RealGM Top 100 List #21

[DQuinn1575]

Right this gets in to some of what I'm talking about. It's nothing like a given that we should give Pettit extra credit in his scoring numbers because he played a half century ago. I personally am one over by Pettit on this front when I way in all the pros and cons, but the fact that I have to think about it before I give Pettit and edge basically anywhere over Ewing makes it tough to side with Pettit overall.

Pettit's career TS% is .511
That would rank him 121 out of 140 in Ewing's era

http://bkref.com/tiny/Slls5


You have to decide if you want/need to adjust -

Not really sure why you're telling me this as I'm clearly not talking about "if" but "how". Pettit loses unless your means of adjustment helps him enough, and your means of adjustment should be more than just subtracting league averages.

You said

It's nothing like a given that we should give Pettit extra credit in his scoring numbers

I struggle with how much, as I think most of us do.

[Owly]

That really depends on the context of how good Pettit's competition was. If he played in a lesser league of talent, his worse TS% than Ewing would look better comparatively.

Put Ewing in the 60s (as his game translates quite well back then) and he'd dominate relative to league average on both sides of the ball imo.

Put Patrick Ewing in the 60's and there's a chance he's a (better?) version of Bill McGill. A superb per-minute player who already had knee issues throughout college (don't know a lot about this but Ewing was wearing big kneepads in HS, so just like McGill the issues predate college) and (too) soon drops completely off the radar.

Issues with time machine arguments aside (and assuming Ewing does okay academically etc in that racial climate) there's questions whether, with his body, he's a guy you want playing in the 60s.

[Doctor MJ]

I see. Although I don't think it entirely fair to automatically assume a guy couldn't adapt to the new league standard (especially given what was mentioned earlier about Pettit's potential as fitting well into a stretch-four kind of role). Within the short context of Pettit's career, as integration was just getting rolling and stylistic changes were occurring (the big changes in basketball between the early 50's and the mid-60's---which Pettit's career essentially spans, and which have been discussed in other locations on the PC board), we seem to see an indication that Pettit "rolls with it". We see the avg league shooting efficiency of his first few years rise around 3% higher by his last few years.....and we see Pettit's individual efficiency rise ~3% along with it.

idk, I'm just a touch uncomfortable with too much speculation. Comparing Ewing to Mikan in this way makes Mikan look like hot dog-s*** offensively by comparison. But quite obv that's not the case.

What I'm advocating for is not assumptions either way, but a recognition of the need for nuance.

You say you're uncomfortable with too much speculation, but did you treat, say, Jerry West's efficiency the same way you're advocating we do so with Pettit. West was 9.3% above league norms in 1965. Did you evaluate him under the assumption that he'd be able to volume score a 9.3% above league norms today? Pretty sure basically no one does that even those who think they are using the rules you lay out. People just don't take things that far.

And for good reason given that West wasn't able to keep raising his TS% to go along with the league.

I give Pettit praise for continuing to improve here, but he played in an era where the most efficient volume scorers were still quite a bit more efficient than he was. I look at that and don't see any wiggle room to call him someone who can score with truly awesome efficiency. He was a great player though. Pretty smart if not world class on that front, and he was a whirlwind of energy which would help him as he went up against superior athletes.

[90sAllDecade]

That really depends on the context of how good Pettit's competition was. If he played in a lesser league of talent, his worse TS% than Ewing would look better comparatively.

Put Ewing in the 60s (as his game translates quite well back then) and he'd dominate relative to league average on both sides of the ball imo.

Put Patrick Ewing in the 60's and there's a chance he's a (better?) version of Bill McGill. A superb per-minute player who already had knee issues throughout college (don't know a lot about this but Ewing was wearing big kneepads in HS, so just like McGill the issues predate college) and (too) soon drops completely off the radar.

Issues with time machine arguments aside (and assuming Ewing does okay academically etc in that racial climate) there's questions whether, with his body, he's a guy you want playing in the 60s.

Bob Pettit had a ten year career and ripped a ligament in his knee ending his career in the 60s, he also had a history of injuries, both were tough and played through it. I don't think that applies that much in comparing these two as far as I know.



http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=8 ... 80,2324504

[penbeast0]

14 Pettit – penbeast0, Jim Naismith, DQuinn1575, Warspite, trex_8063, Ryoga Hibiki, Clyde Frazier, batmana, Owly,lukekarts, Chuck Texas, DannyNoonan1221, FJS, Narigo


13 Ewing – ronnymac2, ShaqAttack3234, tsherkin, SactoKingsFan, 90sAllDecade, drza, GC Pantalones, fpliii, magicmer1, colts18, DoctorMJ, lorak, ShutupandJam


It looks like spot number 21 goes to Bob Pettit

[ceiling raiser]

Olajuwon
'90 edition (after '89 season): AAA
'91: AAA
'92: AAA
'93: AAA
'94: AAA
'95: AAA
'96: AAA
'97: AAA

Robinson
'91 (after '90 season): AAA
'92: AAA
'93: AAA
'94: AAA
'95: AAA
'96: AAA
'97: AAA

From the start they were rated on
Scoring; Shooting; FT Shooting; Ball Handling; Passing; Defense; D Rebounding; Shotblocking; Playmaking; Intangiables; Overall

Playmaking is just for those who play the 1 (including combo guards so in the '90 version MJ has a rating in it because he'd played a little point the year prior); shot blocking is just for "bigs" (4s and 5s).

For the final three years theres a distinct offensive rebounding category (for forwards and centers).

In the written player summaries it's split into
Season summary/scoring; Defense/Defensive rebounding; The floor game [passing, screening, running the court, BBIQ here]; Intangiables and overall.
Except the final edition, which goes: Season summary; His Game; His Attitude; Needs to Work on; Where He's Headed and finally, In a Nutshell

Thanks a ton!

Two things:

1) Were there any other guys at that AAA level consistently defensively (at any position)?
2) Which categories are the most useful/important for your analysis?
3) A lot of those categories seem very interesting, but how do the three rate in shooting, scoring, and shotblocking (shooting is straightforward, but scoring and shotblocking are useful as well I'd think, since when viewed alongside the other categories, they might help us parse out post scoring from "scoring" and horizontal defense and from "defense")?

Anyhow though, these are an invaluable resource, and really give perspective. Would you be interested in putting together a Google Docs spreadsheet with the grades for notable players? Really would be a tremendous resource for the PC board.

Quick version answers

1) Yes to a degree, a listing of multiple time AAA defenders (through to '94 edition, all following year references are to editions so will be based on the year before)
MJ every year
Dumars '90-'93
Cheeks '90-'91
Fat Lever '90-'92 ('92 listings after the '91 season are probably a relisting of the previous years based on assuming a full health return)
Nance: '90, '93, '94
Derrick McKey: '90-'93
Derek Harper: '90-'91
Dennis Rodman: every year (note: He would slip to AA in the '96 edition, with both post Spur season reviews noting decreased effort/focus/concentration on D, with more on rebounds)
Darrell Walker: '90-'91
Mark Eaton: every year
Manute Bol: every year
Paul Pressey: '90-'91
John Salley: '90-'92
Sam Perkins: '90-'92
Buck Williams: every year
John Stockton: '91-'93
Rodney McCray: '91-'92
Dan Majerle: '91-'94
Bill Hanzlik: '91-'92
Vernon Maxwell: '91-'92
Scottie Pippen:'92-'94
Sean Elliott: '92-'93
Nate McMillan: '92-'94
Dikembe Mutombo:'93-'94
Horace Grant: '93-'94
Mookie Blaylock: '93-'94
Chris Dudley: '93-'94
Gary Payton: '93-'94

2) They aren't particularly central they're just nice for reference, particularly as here when they tell a different story to either common thinking or numbers.

3) 1=D, 2=C, 3=B, 4=A, 5=AA, 6=AAA (+ or - adds or takes 0.333333, though they initially didn't have plus and minus grades except in the overall category, not sure when this changed)
Scoring; Shooting; FT Shooting; Ball Handling; Passing; Defense; D Rebounding; Shotblocking; Intangiables; Overall and Average (mine based on the numbers)

'90 Ewing then Olajuwon
6 6 2 3 4 6 3 6 6 6 4.666666667
6 6 1 2 2 6 6 6 6 6 4.555555556

'91 Ewing, Olajuwon, Robinson
6 6 3 3 3.666666667 6 5 6 6 6 4.962962963
6 4 2 3 2.333333333 6 6 6 6 6 4.592592593
6 3 2 3.333333333 3 6 6 6 6 6 4.592592593

'92 (players will remain in the same order)
6 6 2 3 3 4 6 6 4 6 4.444444444
6 4 3 3 2.666666667 6 6 6 6 6 4.740740741
6 3 3 3.333333333 2.666666667 6 6 6 4 6 4.444444444

'93
6 6 2 2.666666667 3 4 6 6 5 6 4.518518519
6 4 3 3 2.666666667 6 6 6 2 6 4.296296296
6 3.333333333 4 3 3 6 6 6 4 5 6 4.633333333 Robinson here (for some reason) rated on all stats (inc passing, where he gets a 4 (or A) - passing is between blocking and intangiables)

'94 different order this time sorry, and just grades rather than numbers
Scoring Shooting FT Shooting Defense D Rebounding Passing Ball Handling Shotblocking Playmaking Intangiables Overall (no average this time)

Still Ewing, Olajuwon, Robinson
aaa aaa c b+ aaa b- c a aaa aaa
aaa a b aaa aaa a- b aaa aaa aaa
aa b c aaa aaa b- b aaa aaa aaa

for '93 technichally Ewing's AA (5) is next to playmaking, but it's a typo it should read intangiables.
(if anyone wants to colour or format the number tables so they're more easily readable, I'd probably confirm them ie that they've done all the categories right)

For just scoring, shooting, shot blocking the remaining years
Ewing 95: AAA; AA; AAA
Olajuwon '95: AAA; AAA; AAA
Robinson '95: AAA; A; AAA

E '96: AAA; AAA; A
O '96: AAA; AAA; AAA
R '96: AAA; AA; AAA

E '97: AAA; A+; AA
O '97: AAA; AAA; AAA
R '97: AAA; A; AAA

Some notes: I have a vague recollection that they're sometimes generous with superstars and in some areas perhaps don't withhold/ration AAA's sufficiently that it perhaps skews the top end of the curve (basically it probably doesn't give itself enough room to play with, and distinguish super-elite). But that's from memory.

Will consider some role in putting these out there (some already done), though inputting is pretty labour intensive, will pm for more info.

Thanks a ton. I'll wait for your PM, but I can see why it's difficult. If it helps, I can look and see if there are any previous editions available on eBay, and we could split the work. When I get home, I'll try and set up a preliminary spreadsheet for your review.

[Jaivl]

Not very sold on either, but I have to vote for Patrick Ewing here. He is probably the best defensive player left (although I'm not sold at all in his offense), and I really doubt Pettit did/could impact the game in that way.

Pettit remainds me of a rich man's Felipe Reyes. Which is great.

[Owly]

That really depends on the context of how good Pettit's competition was. If he played in a lesser league of talent, his worse TS% than Ewing would look better comparatively.

Put Ewing in the 60s (as his game translates quite well back then) and he'd dominate relative to league average on both sides of the ball imo.

Put Patrick Ewing in the 60's and there's a chance he's a (better?) version of Bill McGill. A superb per-minute player who already had knee issues throughout college (don't know a lot about this but Ewing was wearing big kneepads in HS, so just like McGill the issues predate college) and (too) soon drops completely off the radar.

Issues with time machine arguments aside (and assuming Ewing does okay academically etc in that racial climate) there's questions whether, with his body, he's a guy you want playing in the 60s.

Bob Pettit had a ten year career and ripped a ligament in his knee ending his career in the 60s, he also had a history of injuries, both were tough and played through it. I don't think that applies that much in comparing these two as far as I know.



http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=8 ... 80,2324504

Well it's not a issue of toughness, I'm not doubting Ewing there. It's primarily an issue with time machine arguments and secondarily, if you are going to do those, I'm saying if you've got to look at all aspects of time machine stuff. And Ewing have issues from his teens (and from early in his career theres a quote how he was

Ewing said that although he sits out much of each practice to rest and ice his knees, he was doing fine until he twisted his right knee in practice two weeks ago.

It sounds like even when he didn't have a specific injury he was icing his knees and sitting out of chunks of practice (though it could perhaps be read other ways). Given the early age for his injuries they look more of a structural issue, and Pettit being able to play through injuries and having a career ending injury only further shows that the grind on players (including rougher travel, the big minutes expected of stars and the quality of medical support) just further goes to show the issues with time machine comparisons (especially if assuming modern players can go back in time and have all the coaching advantages they did, and continue to get all the support (including medical and physio) they did.

[E-Balla]

Bill Russell
Hakeem Olajuwon
Dikembe Mutombo
David Robinson
Kevin Garnett

(not even mentioning other potentials: Tim Duncan, Dennis Rodman)

Rodman? Well anyway you cut it Ewing is high up there when it comes to defense (I have him under Deke, Russell, and Hakeem).

Ahead of DRob?

Robinson avg rs DRtg during his prime (‘90-’98): 97
Ewing avg rs DRtg during his prime (‘86-’97): 99

Robinson avg ps DRtg during his prime: 100
Ewing avg ps DRtg during his prime: 101

Robinson career rs DRtg: 96
Ewing Career rs DRtg: 99

Robinson career ps DRtg: 96
Ewing career ps DRtg: 100

Robinson’s single-season best rs DRtg: 88
Ewing’s single-season best rs DRtg: 91

Robinson’s single-season best ps DRtg: 84
Ewing’s single-season best ps DRtg: 94

All of which means nothing in this comparison since DRTG means next to nothing.

wrt rim-protecting….
Robinson prime rs Per 100 BLK: 4.7
Ewing prime rs Per 100 BLK: 3.8

Robinson prime ps Per 100 BLK: 4.2
Ewing prime ps Per 100 BLK: 3.4

Robinson career rs Per 100 BLK: 4.4
Ewing career rs Per 100 BLK: 3.6

Robinson career ps Per 100 BLK: 3.9
Ewing career ps Per 100 BLK: 3.2

Again Robinson might've made more plays but it doesn't make him better. I might take Zo under them defensively and he was a better rim protector than both of them.

Robinson DRAPM: ‘98--+3.64, ‘99--+5.18, ‘00--+4.53
Ewing DRAPM: ‘98--+4.04, ‘99--+3.66, ‘00--+3.42
*don’t know if it’s fair to look beyond ‘00, as Ewing’s pretty far declined by that time.

In 98 (the last season either of these guys didn't look washed up - Robinson putting up 22/11, Pat putting up 21/10) Pat was higher by DRAPM and overall they were about even (4.37 for Robinson and 4.36 for Pat). Using DRAPM from washed up Pat when he couldn't even shoot over 46% from the field isn't very accurate especially when Robinson became a role player and was used in favorable lineups.

Basically the last season of either of their primes we have RAPM data for and it says Pat is better defensively and Robinson is better offensively and overall they're basically even. Not really helping the Robinson > Pat argument IMO.

Media narrative…..
Clearly heavily favors Robinson: Robinson’s prime pretty much entirely overlaps with Ewing’s. From the point Robinson came into the league, Ewing only received one more All-D honor (2nd team in ‘92: Robinson was the 1st team center). Meanwhile, Robinson received four 1st Team honors, four 2nd Team honors, and one DPoY.

True. This is the argument for Robinson IMO but its pretty shallow. Robinson had gaudier numbers and better teams and we've seen that helps a ton. Noah got first team all D at center mainly because he had high assist numbers. I will say if someone feels this way I have no issue with that because I'm the one going against the norm but I don't see the argument here.

There’s literally nothing above that indicates a defensive superiority for Ewing. Across the board it ranges from semi-neutral to clearly favoring Robinson. And fwiw, Robinson led a #1-rated defense two years in a row in the pre-Duncan era (‘91 and ‘92), with the following supporting cast in ‘91 : Sean Elliott, Rod Strickland, Willie Anderson, Terry Cummings, Paul Pressey (the one other noteworthy defender, but this was Pressey at 32 years old playing a reduced role off the bench). ‘92: Elliott, Strickland, Anderson, Cummings, and Antoine Carr were the primary help.

Really the only thing I'm not accounting for is the eye-test (which, for me, kinda favors Robinson, too).
idk…...agree to disagree, I guess.

Yeah. I'm sure you've put a lot of thought into this as I have and I have Pat a little ahead of Robinson. Young Robinson was amazing defensively but I don't think even with that great supporting cast and coaching best defense of the modern era should be a resonable expectation of someone that's not GOAT level (the 80s Bucks might be the only top 10 defense not anchored by a GOAT level defender).

[DQuinn1575]

Thanks a ton!

Two things:

1) Were there any other guys at that AAA level consistently defensively (at any position)?
2) Which categories are the most useful/important for your analysis?
3) A lot of those categories seem very interesting, but how do the three rate in shooting, scoring, and shotblocking (shooting is straightforward, but scoring and shotblocking are useful as well I'd think, since when viewed alongside the other categories, they might help us parse out post scoring from "scoring" and horizontal defense and from "defense")?

Anyhow though, these are an invaluable resource, and really give perspective. Would you be interested in putting together a Google Docs spreadsheet with the grades for notable players? Really would be a tremendous resource for the PC board.

Quick version answers

1) Yes to a degree, a listing of multiple time AAA defenders (through to '94 edition, all following year references are to editions so will be based on the year before)
MJ every year
Dumars '90-'93
Cheeks '90-'91
Fat Lever '90-'92 ('92 listings after the '91 season are probably a relisting of the previous years based on assuming a full health return)
Nance: '90, '93, '94
Derrick McKey: '90-'93
Derek Harper: '90-'91
Dennis Rodman: every year (note: He would slip to AA in the '96 edition, with both post Spur season reviews noting decreased effort/focus/concentration on D, with more on rebounds)
Darrell Walker: '90-'91
Mark Eaton: every year
Manute Bol: every year
Paul Pressey: '90-'91
John Salley: '90-'92
Sam Perkins: '90-'92
Buck Williams: every year
John Stockton: '91-'93
Rodney McCray: '91-'92
Dan Majerle: '91-'94
Bill Hanzlik: '91-'92
Vernon Maxwell: '91-'92
Scottie Pippen:'92-'94
Sean Elliott: '92-'93
Nate McMillan: '92-'94
Dikembe Mutombo:'93-'94
Horace Grant: '93-'94
Mookie Blaylock: '93-'94
Chris Dudley: '93-'94
Gary Payton: '93-'94

2) They aren't particularly central they're just nice for reference, particularly as here when they tell a different story to either common thinking or numbers.

3) 1=D, 2=C, 3=B, 4=A, 5=AA, 6=AAA (+ or - adds or takes 0.333333, though they initially didn't have plus and minus grades except in the overall category, not sure when this changed)
Scoring; Shooting; FT Shooting; Ball Handling; Passing; Defense; D Rebounding; Shotblocking; Intangiables; Overall and Average (mine based on the numbers)

'90 Ewing then Olajuwon
6 6 2 3 4 6 3 6 6 6 4.666666667
6 6 1 2 2 6 6 6 6 6 4.555555556

'91 Ewing, Olajuwon, Robinson
6 6 3 3 3.666666667 6 5 6 6 6 4.962962963
6 4 2 3 2.333333333 6 6 6 6 6 4.592592593
6 3 2 3.333333333 3 6 6 6 6 6 4.592592593

'92 (players will remain in the same order)
6 6 2 3 3 4 6 6 4 6 4.444444444
6 4 3 3 2.666666667 6 6 6 6 6 4.740740741
6 3 3 3.333333333 2.666666667 6 6 6 4 6 4.444444444

'93
6 6 2 2.666666667 3 4 6 6 5 6 4.518518519
6 4 3 3 2.666666667 6 6 6 2 6 4.296296296
6 3.333333333 4 3 3 6 6 6 4 5 6 4.633333333 Robinson here (for some reason) rated on all stats (inc passing, where he gets a 4 (or A) - passing is between blocking and intangiables)

'94 different order this time sorry, and just grades rather than numbers
Scoring Shooting FT Shooting Defense D Rebounding Passing Ball Handling Shotblocking Playmaking Intangiables Overall (no average this time)

Still Ewing, Olajuwon, Robinson
aaa aaa c b+ aaa b- c a aaa aaa
aaa a b aaa aaa a- b aaa aaa aaa
aa b c aaa aaa b- b aaa aaa aaa

for '93 technichally Ewing's AA (5) is next to playmaking, but it's a typo it should read intangiables.
(if anyone wants to colour or format the number tables so they're more easily readable, I'd probably confirm them ie that they've done all the categories right)

For just scoring, shooting, shot blocking the remaining years
Ewing 95: AAA; AA; AAA
Olajuwon '95: AAA; AAA; AAA
Robinson '95: AAA; A; AAA

E '96: AAA; AAA; A
O '96: AAA; AAA; AAA
R '96: AAA; AA; AAA

E '97: AAA; A+; AA
O '97: AAA; AAA; AAA
R '97: AAA; A; AAA

Some notes: I have a vague recollection that they're sometimes generous with superstars and in some areas perhaps don't withhold/ration AAA's sufficiently that it perhaps skews the top end of the curve (basically it probably doesn't give itself enough room to play with, and distinguish super-elite). But that's from memory.

Will consider some role in putting these out there (some already done), though inputting is pretty labour intensive, will pm for more info.

Thanks a ton. I'll wait for your PM, but I can see why it's difficult. If it helps, I can look and see if there are any previous editions available on eBay, and we could split the work. When I get home, I'll try and set up a preliminary spreadsheet for your review.

If you're interested in a third set of hands, I would be more than willing to help.

[trex_8063]

Vote Patrick Ewing

Ewing played in a tougher era with much more black players than Pettit. Ewing's era wasn't filled with awful players in the bottom half of the roster.

When Pettit entered the league, the league had no black players. That is a black mark on his game because he wasn't facing the best athletes in the world.

Am I the only one who wants to suggest exercising a bit of caution in so indiscriminately playing the race card? I mean, I get what you're trying to say, but the "white guys are never good athletes and black guys always are" subtext is bit........well...not entirely accurate, and perhaps not entirely appropriate??? And at any rate I'd also note that better athlete does not (necessarily) a better basketball player make. And I'd also maybe point out that in the last decade the league's MVP was three times a white guy.

Further, while you are indeed correct that the league wasn't fully integrated even by the end of his career, it was at least well on it's way; and you are mistaken that there were no black players in the league when he came in:

Nathaniel Clifton and Chuck Cooper both came into the league in 1950 and were thus already present when Pettit arrived in 1954 (Cooper was actually Pettit's teammate during Bob's rookie season).
More obv would arrive during Pettit's career:
Maurice Stokes in 1955.
Bill Russell and Willie Naulls in 1956.
Sam Jones in 1957.
Wayne Embry and K.C. Jones in 1958.
Wilt Chamberlain and Johnny Green in 1959.
Tom Sanders, Oscar Robertson, Bob Boozer, and Lenny Wilkens (half black) in 1960.
Walt Bellamy in 1961.
Zelmo Beaty and Wayne Hightower in 1962.
Nate Thurmond and Honeycomb (Gus Johnson) in 1963.
Willis Reed, Wali Jones, and Em Bryant in 1964.

These are mostly just the ones I can think of off the top of my head. I'm sure there are at least a small handful I've not mentioned. So Pettit would have been playing with or against some black players on a fairly regular basis, at least by the mid-point of his career.

[trex_8063]

Rodman? Well anyway you cut it Ewing is high up there when it comes to defense (I have him under Deke, Russell, and Hakeem).

Ahead of DRob?

Robinson avg rs DRtg during his prime (‘90-’98): 97
Ewing avg rs DRtg during his prime (‘86-’97): 99

Robinson avg ps DRtg during his prime: 100
Ewing avg ps DRtg during his prime: 101

Robinson career rs DRtg: 96
Ewing Career rs DRtg: 99

Robinson career ps DRtg: 96
Ewing career ps DRtg: 100

Robinson’s single-season best rs DRtg: 88
Ewing’s single-season best rs DRtg: 91

Robinson’s single-season best ps DRtg: 84
Ewing’s single-season best ps DRtg: 94

All of which means nothing in this comparison since DRTG means next to nothing.

All I can say is that that's a very convenient stance for you in making the case for Ewing. But we're drawing sweeping conclusions from the DRAPM and combined RAPM data from a single season?

Also, how on earth did Joakim Noah tallying up lots of assists help him win All-DEFENSIVE honors?? All-NBA 1st Team, sure, but defensive?

[E-Balla]

Ahead of DRob?

Robinson avg rs DRtg during his prime (‘90-’98): 97
Ewing avg rs DRtg during his prime (‘86-’97): 99

Robinson avg ps DRtg during his prime: 100
Ewing avg ps DRtg during his prime: 101

Robinson career rs DRtg: 96
Ewing Career rs DRtg: 99

Robinson career ps DRtg: 96
Ewing career ps DRtg: 100

Robinson’s single-season best rs DRtg: 88
Ewing’s single-season best rs DRtg: 91

Robinson’s single-season best ps DRtg: 84
Ewing’s single-season best ps DRtg: 94

All of which means nothing in this comparison since DRTG means next to nothing.

All I can say is that that's a very convenient stance for you in making the case for Ewing. But we're drawing sweeping conclusions from the DRAPM and combined RAPM data from a single season?

Also, how on earth did Joakim Noah tallying up lots of assists help him win All-DEFENSIVE honors?? All-NBA 1st Team, sure, but defensive?

Do you know how DRTG is calculated? If you do why on earth would you ever use it? Also I'm not drawing sweeping conclusions off RAPM but since you brought it up I'd like to point out that it doesn't really support your stance much since the only season we have for both of them when they aren't washed up Ewing is better defensively and they're even overall.

And Noah got a ton of assists on a team that was winning and people needed a place to put the praise. That raised the media opinion of him a ton and next thing you know the man was leading DPOY talks even though he probably wasn't better than Taj.

[90sAllDecade]

Put Patrick Ewing in the 60's and there's a chance he's a (better?) version of Bill McGill. A superb per-minute player who already had knee issues throughout college (don't know a lot about this but Ewing was wearing big kneepads in HS, so just like McGill the issues predate college) and (too) soon drops completely off the radar.

Issues with time machine arguments aside (and assuming Ewing does okay academically etc in that racial climate) there's questions whether, with his body, he's a guy you want playing in the 60s.

Bob Pettit had a ten year career and ripped a ligament in his knee ending his career in the 60s, he also had a history of injuries, both were tough and played through it. I don't think that applies that much in comparing these two as far as I know.



http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=8 ... 80,2324504

Well it's not a issue of toughness, I'm not doubting Ewing there. It's primarily an issue with time machine arguments and secondarily, if you are going to do those, I'm saying if you've got to look at all aspects of time machine stuff. And Ewing have issues from his teens (and from early in his career theres a quote how he was

Ewing said that although he sits out much of each practice to rest and ice his knees, he was doing fine until he twisted his right knee in practice two weeks ago.

It sounds like even when he didn't have a specific injury he was icing his knees and sitting out of chunks of practice (though it could perhaps be read other ways). Given the early age for his injuries they look more of a structural issue, and Pettit being able to play through injuries and having a career ending injury only further shows that the grind on players (including rougher travel, the big minutes expected of stars and the quality of medical support) just further goes to show the issues with time machine comparisons (especially if assuming modern players can go back in time and have all the coaching advantages they did, and continue to get all the support (including medical and physio) they did.

Fair enough, it was an interesting point and allowed me to research a bit. Honestly, one thing I liked about Pettit was his efficiency improved over time until his injury. I think he might translate as perhaps one of the best with modern technology, training (as he was smart to develop himself before others) and medical treatment.

I just think Ewing would gut it out back then and his mentality and frame fit with that era, unless I'm wrong they likely iced their knees as well. Surgery is a different question though, as I don't know what medical techniques were available back then.

And as far as coaching, Pettit had two HOF coaches in Red Holzman and Alex Hannum (who he finally won the championship with), so it can go both ways with him as well.