he choked too many times when it mattered most aka the playoffs

[tsherkin]

Again, I just don’t understand this point. Obviously if you take a larger sample and cut it up into smaller pieces, you will be able to identify time periods where the player did a lot better or a lot worse than the overall average. That’s why we take an average over a larger sample! The fact that the average of the larger sample is as high as it is because of smaller pieces that are the best is always true and to argue that that invalidates the larger sample is basically just to advocate for cherry picking the lesser data points, just as the opposite would be true if I’d advocated for taking out the worst data points.

You're trying to paint a picture of him as a 44%+ shooter. There are two seasons in which that was the case. There are an equal number of seasons where he shot 36% or worse. And in the on season in 97 (where the tracking data is explicitly unreliable), he shot 60% in an abbreviated season, which isn't representative at all.

The percentage you're quoting, and the sample, aren't really reliable indicators of his shooting ability.

If the root argument is that he's potentially capable of learning to shoot ala Brook Lopez / Al Horford / Sheed, sure, but in this comparison with Ewing, there are so many issues with what you're presenting as to make it a troublesome sample.

[Tim_Hardawayy]

Just a quick comment on Zo’s shooting as someone who has watched him extensively, both live as a member of the Heat in his prime, and old Charlotte footage. Prior to joining the Heat, Zo had pretty good shooting form and was developing an outside shot. This is shown in the numbers at the line, and the fact he was taking a 3 every other game and shooting over 30% his last year in Charlotte (although it can be argued the 3’s were only due to the shortened line). I can envision a different trajectory where he emphasizes those parts of his game more and continues to improve.

However, upon joining the Heat, he massively bulked up especially in his upper body, and his shooting form suffered greatly for it, again free throws help to illustrate this. He didn’t adjust to his size really until his last healthy season in Miami, where his free throws finally got back above 70% and his shooting in general also improved. I think it’s an interesting thought experiment, if he had stopped bulking by Charlotte and modeled his game more like todays players do.

That being said, Pat was still a really good shooter for his size as well. I just think Zo derailed what he could have been in that area due to era, and trying to compete with Ewing/Robinson/Shaq/Mutombo etc, to say nothing of less talented but still giants like Smits/Muresan.

As for the topic, I actually like Zo the most defensively because switching and being able to show at the 3-point line is so important now, but he was always a mediocre passer and bit of a black hole on offense, so even in an alternate timeline where he doesn’t bulk up so much and becomes a better shooter, I’d still take Ewing over him (hard to comment on Moses as I never really watched him).