RealGM 2023 Top 100 Project - #25 (Giannis Antetokounmpo)

[trex_8063]

Spoiler:

I think it’s almost time to vote for Gilmore.

Unlike fellow MVP and 11 time-star Pettit, Gilmore led his team to a title in a much tougher league. The ABA in 1975 was probably stronger than the NBA. Gilmore has a skill set that would absolutely translate today. When I look at Gilmore, I see a guy who physically resembles a stronger, slightly shorter version of Kareem. His huge arms and relative fluidity would make him an excellent rim-roller, who in a pinch could score in other ways in and around the rim. His short jump shots and hook look surprisingly clean, even if I don’t know how often they went in.

It’s easy to look on youtube and find extensive footage of Artis dunking on Kareem and playing great against the showtime Lakers, on just horrible Chicago teams that clearly didn’t put anything much around him. There’s even a game of the NBA stars against the ABA stars, where Gilmore matches up very well physically with 1972 Wilt. If we were in the top 10 that would mean nothing, but we’re now nominating people who will be 30 or higher all-time.

Statistically, Gilmore compares favourably to say Moses, who is already in.

Moses per 100 from 1979-84: 31.6/18.2/2, 2 blks, 115 Ortg/103 Drtg, 578 TS%
Gilmore per 100 from 1975-79: 27.5/17.1/3.4, 3 blks, 113 Ortg/97 Drtg, 601 TS%

Yeh, Moses scores a bit more, because of a play style he wouldn’t be able to replicate today. Otherwise though I’m not seeing much difference between him and Gilmore, except Gilmore’s style would be even more valuable today, and his team mates and situation was in general far worse than Moses. Moses doesn’t even really have Gilmore beat on longevity. Gilmore played 1329 games and was an all-star still at age 36. Moses last all-star season was at age 33, and if we take away his completely irrelevant final 3 seasons he drops from 1455 games down to 1372 games, though I guess Gilmore’s last few seasons weren’t terribly relevant either. Moses has maybe more longevity, depending on how you look at it, because he started earlier. But it’s not enough to matter.

I am more impressed by Gilmore than I am with guys like Ewing or Stockton, the latter wasn’t even a real star. The former seems to be perpetually overrated. Gilmore wishes he had all the help Ewing did.

This simply isn't true. Prime Ewing never had a teammate as good as Dan Issel.

I hope I can count on your support when I start lobbying for Dan Issel in later stages .

And even if people disagree about Issel, Ewing certainly never had a teammate as good as George Gervin. He didn't have many teammates better than Norm Van Lier either.

[One_and_Done]

Artis was 33 by the time he teamed up with a 30 year old Gervin. Neither was at their best anymore, yet their first season together they won 53 games and made the WCF and lost in 6 games to the Showtime Lakers. Were they supposed to beat the Showtime Lakers? Both Gervin and Gilmore regressed the next year; quite understandably. It was their 13th & 12th seasons.

Even if we were to concede Issel was better than any of Ewing's team mates, which I'm dubious about, on the whole Ewing tended to have way more help. Some of those Knicks rosters were stacked, and they weren't winning 68 games or a title either. In fairness the league was generally stronger, but I'm still more impressed with Gilmore's impact.

[HeartBreakKid]

Kentucky were among the most talented team in the ABA, if not the most talented in a league that was relatively shallow. Sounds like a pretty good advantage to me.

It's not like Gilmore played his entire career on Chicago.

[One_and_Done]

They won the title, and averaged 56+ wins in Gilmore's time there. Looking at the teams they lost to I think Gilmore did fine. The Dr J Nets twice, the Pacers in 7, the Rick Barry Nets as a 22 yr old. Looks reasonable to me. Gilmore certainly seems to have played like a boss.

[Colbinii]

VOTE: Charles Barkley
Alternate: James Harden

Again......Barkley, I am supporting for similar reasons to why I voted for Durant previously: I've the most confidence in his combined box-production/efficiency profile, impact profile, longevity, and career accomplishment (in a tough era) of those players listed (made a little easier now that Moses is off the table [and Stockton is not yet on the table]). Giannis and Jokic simply lack the full career value for me yet (though super-close: I would say ONE prime season away for both).
Wade is a somewhat intriguing option for alternate, but he suffers a pinch from similar concerns.

However Harden, at this point, is also intriguing for me. Honestly, I think his player type [vaguely: offensive power-house, weak defensively], effective longevity, career accomplishment and accolades all closely parallel that of Charles Barkley. I consequently feel that wherever you have Barkley on your list, Harden should not be far away. Their respective careers just have too much in common, imo.

Nomination: John Stockton
Alt Nom: Patrick Ewing

Your post [Harden + Barkley] really made me think of how similar they are. Offensice Dynamo's who abused [positive] their rule sets to a degree few, if any, in their era did with their back-down and step-back. All their value comes from offense [elite scoring and rebounding and elite scoring and playmaking]. Its really interesting to see two polarizing players who played the game so different yet were so similar.

[penbeast0]

This simply isn't true. Prime Ewing never had a teammate as good as Dan Issel.

And yet, Kentucky only won a ring when they turned Dan Issel into an off ball shooter and turned the pivot scoring over to Artis in 75. Issel averaged 26.2 ppg in his 5 years in Kentucky; in their championship year he averaged only 17.7 while playing 34.5 mpg (his lowest there admittedly) and all 83 games. In the playoffs he averaged 18.5 v. his normal 24.5 again with full health (and 38.5 minutes). Dan Issel averaging under 20 ppg, not playing in the pivot, with a career low TS% of .507 and his normal unimpressive defense is not a terribly good player.

I'd much rather have a good Oakley year as my PF if my center is going to be the main scorer. In a vacuum, Issel may be a better player (depending on how you rate and value defense), but next to a great scoring center, I don't think he is. And, yes, I think Ewing had a better career than Artis though the numbers may be in Artis's favor.

[penbeast0]

Artis was 33 by the time he teamed up with a 30 year old Gervin. Neither was at their best anymore, yet their first season together they won 53 games and made the WCF and lost in 6 games to the Showtime Lakers. Were they supposed to beat the Showtime Lakers? Both Gervin and Gilmore regressed the next year; quite understandably. It was their 13th & 12th seasons.

Even if we were to concede Issel was better than any of Ewing's team mates, which I'm dubious about, on the whole Ewing tended to have way more help. Some of those Knicks rosters were stacked, and they weren't winning 68 games or a title either. In fairness the league was generally stronger, but I'm still more impressed with Gilmore's impact.

WAY more help? Now that I'm not willing to concede that quickly. I'd take Dampier over Mark Jackson and the Issel/Oakley comp is a least not a blowout. Also, while there were good teams in the ABA, the bottom end teams (mainly the Squires) were truly abysmal by 75 and 76. The NBA didn't bottom out quite as badly and certainly had better competition at top at the C position during the Ewing years compared to the ABA during the Gilmore years.

[One_and_Done]

Ewing tended to have a heck of alot more than Mark Jackson & Oakley.

[Samurai]

They won the title, and averaged 56+ wins in Gilmore's time there. Looking at the teams they lost to I think Gilmore did fine. The Dr J Nets twice, the Pacers in 7, the Rick Barry Nets as a 22 yr old. Looks reasonable to me. Gilmore certainly seems to have played like a boss.

Kentucky was a very strong team in the ABA; Gilmore certainly had more help than just Issel. Dampier was the ABA's premier long-range shooter, leading the league in 3-point % in 74 and finished in the top 5 every year Gilmore was there. He was also a 7-time All Star. Mike Gale was a defensive hound; All Defensive first team in both 73 and 74. Rick Mount never lived up to his college hype as a pro but he had his best season in 74 averaging almost 15 ppg. Gilmore had some very solid players around him besides just Issel.

[One_and_Done]

The Colonels won an average of 56+ games over Gilmore’s first 5 years there, including a 24 win improvement on his arrival. Then the team was folded. Ewing, for all his hype, led the Knicks to an average of 36 wins over his first 5 years in NY, and 39 wins over his first 7 years there. His impact doesn’t look the same at all. It was only after the Knicks made significant talent upgrades at many positions that the Knicks suddenly looked good. Then when Ewing aged, and even was missing, the late 90s Knicks thrived. There’s even a phenomena called the “Ewing effect”, to describe when teams play better without their star. I don’t mean to suggest Ewing was bad or anything, he was very good. I am not seeing the same impact as Gilmore though.

I also feel like Ewing would be a worse player than Gilmore today. His stamina appears poor, and his mobility as he aged got worse and worse. He’d be borderline unplayable for the latter half of his career against today’s pick and roll heavy offences in the playoffs. Once his knees were gone, that would be it. He was already visibly exhausted playing in the mid to late 90s. I can’t imagine how he’d survive on the court today, with what modern offenses force defensive players to do. Maybe it’s just my eyes, but Gilmore seems less stiff and more fluid as a younger man. His height and length would let him function exceptionally as a roller and rim protector. Ewing wouldn’t have adapted nearly as well. To be clear, Ewing would be an all-star today. He doesn’t suck or anything. But I feel there are a lot of players ahead of him, even Dwight and Pippen seem much more impactful.

[Clyde Frazier]

Spoiler:

I think it’s almost time to vote for Gilmore.

Unlike fellow MVP and 11 time-star Pettit, Gilmore led his team to a title in a much tougher league. The ABA in 1975 was probably stronger than the NBA. Gilmore has a skill set that would absolutely translate today. When I look at Gilmore, I see a guy who physically resembles a stronger, slightly shorter version of Kareem. His huge arms and relative fluidity would make him an excellent rim-roller, who in a pinch could score in other ways in and around the rim. His short jump shots and hook look surprisingly clean, even if I don’t know how often they went in.

It’s easy to look on youtube and find extensive footage of Artis dunking on Kareem and playing great against the showtime Lakers, on just horrible Chicago teams that clearly didn’t put anything much around him. There’s even a game of the NBA stars against the ABA stars, where Gilmore matches up very well physically with 1972 Wilt. If we were in the top 10 that would mean nothing, but we’re now nominating people who will be 30 or higher all-time.

Statistically, Gilmore compares favourably to say Moses, who is already in.

Moses per 100 from 1979-84: 31.6/18.2/2, 2 blks, 115 Ortg/103 Drtg, 578 TS%
Gilmore per 100 from 1975-79: 27.5/17.1/3.4, 3 blks, 113 Ortg/97 Drtg, 601 TS%

Yeh, Moses scores a bit more, because of a play style he wouldn’t be able to replicate today. Otherwise though I’m not seeing much difference between him and Gilmore, except Gilmore’s style would be even more valuable today, and his team mates and situation was in general far worse than Moses. Moses doesn’t even really have Gilmore beat on longevity. Gilmore played 1329 games and was an all-star still at age 36. Moses last all-star season was at age 33, and if we take away his completely irrelevant final 3 seasons he drops from 1455 games down to 1372 games, though I guess Gilmore’s last few seasons weren’t terribly relevant either. Moses has maybe more longevity, depending on how you look at it, because he started earlier. But it’s not enough to matter.

I am more impressed by Gilmore than I am with guys like Ewing or Stockton, the latter wasn’t even a real star. The former seems to be perpetually overrated. Gilmore wishes he had all the help Ewing did.

This simply isn't true. Prime Ewing never had a teammate as good as Dan Issel.

I hope I can count on your support when I start lobbying for Dan Issel in later stages .

And even if people disagree about Issel, Ewing certainly never had a teammate as good as George Gervin. He didn't have many teammates better than Norm Van Lier either.

Yeah, I didn't mention the spurs years for gilmore as he was already in year 12 and i was comparing teammates to prime ewing's. Although gilmore's productivity was still solid. If we look at post-prime when ewing finally got some real scoring around him, you could still make the argument that gervin and mike mitchell were better than houston and sprewell as a duo. There's even a question of bulls reggie theus vs knicks mark jackson, but i'd say that's splitting hairs. The '89 pitino knicks were quite good and jackson was a driving force there.

[HeartBreakKid]

I think Gilmore over Ewing is a legitimate argument, but I think trying to make it seem like Gilmore never had a good team isn't the way to go. I would say Gilmore had better teammates than Ewing for at least a few years.

[Colbinii]

I think Gilmore over Ewing is a legitimate argument, but I think trying to make it seem like Gilmore never had a good team isn't the way to go. I would say Gilmore had better teammates than Ewing for at least a few years.

Remember: teammates are only as good as whatever you want them to be when you relate them to the competition.

[One_and_Done]

Ewing didn't miss alot of games; but it's notable that when he did in his later career the Knicks seemed largely unaffected. In 98 when he was 35 the Knicks were 15-11 with him and 28-28 without. Not much of a change. In 99 the team was 7-5 without him and made a finals run in his absence vs 20-18 with him.

As I noted, the Knicks were a sub 500 team over his first 7 years. That brings him to age 30.

Then look at his teams. The Knicks from 92 onwards (up until Ewing fell off) were loaded with good/great players:

92- Xman, Oak, Mason, Starks, M.Jackson, G.Wilkins
93-96 Starks, Mason, Oak, C.Smith & Doc
97 & 98- LJ, Starks, Oak, Houston

That's before Spree, Camby & KT even arrive.

[trex_8063]

Ewing tended to have a heck of alot more than Mark Jackson & Oakley.

"Tended to"? As in more often than not?
And "heck of a lot more"?

Like in '86? Supporting cast descending order of minutes: Rory Sparrow, Louis Orr, rookie Gerald Wilkins, Darrell Walker, Trent Tucker, Ken Bannister, Ernie Grunfeld, Bob Thornton.

Or '87: Gerald Wilkins, post-injury Bill Cartwright, Rory Sparrow, Gerald Henderson, rookie Kenny Walker, Trent Tucker, Louis Orr.

'88: rookie Mark Jackson, Gerald Wilkins, Kenny Walker, Sidney Green, Bill Cartwright, Johnny Newman, Trent Tucker.

'89: Mark Jackson, Charles Oakley, Gerald Wilkins, Johnny Newman, Trent Tucker, rookie Rod Strickland, Sidney Green, Kenny Walker. (we're up to his 4th season here before he even has a mediocre/avg cast).

'90: Gerald Wilkins, Mark Jackson, Johnny Newman, Charles Oakley, Trent Tucker, Kenny Walker, Rod Strickland, Eddie Lee Wilkins.

'91: Charles Oakley, Kiki Vandeweghe, Gerald Wilkins, Mo Cheeks (34 yrs old), Mark Jackson, pre-prime John Starks

'92: Mark Jackson, Xavier McDaniel, Gerald Wilkins, Charles Oakley, Anthony Mason (somewhat pre-prime), John Starks, Greg Anthony, and finally a strong head coach (Riley). This is his 7th season and probably the first that could actually be called a [slightly] above average supporting cast, on the basis of depth and good coaching. And the result was 51 wins, and took the eventual champs [all-time great team] to 7 games......if I'm not mistaken the ONLY team to ever take Jordan's Bulls to 7 games during his title years.

'93 (season #8) is the FIRST year of Ewing's career where we can legitimately argue he had a better supporting cast than anything Gilmore had (though still cannot argue it was a lot [or "heck of a lot"] more, and probably not one big enough non-Ewing talent to call it "stacked"). They won 60 games and went six with the eventual champs in the ECF.

'94: Similar cast as in '93......won 57 games (though pretty sizable +6.48 SRS), went seven in the NBA Finals and marginally outscored the champion Rockets in the series (might easily have won if John Starks doesn't go a phenomenally bad 2/18 from the field (0/11 from 3pt) in game 7).

'95: Cast declines slightly, though so has Ewing (10th season now, 32 years old). 55 wins, 2nd round.

At any rate, that's most of his career and all but a year or two of his prime (they would return to the Finals in '99, fwiw, though he was more of a major cog in an ensemble effort by that point).


I know you'll never back off of a statement once it's made, but unless we're calling guys like Gerald Wilkins, Kenny Walker, Trent Tucker "a heck of alot more", then no, he did NOT have much more than Jackson/Oakley (who, btw, are not exactly world-beaters as 2nd/3rd-best players on a team; good, but not great [it's no Pippen/Grant combo, for example]). Outside of 2-3 or three years, he REALLY didn't have anything at all noteworthy beyond Jackson/Oakley (and some early years, he was well short of even having someone as good as those two).

[HeartBreakKid]

Yeah, the Knicks most notoriously ran into the Bulls and when comparing their rosters, it's very questionable how it was even a contest. On paper the Knicks teammates are kind of peons compared to the Bulls.

The Knicks rosters had plenty of improvements to make.

[One_and_Done]

Ewing tended to have a heck of alot more than Mark Jackson & Oakley.

"Tended to"? As in more often than not?
And "heck of a lot more"?

Like in '86? Supporting cast descending order of minutes: Rory Sparrow, Louis Orr, rookie Gerald Wilkins, Darrell Walker, Trent Tucker, Ken Bannister, Ernie Grunfeld, Bob Thornton.

Or '87: Gerald Wilkins, post-injury Bill Cartwright, Rory Sparrow, Gerald Henderson, rookie Kenny Walker, Trent Tucker, Louis Orr.

'88: rookie Mark Jackson, Gerald Wilkins, Kenny Walker, Sidney Green, Bill Cartwright, Johnny Newman, Trent Tucker.

'89: Mark Jackson, Charles Oakley, Gerald Wilkins, Johnny Newman, Trent Tucker, rookie Rod Strickland, Sidney Green, Kenny Walker. (we're up to his 4th season here before he even has a mediocre/avg cast).

'90: Gerald Wilkins, Mark Jackson, Johnny Newman, Charles Oakley, Trent Tucker, Kenny Walker, Rod Strickland, Eddie Lee Wilkins.

'91: Charles Oakley, Kiki Vandeweghe, Gerald Wilkins, Mo Cheeks (34 yrs old), Mark Jackson, pre-prime John Starks

'92: Mark Jackson, Xavier McDaniel, Gerald Wilkins, Charles Oakley, Anthony Mason (somewhat pre-prime), John Starks, Greg Anthony, and finally a strong head coach (Riley). This is his 7th season and probably the first that could actually be called a [slightly] above average supporting cast, on the basis of depth and good coaching. And the result was 51 wins, and took the eventual champs [all-time great team] to 7 games......if I'm not mistaken the ONLY team to ever take Jordan's Bulls to 7 games during his title years.

'93 (season #8) is the FIRST year of Ewing's career where we can legitimately argue he had a better supporting cast than anything Gilmore had (though still cannot argue it was a lot [or "heck of a lot"] more, and probably not one big enough non-Ewing talent to call it "stacked"). They won 60 games and went six with the eventual champs in the ECF.

'94: Similar cast as in '93......won 57 games (though pretty sizable +6.48 SRS), went seven in the NBA Finals and marginally outscored the champion Rockets in the series (might easily have won if John Starks doesn't go a phenomenally bad 2/18 from the field (0/11 from 3pt) in game 7).

'95: Cast declines slightly, though so has Ewing (10th season now, 32 years old). 55 wins, 2nd round.

At any rate, that's most of his career and all but a year or two of his prime (they would return to the Finals in '99, fwiw, though he was more of a major cog in an ensemble effort by that point).


I know you'll never back off of a statement once it's made, but unless we're calling guys like Gerald Wilkins, Kenny Walker, Trent Tucker "a heck of alot more", then no, he did NOT have much more than Jackson/Oakley (who, btw, are not exactly world-beaters as 2nd/3rd-best players on a team; good, but not great [it's no Pippen/Grant combo, for example]). Outside of 2-3 or three years, he REALLY didn't have anything at all noteworthy beyond Jackson/Oakley (and some early years, he was well short of even having someone as good as those two).

This is the point. There seems to be minimal floor raising from Ewing until he has a great team around him. I think the 92-98 Knicks were all better support casts than any Gilmore had in his prime. Alot of them just weren't posting big stats because they were playing lesser roles. Jackson keeps getting mentioned for example, and he used to be an all-star guard so understandable. But I don't think he was better than either Starks or Mason for instance.

[rk2023]

Vote for #25 - Charles Barkley
Alterate Vote - Giannis Antetokounmpo
Nomination - Reggie Miller

With Barkley, I'm not as impressed as others may be with his peak / best season(s). With that said, he has the most career value out of the candidates in the nominee pool by a considerable margin. I'd say all of 1985-99 are all-star+ seasons, with a pretty solid stockpile of All-NBA level ones and a fringe-MVP level apex. Tremendous rebounder (put-back machine), paint and 2p scorer, finisher, and transition player - per Dipper's data I posted and what's discernible on film. With that said, I don't think his playmaking is doing too much ITO improving team offense. OSNB posted TO:AST data showing Barkley to be >= Malone and a clear step above Kemp, where I think Box Creation *may* be underselling him because of the sheer pressure he puts on defenses at his position however - FWIW. Barkley certainly taketh's some while he gives it, being a poor effort defender and undersized for his position. I think his scoring package / blistering ability to get downhill catalyzed an attack that makes him the second best all-time on offense for his position behind Dirk (I'm not cheating and considering LBJ/Bird here), but the other lesser-strengths (framing it more positively) set his ceiling back. I'd reckon this could be a thing in the AuPM/Raw PM/WOWY stuff we have for him - though far from the end-all, be-all. Nonetheless, how impressive Barkley's longevity looks while he still is a very solid player capable of leading solid PS offenses gives him the nod for me here.

As for my alternate vote, I'm between Giannis and Wade. I've gone over Wade in-depth to make his case for a nominee - and the same logic holds true in the context of making the case to vote him in.
https://forums.realgm.com/boards/viewtopic.php?f=64&t=2317776&p=108153100&hilit=wade#p108153100

Anyhow - want to think this out. Giannis, as it stands, has 10 years of his career - whereas Wade's pre-injury / steep decline span was the same in 10 years of 2004-13. Between the two, I think 2004/08/14-16 are essentially moot. How I'd rank the remaining is as follows:

22 and 21 Giannis > 2009 and 10 Wade > 2006 Wade >= 2019 and 20 Giannis > 2011 Wade > 2023 and 18 Giannis >= 2005/12 Wade > 2017 Giannis > 2007/13 Wade

Scoring this ranking from 15-1 (120 total):
Giannis: 64
Wade: 56

Not a perfect approach, but this is a dart toss for me (for two players I regard very highly) - and my first/second guesses have me taking Giannis.

Being a recent candidate and in many POTY runnings , a lot of Giannis arguments have been laid out recently on the board and across a few voting threads.

Tremendous all-around player with legitimate anchor capabilities on defense / ridiculously good defensive ceiling raising with his deployment (talked about it some here - https://forums.realgm.com/boards/viewtopic.php?p=104599240#p104599240). I don't think he has been optimized on offense & having him be the 1st option on that end does have drawbacks ITO effective half-court offense; however, he's had tremendous series going above his level of player on that end (eg. Duncan, Hakeem) ITO offensive load like the 21 Finals and 22 Boston series - all while being a more than capable "1-D" on a title team & generally all-time great PS team defenses. I'm hoping his game ages well, because he certainly has T-15 potential - to put a floor on it.

For some gauges of impact:
- Giannis' career RAPM in JE's data-base of 1997-2022 is pretty high in an All-time scale and (more importantly & responsibly, usage wise) amongst current players - only being behind LBJ/Paul/Jokic/Tatum and on par with Embiid/George/Curry/Green/Gobert. Not making too much of this as a player A > B point [*cough*], but it's still impressive even with 3 years that could significantly deflate the sample in 2014-16. He looks solid in shotcharts from what I recall - though

- https://imgur.com/a/2xxttom in RS LEBRON, he looks very good. Same logic for 2019-21 and 2020-22 PS LEBRON.

- in playoff AuPM/G - leads the league in 2022, tied for 2nd in 2021 behind LBJ/Lillard whom only played 1 series. Overall, has a 4.6 and 4.5 value in 2018-22's AuPM/G sample going from RS -> PS.

[Clyde Frazier]

Artis was 33 by the time he teamed up with a 30 year old Gervin. Neither was at their best anymore, yet their first season together they won 53 games and made the WCF and lost in 6 games to the Showtime Lakers. Were they supposed to beat the Showtime Lakers? Both Gervin and Gilmore regressed the next year; quite understandably. It was their 13th & 12th seasons.

Even if we were to concede Issel was better than any of Ewing's team mates, which I'm dubious about, on the whole Ewing tended to have way more help. Some of those Knicks rosters were stacked, and they weren't winning 68 games or a title either. In fairness the league was generally stronger, but I'm still more impressed with Gilmore's impact.

Which knicks rosters were "stacked?" I don't know if you're glossing this over or just not aware, but by the time allan houston got there ewing was past his prime. Still an effective player but not the same guy who led the knicks to the finals in 94. The pre-allan houston knicks were no doubt built to be an elite defense around ewing as a rim protector, but *sorely* lacked offensively. He flat out never had a consistent second option in his prime.

Starks did the best he could and 32 yr old derek harper ended up being a great fit, but he wasn't going to fill that role. So yes, even a single addition of a dan issel level scorer makes the difference in '94. Ewing was the face of the houston/sprewell/larry johnson (with a broken back) knicks but a role player by then.

This simply isn't true. Prime Ewing never had a teammate as good as Dan Issel.

And yet, Kentucky only won a ring when they turned Dan Issel into an off ball shooter and turned the pivot scoring over to Artis in 75.  Issel averaged 26.2 ppg in his 5 years in Kentucky; in their championship year he averaged only 17.7 while playing 34.5 mpg (his lowest there admittedly) and all 83 games. In the playoffs he averaged 18.5 v. his normal 24.5 again with full health (and 38.5 minutes).  Dan Issel averaging under 20 ppg, not playing in the pivot, with a career low TS% of .507 and his normal unimpressive defense is not a terribly good player.  

I'd much rather have a good Oakley year as my PF if my center is going to be the main scorer. In a vacuum, Issel may be a better player (depending on how you rate and value defense), but next to a great scoring center, I don't think he is.  And, yes, I think Ewing had a better career than Artis though the numbers may be in Artis's favor.

The knock some people have on ewing is his drop in efficiency in the playoffs. I think you could mainly attribute that to the makeup of those rosters which heavily relied on ewing as the main scoring option. A similarly built rockets team barely beat them in '94 and yes hakeem's the better player which is why he was voted in at #6. 

As ewing dealt with his knee problems still playing huge minutes, he relied more on his mid range game and was a so so passer. I wouldn't call him miscast as a #1 option, but give him issel or any other legitimate volume scorer and it would've made a huge difference. Starks had some big games in the finals so you can't berate him for game 6, but it completely changes ewing's legacy if not for that performance. 

[Clyde Frazier]

The Colonels won an average of 56+ games over Gilmore’s first 5 years there, including a 24 win improvement on his arrival. Then the team was folded. Ewing, for all his hype, led the Knicks to an average of 36 wins over his first 5 years in NY, and 39 wins over his first 7 years there. His impact doesn’t look the same at all. It was only after the Knicks made significant talent upgrades at many positions that the Knicks suddenly looked good. Then when Ewing aged, and even was missing, the late 90s Knicks thrived. There’s even a phenomena called the “Ewing effect”, to describe when teams play better without their star. I don’t mean to suggest Ewing was bad or anything, he was very good. I am not seeing the same impact as Gilmore though.

I also feel like Ewing would be a worse player than Gilmore today. His stamina appears poor, and his mobility as he aged got worse and worse. He’d be borderline unplayable for the latter half of his career against today’s pick and roll heavy offences in the playoffs. Once his knees were gone, that would be it. He was already visibly exhausted playing in the mid to late 90s. I can’t imagine how he’d survive on the court today, with what modern offenses force defensive players to do. Maybe it’s just my eyes, but Gilmore seems less stiff and more fluid as a younger man. His height and length would let him function exceptionally as a roller and rim protector. Ewing wouldn’t have adapted nearly as well. To be clear, Ewing would be an all-star today. He doesn’t suck or anything. But I feel there are a lot of players ahead of him, even Dwight and Pippen seem much more impactful.

Since you love hypotheticals, go watch ewing in 89-90 and imagine him playing from then on with the medical advancements we have today, players playing less minutes and the value bigs have to spread the floor out to the 3PT line. He wasn't the immobile lumbering giant you're thinking of in the late 90s. He was a dynamic force on both ends.