Patrick Ewing or Walt Frazier or Willis Reed - GOAT NYK

[JordansBulls]

[

Who cares, when he didn't deserve either? West and Frazier should have won them. Serious question: do you ever do any analysis of your own and ever come to a different (informed) opinion from what actually happened, or are you one of those people who don't question the status quo? (Unless of course, it involves Jordan, in which case you'll have no problem disagreeing with any result that doesn't favor him.)

Not sure what you are talking about, Reed won league and finals mvp which is what I said. I made no other comment about Frazier or Reed those years nor did I say he deserved any of them, I just made a comment on what happened.

And I commented that Reed didn't deserve league and Finals MVP, so it's irrelevant to me. Just like—to make it relevant to you—Karl Malone didn't deserve the MVPs he won, so it's not a point for me for someone to make if the subject was Malone. I have a brain, I watched basketball, and he didn't deserve it. It was a Career Appreciation Award. Reed didn't deserve the awards he won in '69-70.

I understand where you are coming from, I just said he got it because the Knicks had the best record and also IMO he got the finals one for his play thru the first 4 games of the series. The game he missed they got blown out.

[Doctor MJ]

I understand where you are coming from, I just said he got it because the Knicks had the best record and also IMO he got the finals one for his play thru the first 4 games of the series. The game he missed they got blown out.

Before that game though, they played most of Game 5 without Reed and won. They then went on perimeter-based offensive tear in Game 7 that really really rendered defense effectively moot other than inspirational impact.

And JB, you keep saying "I understand where you're coming from" before adding on something that strikes people as just as off-base as your last point. If you really understand where others are coming from, then you really should see this coming and adjust your approach accordingly.

[Doctor MJ]

It's gotta be Clyde. Reed won the Finals MVP in '70 primarily because of his heroic comeback, not because he was actually the Knicks' MVP. Clyde was the leader of that team and put up one of the best Game 7 performances ever.

Actually Ewing vs. Clyde is really close I can't really decide.

Ok, firstly, Walt's Game 7 wasn't that great:

http://forums.realgm.com/boards/viewtopic.php?f=64&t=1130334 - is pretty self explanatory.

Secondly, Knick's averages for the series - including Walt's inflated assists:

Willis Reed - 23 / 10.5
Dave DeBusschere - 19 / 12.6
Dick Barnett - 18.6 / 4.3
Walt Frazier - 17.6 / 10.4

Considering Reed was the best defender on his team - and by some metrics, the most impactful defender in the league that year, I don't think Frazier deserved FMVP at all. Especially when you consider the game that Reed missed entirely - game 6 - Wilt Chamberlain went for 45 points and the Lakers won by over 20. He averaged 19.3ppg when up against Reed. Frazier also mentioned to ESPN a few years ago ref game 7: "If Willis didn't come out, I would not have had that game"

I have no problem with people saying Frazier was the best Knick or the best player on that team in 1973 but he absolutely does not have a case in 1970.

Well first off, you simply asserting Reed's the best defender on the team is pretty telling. Most always considered Frazier and DeBusschere to be the clear top 2 defenders on the team. Might seem odd given the big man's typical primacy on defense, but what was revolutionary about the Knicks' defense was their aggressive perimeter pressure.

I understand that it was Reed's defense that got the attention in Game 7, but if you watch the game, what's really glaring is how limited Wilt was. Reed could hardly move out there. A player with a wide range of post moves that could make use of more court, like Hakeem, would have torched the Knicks in possession after possession until they adjusted by leaving the perimeter wide open. In the end Reed was a smart, solid defender, with a solid enough center of mass that it was hard to move him out of position once he got there. That's nice, but it's not the same as a defensive anchor who is diminishing the opposition's offense over large swaths of court space...which is exactly what Frazier & co were doing on the perimeter.

As far as the stats you mention, the key thing to recognize there is that Reed missed a heck of a lot of time, during which the Knicks on the whole did pretty well. There's no question Reed wins the Finals MVP if he stays healthy, but he missed so much of the series, that it only makes sense to give him the Finals MVP if you essentially say he was THE reason the Knicks won Game 7, and it's really hard to make that argument logically.

As far as who was better between Reed & Frazier, I'd say it goes something like this:

Pre-69/70: Reed
69/70: Toss up
Post-69/70: Frazier

When you consider that, and how much more of the Knicks almost-dynasty happened in the 70s than in the 60s, and you consider Frazier's superior health, the choice of Frazier over Reed becomes an obvious one to me.

And yes, as others have said: Jerry West should have won the MVP in '69-70, and Frazier should have won both Knick Finals MVPs, and this is coming from a guy who only rarely disagrees with any of these awards. This was just a perfect storm situation where Reed was established in everyone's minds as THE star of the Knicks ahead of time, and thus he got too much individual credit when the team took it to the next levels at the same time as a comparable star emerged.

btw, same thing happened in Miami with Shaq & Wade, and the result was that Shaq came THIS close to winning an MVP when he wasn't even the MVP of his own team. People simply assumed that Wade couldn't possibly be emerging as a true superstar at the exact moment when Shaq joined his team and so they wrongly credited Shaq with much of what Wade was doing.

[Doctor MJ]

As far as Frazier vs Ewing, I think that's a good debate. I'll say up front that if you value longevity enough over peak, it's just obvious you'd prefer Ewing. So what I'll talk about is Ewing's prime.

I think there's this tendency to think that Ewing was a 2-way superstar, and I think you might be able to make that case in '89-90. For most of Ewing's prime though, while he was a strong offensive player, do people realize the gap between him and someone like Shaq? A typical Ewing year was something like 24 PPG on 55% TS. That's a far cry from Shaq territory, and this is the reason that when we look at career Offensive Win Shares, Shaq has about two and half times as many as Ewing. You'd have to take Ewing's best 4-year stretch to even match several of Shaq's 2-year stretches.

Now you might say "Yeah, but that's Shaq!", but understand that there is a huge intangible edge on offense for a perimeter player like Frazier over big men. Big men are dependent on perimeter players to give them the ball, have been shown to have been able to get big numbers without really helping their team, and tend to be worth much less in crunch time for a few reasons. In other words, it takes a big on Shaq's level before it really makes sense to argue that he's better on offense than someone like Frazier.

So peak-wise, I consider Frazier on offense to have a clear edge over Ewing, and while I would give Ewing the edge on defense, not by a lot. Frazier, frankly, had more impact on defense than really any guard we see in modern times because of the success of the strategies Red applied. While one can certainly decided to try to "deflate" Frazier's impact based on opinions of what Frazier could have done today, if we actually talk about who was doing more for his team in their prime, I'd have to go with Frazier over Ewing.

[bastillon]

So peak-wise, I consider Frazier on offense to have a clear edge over Ewing, and while I would give Ewing the edge on defense, not by a lot. Frazier, frankly, had more impact on defense than really any guard we see in modern times because of the success of the strategies Red applied. While one can certainly decided to try to "deflate" Frazier's impact based on opinions of what Frazier could have done today, if we actually talk about who was doing more for his team in their prime, I'd have to go with Frazier over Ewing.

any evidence ? arguably Ewing had more defensive impact than Reed and Frazier combined. you can see how those Knicks fared without Ewing.

I think there's this tendency to think that Ewing was a 2-way superstar, and I think you might be able to make that case in '89-90. For most of Ewing's prime though, while he was a strong offensive player, do people realize the gap between him and someone like Shaq? A typical Ewing year was something like 24 PPG on 55% TS. That's a far cry from Shaq territory, and this is the reason that when we look at career Offensive Win Shares, Shaq has about two and half times as many as Ewing. You'd have to take Ewing's best 4-year stretch to even match several of Shaq's 2-year stretches.

offensive win shares are tied to team performance. when your team consists of defensive minded role players whose job is to rebound and intimidate or shoot 3s, there's not gonna be a whole lot of OWS to divide between individual players. win shares are clearly useless in Ewing's case.

[Doctor MJ]

So peak-wise, I consider Frazier on offense to have a clear edge over Ewing, and while I would give Ewing the edge on defense, not by a lot. Frazier, frankly, had more impact on defense than really any guard we see in modern times because of the success of the strategies Red applied. While one can certainly decided to try to "deflate" Frazier's impact based on opinions of what Frazier could have done today, if we actually talk about who was doing more for his team in their prime, I'd have to go with Frazier over Ewing.

any evidence ? arguably Ewing had more defensive impact than Reed and Frazier combined. you can see how those Knicks fared without Ewing.

What kind of evidence do you want? The '70s Knicks have always been celebrated for their defense which focused around team collaboration and perimeter aggression, Frazier was always the one most talked about on that front, ElGee's analysis of DRtg has the Knicks taking the "best defense" crown once Russell retired, b-r lists the players who played on the best defenses and puts Frazier right around where Ewing is (and doesn't list Reed or DeBusschere).

You talk about what NY did without Ewing, but the team actually did fine when he left, and somewhat unfairly, the main trend people have noticed about Ewing missing time to injury is that the Knicks did pretty well. The Knicks also didn't show any glaring trend toward mega-defensive improvement when Ewing joined the team as a player many hoped would be the best defender since Russell.

I don't want to take away from Ewing on defense here. He was quite good. He wasn't however someone who blocked shots at astronomical levels, and he wasn't someone with unreal quickness for a big. I'll take him as a defensive anchor, but there was far more to his team's defensive success than just him.

I think there's this tendency to think that Ewing was a 2-way superstar, and I think you might be able to make that case in '89-90. For most of Ewing's prime though, while he was a strong offensive player, do people realize the gap between him and someone like Shaq? A typical Ewing year was something like 24 PPG on 55% TS. That's a far cry from Shaq territory, and this is the reason that when we look at career Offensive Win Shares, Shaq has about two and half times as many as Ewing. You'd have to take Ewing's best 4-year stretch to even match several of Shaq's 2-year stretches.

offensive win shares are tied to team performance. when your team consists of defensive minded role players whose job is to rebound and intimidate or shoot 3s, there's not gonna be a whole lot of OWS to divide between individual players. win shares are clearly useless in Ewing's case.

Okay, so you don't know how the stat is calculated.

Go take a look at the T-Wolves last year, and notice that despite the team offense being terrible, Love had more OWS than Ewing ever managed in any year of his career.

Key thing is that it's the DWS that really make use of overall team performance, which it does specifically because defensive stats are so woefully inadequate. On offense on the other hand, I'd argue that WS put TOO much stock in box office stats.

[sp6r=underrated]

You talk about what NY did without Ewing, but the team actually did fine when he left

This is a Bill Simmons created meme in which he focused on how the knicks did w/o a past-prime Ewing and implies this was true about Ewing's prime. It wasn't. From ElGee:

Code: Select all

Player Year    Sample Size    Net Impact    Team MOV in lineup    Team MOV Out
Ewing 1987     19                7.1          -4.6                     -11.7
Ewing 1994-96   12               5.3           4.4                     -0.9

Code: Select all

Player Year    Sample Size    Net Impact    Team MOV in lineup    Team MOV Out
Ewing  1986       32                 6.1     -3.2                      - 9.38

at the idea the knicks did fine w/o Ewing early in his career and in his prime. It was only late in his career when there was any truth to the "Ewing Theory"

[lorak]

What kind of evidence do you want? The '70s Knicks have always been celebrated for their defense which focused around team collaboration and perimeter aggression, Frazier was always the one most talked about on that front, ElGee's analysis of DRtg has the Knicks taking the "best defense" crown once Russell retired, b-r lists the players who played on the best defenses and puts Frazier right around where Ewing is (and doesn't list Reed or DeBusschere).

DeBusschere and Reed were more important to Knicks D than Frazier. Look how they improved when DeBuss joined (D better by about 4.4 drtg in his first full season), or regressed when Reed was injured (worse by about 2.8 drtg) and DeBuss left (worse by about 3.6 drtg in 1975).

And if you want go by that b-r list then Kerr is right around where Ben Wallace is and Tony Parker where Tim Duncan ;]

BTW, here's how Knicks defense changed when Ewing was injured:

Code: Select all

year   diff drtg   games missed
1986   5,2   32
1987   6,6   19
1996   12,2   6
1998   7,3   56
1999   1,5   12


That's DRob/KG/Duncan like impact on D.

[bastillon]

What kind of evidence do you want? The '70s Knicks have always been celebrated for their defense which focused around team collaboration and perimeter aggression, Frazier was always the one most talked about on that front, ElGee's analysis of DRtg has the Knicks taking the "best defense" crown once Russell retired, b-r lists the players who played on the best defenses and puts Frazier right around where Ewing is (and doesn't list Reed or DeBusschere).

none of that means Frazier was better than Ewing. I want evidence for Frazier's individual impact and I know Reed was key to their defense, they weren't anywhere as good when he was injured. lol@the idea that PG could have impact of Ewing who would be by far the best defender of the 70s.

You talk about what NY did without Ewing, but the team actually did fine when he left, and somewhat unfairly, the main trend people have noticed about Ewing missing time to injury is that the Knicks did pretty well. The Knicks also didn't show any glaring trend toward mega-defensive improvement when Ewing joined the team as a player many hoped would be the best defender since Russell.

I don't want to take away from Ewing on defense here. He was quite good. He wasn't however someone who blocked shots at astronomical levels, and he wasn't someone with unreal quickness for a big. I'll take him as a defensive anchor, but there was far more to his team's defensive success than just him.

obviously I strongly disagree. if you don't think Ewing has a case for being the best defensive player since Russell then I don't know what to say. you can listen to Reggie, Smits, Barkley, Kenny and those guys talking about NY and although they sometimes criticize Ewing for his offense, but he was a beast defensively which everyone confirms and to me it's so glaringly obvious watching him that I'm shocked analyst of your caliber could've been questioning his status.

Go take a look at the T-Wolves last year, and notice that despite the team offense being terrible, Love had more OWS than Ewing ever managed in any year of his career.

what does that have to do with anything what I said ? Ewing's teammates had significant impact on his OWS because they sucked offensively, Ewing had to shoulder too big of a load offensively and that affected his efficiency numbers. when you're playing on inefficient offense, your OWS will be lowered, obviously and in Ewing's case that had a lot more impact than usually.

Ewing was a force on the block with great midrange jumpshot, he could finish very well etc. next to a penetrating guard he'd be deadly. but he had to create all of his pts. nobody spoonfed Ewing like Love often gets easy pts. you have to understand how much harder it is to work for all your pts yourself as opposed to getting open looks and just nailing jumpers as if you were in practice.

[ronnymac2]

Lin.

[Doctor MJ]

You talk about what NY did without Ewing, but the team actually did fine when he left

This is a Bill Simmons created meme in which he focused on how the knicks did w/o a past-prime Ewing and implies this was true about Ewing's prime. It wasn't. From ElGee:

Code: Select all

Player Year    Sample Size    Net Impact    Team MOV in lineup    Team MOV Out
Ewing 1987     19                7.1          -4.6                     -11.7
Ewing 1994-96   12               5.3           4.4                     -0.9

Code: Select all

Player Year    Sample Size    Net Impact    Team MOV in lineup    Team MOV Out
Ewing  1986       32                 6.1     -3.2                      - 9.38

at the idea the knicks did fine w/o Ewing early in his career and in his prime. It was only late in his career when there was any truth to the "Ewing Theory"

It would have been really nice if you had really read what I was saying and not assumed that I was unknowingly parroting Simmons.

When I said they did fine when he left, I meant literally, when he left the Knicks for another team, they did fine.

I then referenced the Ewing theory meme while saying "somewhat unfairly". If you want to say that the idea is so bad that even referencing it without fully disowning it is a huge error fine, but I'm quite clearly separating myself from Simmons here.

And then I referenced what happened team-wise early in his career, which again, was not a jawdropping shift.

And if you look at ElGee's leaderboard of huge-impact SIO guys, Ewing's not on there. Granted Frazier isn't either - not saying that that this is in itself an argument for Frazier - but is it a coincidence that Simmons started talking about "Ewing Theory" and not "Olajuwon Theory"? No, it isn't.

[bastillon]

When I said they did fine when he left, I meant literally, when he left the Knicks for another team, they did fine.

And if you look at ElGee's leaderboard of huge-impact SIO guys, Ewing's not on there. Granted Frazier isn't either - not saying that that this is in itself an argument for Frazier - but is it a coincidence that Simmons started talking about "Ewing Theory" and not "Olajuwon Theory"? No, it isn't.

how is that answering to DStern's argument about HUGE drop off on team defense in Ewing's absence ? what you're doing here is comparing Ewing's late 30s to prime Frazier, because that's when Ewing left for another team, when his impact wasn't great etc. prime Ewing had enormous team impact which should be obvious for rather anyone. but I guess only then (late 30s Ewing) this comparison would make sense because there's no doubt prime Ewing crushes Frazier.

[Doctor MJ]

DeBusschere and Reed were more important to Knicks D than Frazier. Look how they improved when DeBuss joined (D better by about 4.4 drtg in his first full season), or regressed when Reed was injured (worse by about 2.8 drtg) and DeBuss left (worse by about 3.6 drtg in 1975).

Oh, so that settles it, eh?

Ever occur to you to look at the year DeBuss joined game-by-game and see when the transformation came? It happened almost a month before he got there. They were 12-4 in their previous 16 games before DeBuss arrived, and 36-11 afterward. An almost negligible difference.

Regressed without Reed? They made the finals without Reed, c'mon dude. Not saying they didn't regress some, Reed was a positive influence after all, but the notion that Frazier somehow got exposed without Reed is silly.

Re: Fall off in 1975. The team's SRS fell by slightly more than 3 that year. How big of a deal is that? Well, for perspective, in the last decade, the Knicks have had SRS shifts of 3 or more from year to year 5 times, and we've seen several shifts in the league of 10 or more. In other words, an SRS shift of 3 is nothing to get worked up about, and most certainly nothing to let be your deciding factor in terms of who the star of a team is.

And if you want go by that b-r list then Kerr is right around where Ben Wallace is and Tony Parker where Tim Duncan ;]

I simply assume that the issues with going solely by that list are so obvious that everyone knows I wouldn't be stupid enough to do it, particularly when I give a laundry list of other facts that make explicit that I'm not going solely by that list. Doesn't mean it's not a reasonable thing to bring up along with other context, particularly when I know full well that anyone going too much by a player's team's DRtg is likely to overrate Ewing.

BTW, here's how Knicks defense changed when Ewing was injured:

Code: Select all

year   diff drtg   games missed
1986   5,2   32
1987   6,6   19
1996   12,2   6
1998   7,3   56
1999   1,5   12


That's DRob/KG/Duncan like impact on D.

I'll admit I don't have the data in my head here. I'd like to see more if you have it. I can't quite reconcile why Ewing would have mega-star SIO impact on defense, and yet not appear on ElGee's "best" SIO list unless he wasn't doing anything on offense, which would actually be about what my point was to start with. I consider Ewing a defensive anchor more so than an offensive one.

[Doctor MJ]

When I said they did fine when he left, I meant literally, when he left the Knicks for another team, they did fine.

And if you look at ElGee's leaderboard of huge-impact SIO guys, Ewing's not on there. Granted Frazier isn't either - not saying that that this is in itself an argument for Frazier - but is it a coincidence that Simmons started talking about "Ewing Theory" and not "Olajuwon Theory"? No, it isn't.

how is that answering to DStern's argument about HUGE drop off on team defense in Ewing's absence ? what you're doing here is comparing Ewing's late 30s to prime Frazier, because that's when Ewing left for another team, when his impact wasn't great etc. prime Ewing had enormous team impact which should be obvious for rather anyone. but I guess only then (late 30s Ewing) this comparison would make sense because there's no doubt prime Ewing crushes Frazier.

Jeez folks, chill. I'm now not allowed to answer the first post by itself without also answer all other posts that came after it in one fell swoop? Anyway, you'll see that response to Stern now.

Also, pretty silly argument you have here about me supposedly cherry picking old man Ewing when I'm clearly discussing Ewing at all ages within the same paragraph.

[sp6r=underrated]

It would have been really nice if you had really read what I was saying and not assumed that I was unknowingly parroting Simmons.

When I said they did fine when he left, I meant literally, when he left the Knicks for another team, they did fine.

Who gives a sh-t about the knicks drop off when Ewing left in the mid-00s. I openly argued that Shaq was a huge liability to teams like the Cavs (viewtopic.php?f=64&t=999542) but I would never bring it up when discussing peak- Shaq's value.

It's as irrelevant as Ewing being hideously ugly.

I then referenced the Ewing theory meme while saying "somewhat unfairly". If you want to say that the idea is so bad that even referencing it without fully disowning it is a huge error fine, but I'm quite clearly separating myself from Simmons here.

I don't think you are separating yourself from Simmons because I can't find any reason to bring up the Knicks results post-Ewing but to imply peak Ewing wasn't that valuable.

And then I referenced what happened team-wise early in his career, which again, was not a jawdropping shift.

As I showed rookie-Ewing had an impact on the knicks (their MOV w/o Ewing was a horrendous -9.38 and with him in the line-up it was -3.2.

And if you look at ElGee's leaderboard of huge-impact SIO guys, Ewing's not on there. Granted Frazier isn't either - not saying that that this is in itself an argument for Frazier - but is it a coincidence that Simmons started talking about "Ewing Theory" and not "Olajuwon Theory"? No, it isn't.[/quote]

Olajuwon is better than Ewing. I don't dispute that.

[lorak]

DeBusschere and Reed were more important to Knicks D than Frazier. Look how they improved when DeBuss joined (D better by about 4.4 drtg in his first full season), or regressed when Reed was injured (worse by about 2.8 drtg) and DeBuss left (worse by about 3.6 drtg in 1975).

Oh, so that settles it, eh?

Ever occur to you to look at the year DeBuss joined game-by-game and see when the transformation came? It happened almost a month before he got there. They were 12-4 in their previous 16 games before DeBuss arrived, and 36-11 afterward. An almost negligible difference.

We are talking about defensive impact, not overall, so tell me what was Knicks DRTG before DeBuss arrival and with him during that first season?

Regressed without Reed? They made the finals without Reed, c'mon dude.

Doc, please, stay on topic! We are talking about defense, not overall level of play. Knicks regressed defensively without Reed, but still were above average defensively (and without him improved offensively little bit).

Not saying they didn't regress some, Reed was a positive influence after all, but the notion that Frazier somehow got exposed without Reed is silly.

That's not what I'm saying!

I'll admit I don't have the data in my head here. I'd like to see more if you have it. I can't quite reconcile why Ewing would have mega-star SIO impact on defense, and yet not appear on ElGee's "best" SIO list unless he wasn't doing anything on offense, which would actually be about what my point was to start with. I consider Ewing a defensive anchor more so than an offensive one.

Elgee doesn't use ortg vs drtg but simply ppg scored vs ppg allowed, so that may be one of the reasons. Second is offense - young Ewing was slightly positive on O, and later his impact was negative according to with/without (but he was old and on bad knees). Quite reasonable, because jump shooting bigs, who aren't good passers and are very turnover prone aren't too valuable on offensive end. So I guess we agree here - Ewing was elite on D, but much worse on O.

Here's full list of Ewing with/without impact in terms of ortg and drtg

Code: Select all

year   ortg   drtg   net   G missed
1986   +1,0   -5,2   +6,2   32
1987   +0,4   -6,6   +7,0   19
1996   -1,6   -12,2   +10,6   6
1998   -1,9   -7,3   +5,4   56
1999   -4,2   -1,5   -2,7   12
2000   +3,5   +4,6   -1,1   20




[Doctor MJ]

When I said they did fine when he left, I meant literally, when he left the Knicks for another team, they did fine.

Who gives a sh-t about the knicks drop off when Ewing left in the mid-00s. I openly argued that Shaq was a huge liability to teams like the Cavs (viewtopic.php?f=64&t=999542) but I would never bring it up when discussing peak- Shaq's value.

It's as irrelevant as Ewing being hideously ugly.

I spent half a sentence on it. I'm not the one making a big deal about this.

And then I referenced what happened team-wise early in his career, which again, was not a jawdropping shift.

As I showed rookie-Ewing had an impact on the knicks (their MOV w/o Ewing was a horrendous -9.38 and with him in the line-up it was -3.2.

That's a good thing to bring up, but it's hard to imagine that it's irrelevant that it wasn't until Ewing's 3rd year that the Knicks surpassed the win total of 24 that they had in the year they sucked bad enough to get Ewing with the #1 pick. I don't see how you can really conclude that Ewing was having major star impact in those first couple years.

Not that that's necessarily all that damning, but again, that it would come up in the conversation shouldn't confuse or bother people.

And if you look at ElGee's leaderboard of huge-impact SIO guys, Ewing's not on there. Granted Frazier isn't either - not saying that that this is in itself an argument for Frazier - but is it a coincidence that Simmons started talking about "Ewing Theory" and not "Olajuwon Theory"? No, it isn't.

Olajuwon is better than Ewing. I don't dispute that.

Do you understand what I'm saying though? You're objecting to not being overwhelmed by the evidence of lift Ewing showed, and reference ElGee as part of this, but on this scale of ElGee's, Ewing doesn't exactly stand out.

If I've given the impression that I don't think Ewing helped his team, then I've spoken poorly. I do think Ewing was a star, and I think he's got an excellent case in this debate. I do think his team suffered when he went off the court.

I do think though that Frazier was a more valuable offensive player, and was not too far behind Ewing on defense.

[Doctor MJ]

We are talking about defensive impact, not overall, so tell me what was Knicks DRTG before DeBuss arrival and with him during that first season?

I don't have it. If you want to come back with that data, it would be a useful component of the debate.

I want to make clear though: You were the one asserting DeBusschere's superiority based on a particular statistic, not me. I'm just the guy pointing out the flaw in the stat you're using to make bold claims.

Doc, please, stay on topic! We are talking about defense, not overall level of play. Knicks regressed defensively without Reed, but still were above average defensively (and without him improved offensively little bit).

I don't consider consideration of overall team changes irrelevant to discussion about defense. If the team's overall change was small, then that either means:

1) the defensive change was small too

or

2) the offensive change was a significant positive - which would bring the entire proposed narrative into question. Meaning, if the team truly did significantly better on offense without Reed, then there's probably more going on here than what Frazier can and cannot do without reed.

Not saying they didn't regress some, Reed was a positive influence after all, but the notion that Frazier somehow got exposed without Reed is silly.

That's not what I'm saying!

I don't understand. You're on the anti-Frazier side of this argument. You brought up the loss of Reed and the effect it had on the team as part of furthering your side of the argument, no?

I'll admit I don't have the data in my head here. I'd like to see more if you have it. I can't quite reconcile why Ewing would have mega-star SIO impact on defense, and yet not appear on ElGee's "best" SIO list unless he wasn't doing anything on offense, which would actually be about what my point was to start with. I consider Ewing a defensive anchor more so than an offensive one.

Elgee doesn't use ortg vs drtg but simply ppg scored vs ppg allowed, so that may be one of the reasons. Second is offense - young Ewing was slightly positive on O, and later his impact was negative according to with/without (but he was old and on bad knees). Quite reasonable, because jump shooting bigs, who aren't good passers and are very turnover prone aren't too valuable on offensive end. So I guess we agree here - Ewing was elite on D, but much worse on O.

Here's full list of Ewing with/without impact in terms of ortg and drtg

Code: Select all

year   ortg   drtg   net   G missed
1986   +1,0   -5,2   +6,2   32
1987   +0,4   -6,6   +7,0   19
1996   -1,6   -12,2   +10,6   6
1998   -1,9   -7,3   +5,4   56
1999   -4,2   -1,5   -2,7   12
2000   +3,5   +4,6   -1,1   20




Okay, so by this data, Ewing basically contributed nothing on offense in his prime. I'll reiterate that my perspective all along was that I give Ewing the nod on defense, but that I have trouble thinking of him as a true two way star. This seems to say that more dramatically than I'd be willing to argue.

If you want to basically agree with me, but then say "But Ewing's defense was so huge, it ends the argument right there", that's defensible. I've got trouble doing that when I know that Frazier got tons of defensive praise himself.

[lorak]

I don't consider consideration of overall team changes irrelevant to discussion about defense.

Look, you said Frazier was the most important player for Knicks defense, and he was not too far behind Ewing on D. I don't agree with that and I'm talking only about that - just like you were talking only about defense earlier.

And evidence we have suggests that 70s Knicks defense was so good mainly because of Reed and Debusschere. And Ewing was much, much better in terms of defensive impact than Frazier. Saying Frazier was not too far behind Ewing on defensive end is just like saying Kobe wasn't too far behind Duncan on D....

If the team's overall change was small, then that either means:

1) the defensive change was small too

or

2) the offensive change was a significant positive - which would bring the entire proposed narrative into question. Meaning, if the team truly did significantly better on offense without Reed,

They did slightly better (not even one point...) on offense without Reed and much worse on D!. Overall they also regressed a lot.
Sure, they advanced to the finals, but that was overachieving. Look at the SRS:
1971 +5.1
1972 +2.3
1973 +6.1

And it wasn't like no one come in Reed's place. Lucas and Monroe joined Knicks in '72, but they still regressed a lot without Reed and then again improved with him.

I don't understand. You're on the anti-Frazier side of this argument.

Anti-Frazier in a sense that he wasn't better defensively than Reed and DeBuss and that he was much worse defensively than Ewing.

I know that Frazier got tons of defensive praise himself.

So show some data which will support that Frazier was great defender, better than Reed and DeBuss, not much worse than Ewing.

[Doctor MJ]

And evidence we have suggests that 70s Knicks defense was so good mainly because of Reed and Debusschere. And Ewing was much, much better in terms of defensive impact than Frazier. Saying Frazier was not too far behind Ewing on defensive end is just like saying Kobe wasn't too far behind Duncan on D....

To my mind I've been refuting your assertions about Reed & DeBuss quite well.

Consider the original DeBuss argument:

If the Knicks' transformation came not when DeBuss arrived, but a month before he arrived, then any rationale based on the transformation actually argues strongly against DeBuss. When you consider that that was also the year where Frazier emerged as a star, and a lock for All-Defense accolades, that only makes the narrative of Frazier's importance all the more plausible.

I'm fine admitting that there's more to the story, and this doesn't prove Frazier's the defensive star, but at the very least I've batted back your assertion to the point where applying that kind of logic should put you on the Frazier side of things. I think that's quite a lot to get us started.

They did slightly better (not even one point...) on offense without Reed and much worse on D!. Overall they also regressed a lot.
Sure, they advanced to the finals, but that was overachieving. Look at the SRS:
1971 +5.1
1972 +2.3
1973 +6.1

And it wasn't like no one come in Reed's place. Lucas and Monroe joined Knicks in '72, but they still regressed a lot without Reed and then again improved with him.

But as I've already stated, dropping off by an SRS of 3 points is not exactly huge. Beyond that, you talk about '73 as if Reed put things back to the status quo, when in fact by that point he'd dropped down to a role player playing slightly more than half his peak minutes, and scoring far less per minute than he had in his prime. To attribute all of the team's improvement to Reed's return as if the story was "With Reed AMAZING! without Reed meh" is simply not nuanced analysis.

I don't understand. You're on the anti-Frazier side of this argument.

Anti-Frazier in a sense that he wasn't better defensively than Reed and DeBuss and that he was much worse defensively than Ewing.

I understand that. I still don't understand your previous statement where you said "that's not my point" if it wasn't mean to argue along these lines.

I know that Frazier got tons of defensive praise himself.

So show some data which will support that Frazier was great defender, better than Reed and DeBuss, not much worse than Ewing.

Okay well:

The Reed point is easy to combat. What makes a big a defensive anchor?

Most typically shotblocking. Was Reed a master shotblocker? No.
Was he known for his super-agility that let him influence large swathes of court on defense? No.
Did he get lots of steals? (Which might counter act that reputation?) No.
Was he a master rebounder? No. He wasn't in Wes Unseld's league, and Unseld was not Russell/Wilt.
Was he known as a brilliant defensive quarterback? I've never heard this.

Reed was a smart man defender of bigs, and that's a good thing. In an ensemble cast one might argue that that could be enough for him to be the best defender on the team, but most definitely, this isn't a case where it makes sense to assume that the big must be the anchor. When you add in Reed really only got accolade credit for his defense in '69-70 when people decided to anoint him as MVP following the Knicks' great season (which only made narrative sense if Reed was a great defender), and that when people talk about the Knicks defense they don't tend to talk about Reed as the focal point, there are just a ton of reasons to give credit elsewhere.

And that's before you even consider that we know what the strength of this defense was - it was the perimeter - which points attention firmly away from Reed.

Frazier vs DeBusschere. This is trickier. We just don't have stats beyond what's already been talked about. While Frazier always got more attention, you can find tons of great things about both of them from the same people, and I've never seen much pushing one down in favor of the other although people talking about Frazier leading the defense is common.

For me the key thing is that the Knicks' defensive pressure meant causing turnovers. Yes they were trying to make every shot the defense took a tough one, and yes they were trying to get rebounds, but literally this was a team that swarmed and stole the ball. You can see it in games where opponents just look overwhelmed by this. And who was the player on the team people talked about as the master thief? Frazier, without any question. You can find coach Red and other talking about him as an unprecedented artist at this, as someone with incredible anticipation, and as someone who actually got in people's heads. To me then it all seems to fit that Frazier was the most important defender on the team.

I'll also note that the whole notion that shotblocking is far more important than thieving is a league-dependent thing. In leagues with lesser ball control and weaker decision making, a ballhawk can easily be the most valuable defender around. I'm not saying that stealing the ball was more important that blocking shots back then, but I don't really have any doubt that it was a bigger force then than it is now.

So when I see this great defense, based around this particular skill, used with a level of success that probably can't be matched any more simply because offenses are more adept, and that Frazier is the one most often singled out on the team, and always the one singled out for the flagship skill of the team, to me that says "defensive anchor". And if the man was a defensive anchor, well then I don't think it's any kind of given that Ewing's defense was so drastically more valuable as to end the conversation.

By contrast, the man defense & solid but not unreal rebounding of DeBuss, I'd say that hasn't really changed that much from then to now. To me he seems like the kind of smart, solid defender that can really help round out your team, but I can't really picture the scenario where he has defensive anchor impact.