Patrick Ewing vs David Robinson, who has the better legacy?

[miller31time]

You simply cannot bring the Randolph point into the equation without others taking notice. The reason you tried to use Zach as a distant comparison was because he is one of the players who's basic stats (ppg, rpg) aren't reflective of his impact on a game and you're trying to say that Robinson's stats weren't quite as reflective towards his overall impact.

But the problem with this (and you as a NYK fan who gets to see Randolph every game, should know) is that the reason his stats are "empty" are because A) he plays little to no defense and B) he shoots poor percentages. Robinson played elite defense and took high-percentage shots, therefore, what little comparison you were trying to make is moot.

True, it's just one point, but it's a mighty big reach.

[kooldude]

Since you already acknowledged that Robinson has the better legacy, a large part of legacy is team success. This thread is just about who's higher on the GOAT list. If MJ didn't win all his rings, he would still be one of the best players ever. Magic and Bird were already saying how much better Jordan was, before MJ wonhis first title. Evaluating individual players should not be geared towards team success imo; that's for the GOAT/greatness discussion.

so i can't say that one was better than the other. there are wayyyyyy too many factors (stats, team success, individual accolades, intangibles) that 99.9% of people on this board (including me) are ignorant to, just because no one has time to watch every game for every player and evaluate everything.

I always hated this argument because so many people use this cop-out. Then what's the purpose of the "Player Comparisons" section.....That line of reasoning can be applied to any thread here. The fact that Robinson has superior stats with better accolades for his individual accomplishments is fair enough to say that Robinson was the better individual player when they haven't done much elsewhere.

[etopn23]

I'm sorry but this is Robinson and it isn't really close IMO.

Outside of real early in their careers I don't think Ewing was ever considered on the same level as him. The only thing really keeping DRob from being considered the greatest big of his generation is a playoff series against Olajuwon.

[pewing33ny]

Since you already acknowledged that Robinson has the better legacy, a large part of legacy is team success. This thread is just about who's higher on the GOAT list. If MJ didn't win all his rings, he would still be one of the best players ever. Magic and Bird were already saying how much better Jordan was, before MJ wonhis first title. Evaluating individual players should not be geared towards team success imo; that's for the GOAT/greatness discussion.


I always hated this argument because so many people use this cop-out. Then what's the purpose of the "Player Comparisons" section.....That line of reasoning can be applied to any thread here. The fact that Robinson has superior stats with better accolades for his individual accomplishments is fair enough to say that Robinson was the better individual player when they haven't done much elsewhere.

we're on different sides of what legacy is. i've probably been wrong in that i consider it more of what's on the wikipedia page and stat sheet. so i'll concede whatever it is (so we're not arguing semantics and to clear things up) i just did and say robinson will probably look better on paper but as players/GOAT list they are interchangeable depending on what criteria you use for the GOAT list.

i have no problems with saying one player is better than another, but this is so much closer than everyone is assuming (that drob >>>>ewing). robinson was the better regular season player, but personally i heavily weigh the factor of the player whose team does better (the supporting casts and role were similar enough imo to support this argument) in the playoffs. it's just the way i factor these things into determining who is the better player. you may weigh the regular season more than me, and that's ok.

remember we got burned last year when dirk got the MVP. people who look at dirk's stat sheet in 10 years will think he had an incredible season but all of us who are hardcore into the nba now know that his season was pretty much a failure. i'm not saying robinson was a bad player at all, but he regularly disappeared in big games. ewing had his messups too (i mentioned the 95 ecf) but he came through much more than people give him credit for.

i've stated my argument and i don't need you to accept it (that's why we're having a discussion) but you come off as very hostile calling me a homer and that i use cop-outs. if you're going to attack me, please go after my points rather than compare me to other people or as a homer.



and please stop with the randolph thing. it was used to make a point and if you didn't get it and took it too seriously then you can go argue with yourself.

[kooldude]

I actually didn't say anything about the Randolph thing in my last post; I think miller31time said it pretty well.

A player's legacy is what greatness is about. It brings together all his stats, team success, individual accolades and accomplishments, rings, popularity, etc. That being said, Robinson will have the better legacy (higher on GOAT list) because he has everything Ewing had and more. In terms of greatness, team success matters alot.

But when comparing and evaluating individual players, imo, it should based on individual impact which is objectively shown in stats and individual accolades selected by credible people. I don't believe team success should be a (significant) factor here; It should only be considered if 2 players are too close to call. i.e. Duncan/KG, Hakeem/Robinson. Admiral has a MVP, DPOY, more 1st team All-NBA teams, more All-Defensive teams, and more 10 top MVP votings, all while playing fewer seasons than Ewing. This isn't that close. If we had Robinson, we would have won 2+ titles. my homer belief.

If Jordan had scrub teams, he's not winning jack. But that doesn't mean he's any less of a player when nothing has changed except the quality of his teammates. If you want to get by team success, then Russell is a better player than Wilt. Are you willing to concede to that?

Dirk had 1 bad series, (maybe 2 counting Finals) but he was money in so many other series in the past. People forget about that part just like how you credit Ewing for his success while ignoring the negative while doing the opposite for Robinson.

[pewing33ny]

that last part was directed at miller31time.

if robinson was so great with all his individual achievements then why did his teams never have any real success until he got duncan and became the second option? drob was a good player but i can't remember any big games where he just took over. maybe because i didn't watch every spurs playoff game (i did watcha bunch though) but i remember when the jazz had freakin' karl malone on him and he still wouldn't take the shot. ewing had some clunkers too but i can also rattle off some great games he had. if you can give me some examples of great games he had (even if the spurs lost) then i would certainly take it into consideration. but the fact is i watched all the big playoff games and he was worthless in the last 5 minutes of a close game, wouldn't even take it to basket. then again, i form a majority of my opinion from watching the actual games, so there is going to be some disparity if you're going off of stats and hearsay (i'm not saying you're doing this but 95% of realgm is like this)

and jordan for the most part had scrubby teams. pip had all the tools but he wouldn't have been 1/2 player he was if jordan wasn't there to yell at him. he was still a good player in portland (and age was catching up a bit too) but you could tell he lost a lot of killer instinct without michael there. and wilt was better, but look at russell's teams. didn't they have 6 hall of famers at one time on their roster? again, a lot of my argument comes from the fact that they had very similar talent on their teams.

and i didn't want to put dirk in a bad light. if anything i defend him when he's called soft just because he put up one of the gutsiest performances i've seen in game 7 against san antonio in 2006.

[kooldude]

that last part was directed at miller31time.

if robinson was so great with all his individual achievements then why did his teams never have any real success until he got duncan and became the second option? drob was a good player but i can't remember any big games where he just took over. maybe because i didn't watch every spurs playoff game (i did watcha bunch though) but i remember when the jazz had freakin' karl malone on him and he still wouldn't take the shot. ewing had some clunkers too but i can also rattle off some great games he had. if you can give me some examples of great games he had (even if the spurs lost) then i would certainly take it into consideration. but the fact is i watched all the big playoff games and he was worthless in the last 5 minutes of a close game, wouldn't even take it to basket. then again, i form a majority of my opinion from watching the actual games, so there is going to be some disparity if you're going off of stats and hearsay (i'm not saying you're doing this but 95% of realgm is like this)

and jordan for the most part had scrubby teams. pip had all the tools but he wouldn't have been 1/2 player he was if jordan wasn't there to yell at him. he was still a good player in portland (and age was catching up a bit too) but you could tell he lost a lot of killer instinct without michael there. and wilt was better, but look at russell's teams. didn't they have 6 hall of famers at one time on their roster? again, a lot of my argument comes from the fact that they had very similar talent on their teams.

and i didn't want to put dirk in a bad light. if anything i defend him when he's called soft just because he put up one of the gutsiest performances i've seen in game 7 against san antonio in 2006.

so basically your entire argument is subjective then. You ignore the statistical discrepancy and individual accolades because it reflects negatively towards Ewing and focus on subjective "I saw him play so I'm credible" position. Ewing's team only went one round farther than Robinson's! and Ewing got ownt much worse than Robinson did against the same opponent. As for the Duncan part, who was the 2nd option on the Spurs? Sean Elliott? the guy with a career PER of 13.9? Besides a few exceptions, no one wins it all by "himself".

Wilt's team was comparable to Russell's in '69 and Wilt still lost. Still think Wilt is better now since you value team success which is a collective accomplishment for players, coaches, and management, over individual impact when evaluating individual players?

Everything you said is almost identical to what the hardcore Kobe fans say here. Basing their judgment on what they want to see and ignoring the parts that goes against their belief. Can you explain why Robinson has a MVP, DPOY, and more all-nba/all-defense selections than Ewing? Or what you believe is more credible than the professionals that voted, pewing33ny?

It's obvious you're not changing your mind or concede to the validity of statistics when judging players; it's best if we ends this here.