Karl malone vs patrick ewing. Better peak

[falcolombardi]

I am thinking of this head to head for the peaks project. Wondered what everyone thoughts here are?

[Cavsfansince84]

Similar limitations on offense(with Malone being better at getting to the line and a better passer) but Ewing's defense might be enough to give him the edge here. If you think he was near dpoy caliber in 1990 then I'd say he peaked higher. I'd probably lean Ewing.

[70sFan]

Similar limitations on offense(with Malone being better at getting to the line and a better passer) but Ewing's defense might be enough to give him the edge here. If you think he was near dpoy caliber in 1990 then I'd say he peaked higher. I'd probably lean Ewing.

I also lean Ewing, but their limitations on offense weren't similar. Malone was significantly better creator and passer, it's not even close.

[SinceGatlingWasARookie]

For peaks Take Ewing. For longevity take Malone.

The good defensive center is something I like have. I believe that the NBA never has enough good defensive centers to go around and that the gap between 1st tier and 3r tier is bigger at center than at any other position.

Ewing’s prime is smaller than Karl Malone’s prime. Longeveity advocates argue that having a player play well for 15 years is better than a player playing great for 5 years. I don’t agree. Playing well for 15 years give you more years to team that player with 3 more very good players. But look at what happened to Karl Malone. Despite having Stockon with him it was not enough. There were good 3rd and 4th men but it was not enough. Mark Eaton, Ricky Green, Thurl Bailey, Tyrone Corbin, Bob Hanson, post injury but still good Daryl Grifth, Jeff Malone, Hornacek, Antoine Carr, Ostertag, Byron Russel and plenty of good 9th and 10th men but it was not enough. If Malone could have had them all at the same time the Jazz would have won a championship but they were spread out over 2 decades.

If Karl Malone was better than he was he might have bot needed as much talent arround him.

One problem I have with Ewing is that his offensive peak was starting when his defensive peak was ending. You don’t need Mark Eaton or Ostertag when you have defensive peak Ewing. Ewing with Johny Neuman Starks and Mark Jackson is competitive. Add Charles Oakley, Anthony Mason, Chris Dudley, and the Knicks may win a championship . Defensive peak Ewing and 1894 Knicks playoff version of Bernard King and 7 average players can win a championship. Karl Malone and 1984 Bernard King don’t win a championship because they are offense plus offense and offense plus Ewing’s defense is better. A problem Ewing had is that during his defensive peak the offense was never better than average.

I think 5 years a step above Malone is better than 15 years at Malone level for the probability of winning a championship. But management needs to get a 2nd star during that short 5 year period when Ewing is a step above Malone. They other 10 years Malone is better than Ewing. Peak Mark Eaton was good but Stockton and Malone were not at their best when they had Eaton and Thurl Bailey. Peak Eaton, Thurl Bailey, Byron Russell, Howard Eisely, Ostertag to back up Eaton, and Shandon Anderson joining 1997 Stockton Malone and Hornacek should be enough to beat the Bulls. Eaton will make scoring at the rim difficult for Jordan.


I think Ewing for his 5 year peak is better than Karl Malon’s sustained greatness,

[Cavsfansince84]

Similar limitations on offense(with Malone being better at getting to the line and a better passer) but Ewing's defense might be enough to give him the edge here. If you think he was near dpoy caliber in 1990 then I'd say he peaked higher. I'd probably lean Ewing.

I also lean Ewing, but their limitations on offense weren't similar. Malone was significantly better creator and passer, it's not even close.

Well Ewing in 1990 was on a different level and its similar in that both struggled to create when their teams really needed it. I already mentioned Malone being a better passer.

[SickMother]

I've got Mailman toward the top end of my 26 & beyond tier, so he'll be getting a peaks project vote from me at some point for sure. Have Ewing a little farther back in that same tier, in contention for what will likely end up being one of the last few spots. Haven't decided on my peak Mailman season yet, but think both candidates are a notch above Patrick's best...

Malone 91-92: 25.4 PER | .599 TS% | 113 TS+ | 15.1 WS | .237 WS/48
Malone 91-92 Playoffs?!?: 25.0 PER | .618 TS% | 3.2 WS | .220 WS/48

Malone 97-98: 27.9 PER | .597 TS% | 114 TS+ | 16.4 WS | .259 WS/48
Malone 97-98 Playoffs?!?: 24.2 PER | .534 TS% | 3.0 WS | .184 WS/48

Ewing 93-94: 22.9 PER | .551 TS% | 104 TS+ | 13.1 WS | .211 WS/48
Ewing 93-94 Playoffs?!?: 20.6 PER | .495 TS% | 3.2 WS | .150 WS/48

[capfan33]

Some interesting discussion in the peaks thread convinced me to vote Ewing, but I'm also relatively low on Malone.

[No-more-rings]

I've got Mailman toward the top end of my 26 & beyond tier, so he'll be getting a peaks project vote from me at some point for sure. Have Ewing a little farther back in that same tier, in contention for what will likely end up being one of the last few spots. Haven't decided on my peak Mailman season yet, but think both candidates are a notch above Patrick's best...

Malone 91-92: 25.4 PER | .599 TS% | 113 TS+ | 15.1 WS | .237 WS/48
Malone 91-92 Playoffs?!?: 25.0 PER | .618 TS% | 3.2 WS | .220 WS/48

Malone 97-98: 27.9 PER | .597 TS% | 114 TS+ | 16.4 WS | .259 WS/48
Malone 97-98 Playoffs?!?: 24.2 PER | .534 TS% | 3.0 WS | .184 WS/48

Ewing 93-94: 22.9 PER | .551 TS% | 104 TS+ | 13.1 WS | .211 WS/48
Ewing 93-94 Playoffs?!?: 20.6 PER | .495 TS% | 3.2 WS | .150 WS/48

If you’re choosing 94 Ewing, he had a fairly significant defensive advantage I don’t think offensive stats tells thd whole story.

[SickMother]

Malone 91-92: 25.4 PER | .599 TS% | 113 TS+ | 15.1 WS | .237 WS/48
Malone 91-92 Playoffs?!?: 25.0 PER | .618 TS% | 3.2 WS | .220 WS/48

Malone 97-98: 27.9 PER | .597 TS% | 114 TS+ | 16.4 WS | .259 WS/48
Malone 97-98 Playoffs?!?: 24.2 PER | .534 TS% | 3.0 WS | .184 WS/48

Ewing 93-94: 22.9 PER | .551 TS% | 104 TS+ | 13.1 WS | .211 WS/48
Ewing 93-94 Playoffs?!?: 20.6 PER | .495 TS% | 3.2 WS | .150 WS/48

If you’re choosing 94 Ewing, he had a fairly significant defensive advantage I don’t think offensive stats tells thd whole story.

Win Shares includes defense. 93-94 Ewing lead the league in DWS for both the regular season (8.0) and playoffs (2.4).

[No-more-rings]

Malone 91-92: 25.4 PER | .599 TS% | 113 TS+ | 15.1 WS | .237 WS/48
Malone 91-92 Playoffs?!?: 25.0 PER | .618 TS% | 3.2 WS | .220 WS/48

Malone 97-98: 27.9 PER | .597 TS% | 114 TS+ | 16.4 WS | .259 WS/48
Malone 97-98 Playoffs?!?: 24.2 PER | .534 TS% | 3.0 WS | .184 WS/48

Ewing 93-94: 22.9 PER | .551 TS% | 104 TS+ | 13.1 WS | .211 WS/48
Ewing 93-94 Playoffs?!?: 20.6 PER | .495 TS% | 3.2 WS | .150 WS/48

If you’re choosing 94 Ewing, he had a fairly significant defensive advantage I don’t think offensive stats tells thd whole story.

Win Shares includes defense. 93-94 Ewing lead the league in DWS for both the regular season (8.0) and playoffs (2.4).

Win shares is a pretty junk metric, but honestly why didn’t you use 1990 if box scores is what you’re comparing?

[frica]

For peaks Take Ewing. For longevity take Malone.

The good defensive center is something I like have. I believe that the NBA never has enough good defensive centers to go around and that the gap between 1st tier and 3r tier is bigger at center than at any other position.

Ewing’s prime is smaller than Karl Malone’s prime. Longeveity advocates argue that having a player play well for 15 years is better than a player playing great for 5 years. I don’t agree. Playing well for 15 years give you more years to team that player with 3 more very good players. But look at what happened to Karl Malone. Despite having Stockon with him it was not enough. There were good 3rd and 4th men but it was not enough. Mark Eaton, Ricky Green, Thurl Bailey, Tyrone Corbin, Bob Hanson, post injury but still good Daryl Grifth, Jeff Malone, Hornacek, Antoine Carr, Ostertag, Byron Russel and plenty of good 9th and 10th men but it was not enough. If Malone could have had them all at the same time the Jazz would have won a championship but they were spread out over 2 decades.

If Karl Malone was better than he was he might have bot needed as much talent arround him.

One problem I have with Ewing is that his offensive peak was starting when his defensive peak was ending. You don’t need Mark Eaton or Ostertag when you have defensive peak Ewing. Ewing with Johny Neuman Starks and Mark Jackson is competitive. Add Charles Oakley, Anthony Mason, Chris Dudley, and the Knicks may win a championship . Defensive peak Ewing and 1894 Knicks playoff version of Bernard King and 7 average players can win a championship. Karl Malone and 1984 Bernard King don’t win a championship because they are offense plus offense and offense plus Ewing’s defense is better. A problem Ewing had is that during his defensive peak the offense was never better than average.

I think 5 years a step above Malone is better than 15 years at Malone level for the probability of winning a championship. But management needs to get a 2nd star during that short 5 year period when Ewing is a step above Malone. They other 10 years Malone is better than Ewing. Peak Mark Eaton was good but Stockton and Malone were not at their best when they had Eaton and Thurl Bailey. Peak Eaton, Thurl Bailey, Byron Russell, Howard Eisely, Ostertag to back up Eaton, and Shandon Anderson joining 1997 Stockton Malone and Hornacek should be enough to beat the Bulls. Eaton will make scoring at the rim difficult for Jordan.


I think Ewing for his 5 year peak is better than Karl Malon’s sustained greatness,

You mention a 5 year peak, but I'm not sure he has that many years over Malone.
Maybe 2 or 3.

Don't think it's criminal to argue Malone has the better peak (by a slighty margin), though I'd favour Ewing for a single year peak.

[SickMother]

Win shares is a pretty junk metric, but honestly why didn’t you use 1990 if box scores is what you’re comparing?

Which measurement do you believe does a better job of capturing Ewing's defensive value? Win Shares has Ewing with Top 25 single season defensive marks in both 92-93 and 93-94. Pretty impressive considering Russell (ten seasons) and Wilt (four seasons) already have over half the spots locked.

Ewing 89-90: 25.8 PER | .599 TS% | 112 TS+ | 13.5 WS | .205 WS/48
Ewing 89-90 Playoffs?!?: 25.4 PER | .579 TS% | 1.3 WS | .155 WS/48

Ewing 93-94: 22.9 PER | .551 TS% | 104 TS+ | 13.1 WS | .211 WS/48
Ewing 93-94 Playoffs?!?: 20.6 PER | .495 TS% | 3.2 WS | .150 WS/48

89-90 clearly better on offense, but whatever defensive prowess Ewing had wasn't enough to keep the Knicks from being middle of the pack on defense and a 2nd round bounce. 93-94 he anchored the #1 defense for a Finals bound squad, that is a higher peak for me.

[AEnigma]

Win shares is a pretty junk metric, but honestly why didn’t you use 1990 if box scores is what you’re comparing?

Which measurement do you believe does a better job of capturing Ewing's defensive value? Win Shares has Ewing with Top 25 single season defensive marks in both 92-93 and 93-94. Pretty impressive considering Russell (ten seasons) and Wilt (four seasons) already have over half the spots locked.

Ewing 89-90: 25.8 PER | .599 TS% | 112 TS+ | 13.5 WS | .205 WS/48
Ewing 89-90 Playoffs?!?: 25.4 PER | .579 TS% | 1.3 WS | .155 WS/48

Ewing 93-94: 22.9 PER | .551 TS% | 104 TS+ | 13.1 WS | .211 WS/48
Ewing 93-94 Playoffs?!?: 20.6 PER | .495 TS% | 3.2 WS | .150 WS/48

89-90 clearly better on offense, but whatever defensive prowess Ewing had wasn't enough to keep the Knicks from being middle of the pack on defense and a 2nd round bounce. 93-94 he anchored the #1 defense for a Finals bound squad, that is a higher peak for me.

Curious, what do you feel was David Robinson’s defensive peak, and why do you feel that is distinct from your approach to Ewing.

[SickMother]

Curious, what do you feel was David Robinson’s defensive peak, and why do you feel that is distinct from your approach to Ewing.

Robnson's first seven seasons before getting injured are essentially one long defensive peak. 89/90 second in DWS behind only Hakeem, Spurs go from 13th to 3rd in DRtg, add 35 wins. 90/91 he topped the league in DWS & the Spurs had the best DRtg in the league. 91/92 he topped the league in BLK% and DBPM, Spurs had the best DRtg again. 94/95 he topped the league in DWS for the RS & POs, though the Spurs were only 5th in DRtg, also his deepest pre-Duncan postseason run. 95/96 topped the leaue in DWS and DBPM, Spurs had the 3rd best DRtg. Take your pick, really.

Ewing's defense appears to have more defined peaks & valleys to me, with Riley's arrival in 91/92 unlocking the results to match Pat's potential on the defensive end.

[AEnigma]

Curious, what do you feel was David Robinson’s defensive peak, and why do you feel that is distinct from your approach to Ewing.

Robnson's first seven seasons before getting injured are essentially one long defensive peak. 89/90 second in DWS behind only Hakeem, Spurs go from 13th to 3rd in DRtg, add 35 wins. 90/91 he topped the league in DWS & the Spurs had the best DRtg in the league. 91/92 he topped the league in BLK% and DBPM, Spurs had the best DRtg again. 94/95 he topped the league in DWS for the RS & POs, though the Spurs were only 5th in DRtg, also his deepest pre-Duncan postseason run. 95/96 topped the leaue in DWS and DBPM, Spurs had the 3rd best DRtg. Take your pick, really.

Ewing's defense appears to have more defined peaks & valleys to me, with Riley's arrival in 91/92 unlocking the results to match Pat's potential on the defensive end.

Pat Riley is my exact point. The Spurs and by extension Robinson looked their best defensively under Larry Brown, and if anything, those years would be Robinson at his true athletic peak before the 1992 injury. Looking at “win shares” does not say much about what is actually changing in defensive approach.

So alright, Pat Riley helps Ewing schematically and as a coach and as a roster-builder; does that mean Ewing’s ability was significantly changing? What about 1988; did Ewing get worse before Riley reminded him how to be good again? What evolution in Ewing’s individual defensive game is taking the Knicks from “above average defensively” to “best defence since Russell”?

I am not trying to be a prick here, but we need to use a bit of critical thinking when looking at these types of statistics and team results.