#19 Highest Peak of All Time (Ewing '90 wins)

[Dipper 13]

**** phagget. Shoot over double team instead of passing to the open man? Is that why he was dropping 6 APG and has a GREAT track-record of making teammates better?

The dude with the 5 rings isn't going to make the proper play over the 2nd-round virgin?

**** moron.

Best we settle down, no?

[Dipper 13]

Anyways, I'm not voting in this thread. But I was very confused as to why Jerry West is nominated in 68. Why not a year like 66. He played 28 more games in 66. He scored 5 more points a game. Rebounded better. He led the league in TS% in both seasons. Also outproduced his 68 version in every category in the playoffs. 68 seems to be sort of a random year. Is there something I'm missing?

Perhaps the chemistry? They had excellent scorers and pure shooters with a motion type offense and high post center who could face up and shoot. I recall a video with Chick Hearn stating that Mel Counts was the best shooting big man ever. If they had won the title, this season may be his consensus peak, even with the missed games. Of course, they didn't beat Boston and they would have had even a lesser chance vs the Sixers due to matchup issues. Remember Chamberlain had a 53/32/14 game against them in the regular season.



Sports Illustrated - April 15, 1968

"This whole team gets along better together than any I've ever played on," Jerry West says. "That's part of the reason I was so discouraged when I was hurt again a few weeks ago. We're a more aggressive team. I play against better defense in practice than in a lot of games. "And this is absolutely the best-shooting team I have ever seen. I mean shooting. Not drop it in or beat it to death on the backboard."

There has been a great deal of talk all year about how Van Breda Kolff has managed to spread the scoring load around. But in the Lakers' first playoff series, which they won in five games against Chicago, Baylor and West made 293 of 510 Laker points. Both players appear as contented and assured as they have ever been, and when the Eastern teams get through hacking each other to death, the survivor may not be prepared for finesseball.



The Free Lance-Star - Mar 19, 1968

[Doctor MJ]

TMac's more like Kobe, except he's got a lot more question marks for a variety of reasons.

How so? I'd rather go with '03 T-Mac tbh because he's a more instinctive passer -- imagine Kobe in a Magic uniform and being double-teamed. Armstrong is open on the perimeter. Who do you think is more willing to move the ball to the open man instead of being tempted to shoot a "But I'm Michael Jordan 2.0 dammit, WATCH THIS ya'll" 18-foot fadeaway over a double-team?.

Not sure exactly what you're asking here. Sounds like you agree that TMac's game is more like Kobe's than Wade's, you just think he was better than Kobe. He very well may have been, I just have uncertainties.

I'd like to see McGrady turn ANY team into anything like a GOAT level offense. Look, I'm not someone who think McGrady actually couldn't get passed the first round - he certainly could have - but let's not pretend that volume scorers who achieve max impact at middling team success aren't a known phenomenon. Choose what you want to prioritize, but the idea that people think McGrady was more suited to create truly great team offenses than Nash is kind of amazing to me.

If you're McGrady's coach with that talent (or lack thereof) around you, you can do two things:

1. Let T-Mac shoot as much as possible since he's shown the ability to score over anyone in isolation, and allow him to make plays for others when he draws defenses towards him.
2. Run an intricate offense in which everyone helps each other get an open shot. Which takes the ball out of the hands of your more reliable player and puts it into the hands of less talented players. They take on a larger load of the offense; and, as studies have shown time and time again, efficiency decreases with increased volume especially with roleplayers.

Now also consider factors such as risk aversion, etc. that coaches also deal with. Unless you're some kind of offensive genius who design an offense in which everyone on the floor gets their optimal shot that they can convert despite their marginal offesive campabilities, why would you choose 2 over 1?

Oh I'm just saying my friend:

You made a comment about Nash that was really more about volume scoring vs floor generalship than it was about the players in question.

[ardee]

**** phagget. Shoot over double team instead of passing to the open man? Is that why he was dropping 6 APG and has a GREAT track-record of making teammates better?

The dude with the 5 rings isn't going to make the proper play over the 2nd-round virgin?

**** moron.

[ardee]

Here is what I wrote about McGrady in an earlier thread:

The '03 McGrady season seems quite similar to '06 Kobe to me in terms of narrative. A putrid offensive supporting cast, Kobe/Mac has to go for 33-35 ppg on decent efficiency to keep them relevant. The difference, to me, however, is that Kobe's 06 team overachieved massively. Starting Smush Parker at PG and Kwame Brown at C, they still managed the 7th best SRS in the league.

The narrative continues. It's astounding really. The team makes the first round and is pitted against a 1st/2nd seed. They jump out to a shock 3-1 lead behind great play from their superstar. Then, it all falls away. Mac averaged 26 ppg on just 36% shooting in the last three games, all losses. And here's the thing: that Detroit team, they weren't very good. They were the 1st seed in the EC with just a 50-32 record, and they were just a 2.9 SRS team. I don't see '08 Kobe, or even '06 Kobe for that matter, struggling so much against them.

When someone loses in round 1, you can give them credit if they go all out and burn their opponents like Wade '10. But Mac really underperformed as compared to the regular season. Can't rank him over Kobe '08 the same reason I can't rank Kobe 06 over Kobe 08.

So really, I can't say "T-Mac should be in because Kobe is in and he was as good as Kobe" because he just wasn't.

The team he lost to was very average. Their SRS was only .45 higher then the Lakers in '06! Can you imagine a peak West, Dirk, Barkley or Nash struggling against a team like that?

Remember, during that '68 year West in the Playoffs West was scoring at +10% TS. In '66 he scored 2.5 more ppg at +9% TS. This was a guy who was blowing existing efficiency records right out of the water. The only other instance I'm aware of someone scoring 32+ ppg on +9 or more TS% was Kareem in '77: 34.6 ppg on a pretty ridiculous +14% TS (there's a reason he was voted in already).

The anti-West arguments are not convincing me at all. I'm sticking to '66 and if everyone else is voting '68 I will change.

[Eragon]

[

you just think he was better than Kobe. He very well may have been, .

No he wasn't you **** moron. Kobe is easily better you dumass.

[ardee]

[

you just think he was better than Kobe. He very well may have been, .

No he wasn't you **** moron. Kobe is easily better you dumass.

Is this guy going to get IP banned anytime soon? As a Kobe 'fan', he kills the credibility of other guys who argue for Kobe like myself and An Unbiased Fan.

[therealbig3]

Not sure exactly what you're asking here. Sounds like you agree that TMac's game is more like Kobe's than Wade's, you just think he was better than Kobe. He very well may have been, I just have uncertainties.

He's responding to you lumping T-Mac in with Kobe as someone who tends to fall prey to streetballer flair, except with more question marks. But that's not the case...the main reason I take T-Mac over Kobe offensively is his ability to play facilitator. He's a more instinctive passer than Kobe, and he's actually stated many times that he grew up playing PG, and that he tends to want to do that more. He also said that he scored so much in his prime, because he was put in situations where he had to. That's kind of true, but I'm sure he wouldn't switch to playing like Steve Nash if he had the talent around him...yeah, he probably did like his own volume scoring too much. But his mindset is imo very good for a volume-scoring wing...LeBron-like, actually, just not quite as well adjusted as LeBron.

In fact, I don't see this clear separation in terms of wanting to create between Wade and T-Mac. Wade is probably MORE trigger-happy than T-Mac. But he's such an attacker and so persistent, that he's pretty much always getting the shots he wants. But in terms of playmaking ability and passing ability, T-Mac imo has separation from both Wade and Kobe.

[therealbig3]

So really, I can't say "T-Mac should be in because Kobe is in and he was as good as Kobe" because he just wasn't.

The team he lost to was very average. Their SRS was only .45 higher then the Lakers in '06! Can you imagine a peak West, Dirk, Barkley or Nash struggling against a team like that?

I really don't know how to respond to this, because this has been discussed plenty, and it's just silly to harp on those 3 games as anything meaningful. I've already pointed out the context, and how he actually didn't play nearly as poorly as people are saying.

Kobe never had a 3 game stretch where he struggled? How about the last 3 games against Orlando in 09?

Detroit was a good defensive team, and Orlando had a crap supporting cast. Yes, without much help, I can see all of those guys struggling.

BTW, Kobe in 08 against the Pistons in the regular season, per 36 (2 games):

24.9 ppg, 6.0 rpg, 5.1 apg, 5.6 TOpg, 56.0% TS, 105.8 ORating

It is only a 2 game sample from the regular season, but Kobe seemed to struggle big time against a Detroit team that was around the same level defensively as the 03 Pistons.

[ardee]

So really, I can't say "T-Mac should be in because Kobe is in and he was as good as Kobe" because he just wasn't.

The team he lost to was very average. Their SRS was only .45 higher then the Lakers in '06! Can you imagine a peak West, Dirk, Barkley or Nash struggling against a team like that?

I really don't know how to respond to this, because this has been discussed plenty, and it's just silly to harp on those 3 games as anything meaningful. I've already pointed out the context, and how he actually didn't play nearly as poorly as people are saying.

Kobe never had a 3 game stretch where he struggled? How about the last 3 games against Orlando in 09?

Detroit was a good defensive team, and Orlando had a crap supporting cast. Yes, without much help, I can see all of those guys struggling.

BTW, Kobe in 08 against the Pistons in the regular season, per 36 (2 games):

24.9 ppg, 6.0 rpg, 5.1 apg, 5.6 TOpg, 56.0% TS, 105.8 ORating

It is only a 2 game sample from the regular season, but Kobe seemed to struggle big time against a Detroit team that was around the same level defensively as the 03 Pistons.

Playing poorly in the REGULAR season against a certain team is VERY different from playing poorly in the PLAYOFFS against a certain team, especially when your poor play results in your team snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.

[therealbig3]

And so we're basically using winning bias against T-Mac. As if no other superstar wing had a poor 3 game stretch in the playoffs.

I could also point to Kobe against Phoenix in 06, and his last 3 games as his team blew the lead.

Stat padding in game 5, and then gets himself thrown out of the game.

Goes for 50 points in game 6...in contradiction of what got his team in that position in the first place. And on that Tim Thomas 3 that sent it to OT...he was the one out of position.

Quits in game 7, goes 0-3 with 1 point in the 2nd half. That was still a winnable game, his team was down 15 points at halftime, and he had 23 at that point.

Other than big box score stats (against a much worse defensive team) that didn't have much impact, Kobe didn't play better than T-Mac down the stretch of his series.

I'm using some hyperbole, but these were all criticisms that were actually made of him at the time, and it's not like they're without warrant.

[Equit]

Is this clown serious? Kobe in Game 5 had 29/7/5/69% TS,50/8/5/3/66% TS in Game 6, and 24/4/1/1/66% TS in Game 7. How is that even remotely comparable to T-Wack playing like garbage for three straight games? LMAO.

T-wack: Never out of the first round

Kobe: 5 Championships.

LOL

[therealbig3]

Is this clown serious? Kobe in Game 5 had 29/7/5/69% TS,50/8/5/3/66% TS in Game 6, and 24/4/1/1/66% TS in Game 7. How is that even remotely comparable to T-Wack playing like garbage for three straight games? LMAO.

Other than big box score stats (against a much worse defensive team) that didn't have much impact, Kobe didn't play better than T-Mac down the stretch of his series.

Bolded it for you.

[Equit]

29/7/5/69% TS, 50/8/5/3/66% TS, 24/4/1/1/66% TS didn't have impact? LOL. What a joke. It sure beats 35% shooting or whatever it was from T-Wack.

[drza]

Is this clown serious? Kobe in Game 5 had 29/7/5/69% TS,50/8/5/3/66% TS in Game 6, and 24/4/1/1/66% TS in Game 7. How is that even remotely comparable to T-Wack playing like garbage for three straight games? LMAO.

Other than big box score stats (against a much worse defensive team) that didn't have much impact, Kobe didn't play better than T-Mac down the stretch of his series.

Bolded it for you.

Dude, stop feeding the troll.

[Equit]

29/7/5/69% TS
50/8/5/3/66% TS
24/4/1/1/66% TS

vs.

19/8/4/3/45% TS
37/11/5/2/52% TS
21/5/6/40% TS

Yeah, that's comparable.

LMAO>

[Equit]

Dude, stop feeding the troll.

I didn't know pointing out facts was trolling.

Phagget.

[drza]

1990 Patrick Ewing

Needs to be getting more discussion IMO. Here is the B-R breakdown for 90 Ewing vs 2 of his peers that are already in: 1994 Hakeem and 1995 Robinson:

http://www.basketball-reference.com/pla ... 01&y3=1995

If you follow that link you might be surprised by how similar the 3 were in boxscore stats. I was...even though I was watching those years, I'd kind of started associating Ewing with his mid-1990s self. I kinda forgot how he was pre-knee injury. Ewing was scoring and rebounding at the exact same volume and efficiency as Hakeem and Robinson, and was better even than Robinson in the postseason.

I'm typing 1 handed at moment which is limiting (and annoying), so I'll stop and quote Fatal's good Ewing post for more context:

If we are considering peak Ewing only, that would be him in 1990. Offensively he was much better back then. He was moving much better, his knees were feeling probably the best they ever did in the NBA and he posted 29 ppg on 58 TS% (55 FG%). Couple of things that might throw people off are that Knicks were "only" 45-37, but consider that Oakley missed 21 games, Mark Jackson had the worst season of his career (benched in favor of 33 year old Cheeks by end of season), mid-season trades (Strickland for Cheeks), a new coach, a net negative player like old Kiki V joining the team at the end of the season (7-15 in games he played...this stretch took the air out of Ewing's MVP candidacy) and it's obvious the '90 team didn't really have the stability and continuity of the other Knick teams.

In the playoffs Ewing pulled off an upset against the Celtics by winning three straight elimination games (had 33/19, 44/13/5/7/2 on 75% shooting (!), 31/8/10/4 in those three games respectively). Against the Pistons in the next series he was in foul trouble in some games but still averaged 27/10 on 56 TS% against them. This is a version of Ewing without the offensive inefficiency that we're used to from him in the 90s. He gets more space on his baseline fadeaway and he's better at finishing baskets when he gets the ball down low. You can't look at his offensive impact later on in the 90s when the "Ewing Theory" really caught steam and use that say he was a net negative player offensively in the early 90s/late 80s (particularly 1990) because he was a different player then, especially physically. Felt like he aged 5 years between 1990 and 1992.

Despite all of this, you don't want a roster where you depend on Ewing for 30 points a night, and with a proper team I doubt he would be asked to score that much and would expend more energy on the boards/defense. But still, it's nice to know that he had another gear offensively that year where you could really ride him to wins.

The only thing is that in '90, his team defensive performance wasn't quite as dominant as we're used to. But that's more because of the personnel surrounding him, continuity issues and the biggest difference is probably that he wasn't under a defensive minded coach like Riley yet. His shot blocking is dominant here, 4 bpg, second only to Hakeem, which is impressive considering how much energy he was expending on offense. With the way he was moving back then (and it's not like he's inexperienced...he was 27 in 1990), I don't see how he doesn't have the same impact defensively if put in a system where defense is emphasized. So team defensive performance is down that year, but he's still the same great defensive anchor.

So while over the course of Ewing's career, I think there are questions about his offensive impact, I don't have those concerns when we look at just his peak.

[bastillon]

Ebere/Equid is a huge troll obviously but he does have a point. there is no reason to compare Kobe's 06 series vs Suns and TMac's 03 series vs Detroit in the last 3 games. boxscore wise TMac is destroyed as Equid suprisingly correctly pointed out. his impact was very likely a lot higher as well. I mentioned how poorly Orlando played with TMac on the court in the last 3 games. as far as impact goes, it was a different situation. Lakers were having a lot of success beating up on Phoenix inside up until game 4. but that strategy stopped working after that game. Kobe was doing what he was doing previously, only the strategy failed. his boxscore stats actually improved in that 3-game timespan.

in TMac's case his individual performance suffered a lot. it was clearly because of Detroit changing their focus more into TMac and letting Prince guard him a lot more after 1st four games. also where did you get this notion that we're nitpicking random 3-games for TMac ? it has been stated several times by me and others that it was 3-consecutive games, vs the same playoff opponent, with the series on the line and there was clear causation with Prince's presence making TMac's impact suffer. if TMac just had bad shooting games I'd more reluctant to punish him as part of variance. he exploded in the first 4 games, struggled in the last 3, that's ok (I guess). but when Prince was clearly the reason why TMac started to suffer it makes me wonder... what if Detroit put Prince on TMac right from the get go ? are the Magic swept ? it wasn't about TMac having a random 3-game stretch, it was about him unable to adjust to a better defender/unable to produce against him period.

so all in all, I see Kobe as playing pretty much the same way outside of game 6 (more on that below), while TMac's struggles (playing much worse) were linked to opponnent's adjustments. really big difference.

Goes for 50 points in game 6...in contradiction of what got his team in that position in the first place. And on that Tim Thomas 3 that sent it to OT...he was the one out of position.

that was one of the worst comments you've ever made on realGM. Phil specifically demanded that Kobe went all out in that game. let alone focusing on one play, for a guy who seems to champion consistency and large samples. wow, another one with double standards ?

Quits in game 7, goes 0-3 with 1 point in the 2nd half. That was still a winnable game, his team was down 15 points at halftime, and he had 23 at that point.

this game was over at the halftime, come on now. I'd rather blame Phil Jackson for using that idiotic strategy again. Lakers bigs were epic fail in the first half and if they just converted their inside shots Lakers could've been leading the game. not to mention their horrible defense, nobody stepped out on the pick and rolls to defend Barbosa. Kobe actually played perfect 1st half imo, scored tons of pts on great efficiency while also getting his teammates involved and executing Phil's gameplan. this game was much more about Kwame Brown & co suckin than it was about Kobe. he did quit in the 2nd half, it was pretty obvious, but there was no way Lakers could win that game either way with that level of play of their role players (even though Nash was injured). I mean Kobe couldn't literally play better in the 1st half and they still lost by 15 pts.

Other than big box score stats (against a much worse defensive team) that didn't have much impact, Kobe didn't play better than T-Mac down the stretch of his series.

empty statement. why don't you give some evidence ?

BTW, Kobe in 08 against the Pistons in the regular season, per 36 (2 games):

24.9 ppg, 6.0 rpg, 5.1 apg, 5.6 TOpg, 56.0% TS, 105.8 ORating

I will remember that. expect to have this brought up when you start talking sh*t about large samples. unbelievable. I would never expect that comment from you.

And so we're basically using winning bias against T-Mac. As if no other superstar wing had a poor 3 game stretch in the playoffs.

okay let's play this game. find similarly bad stretch for a superstar in the playoffs: 3 games, consecutive, the same opponent, series on the line, combo of huge dropoff in the boxscore and terrible on-court beatdown, caused by team putting a different defender on that superstar. Kobe, LeBron, Wade would literally get crucified.

[bastillon]

1990 Patrick Ewing

Needs to be getting more discussion IMO. Here is the B-R breakdown for 90 Ewing vs 2 of his peers that are already in: 1994 Hakeem and 1995 Robinson:

http://www.basketball-reference.com/pla ... 01&y3=1995

If you follow that link you might be surprised by how similar the 3 were in boxscore stats. I was...even though I was watching those years, I'd kind of started associating Ewing with his mid-1990s self. I kinda forgot how he was pre-knee injury. Ewing was scoring and rebounding at the exact same volume and efficiency as Hakeem and Robinson, and was better even than Robinson in the postseason.

I'm typing 1 handed at moment which is limiting (and annoying), so I'll stop and quote Fatal's good Ewing post for more context:

oh I'm sorry but this Olajuwon parallel is just way off. his offense was nowhere near Hakeem because he was far worse at both scoring and passing. his stats really overstate his offensive abilities here. peak Hakeem was pretty much a perfect low post player. do you really think Knicks would have those results with Olajuwon ?

I'm not sold on Ewing's offense at all. I understand that he seemed a lot better in 90 going by his stats but the fact that it's such an outlier among his other years really concerns me. it's probably just some coincidence of several factors (team style, coaching schemes, his better play) instead of Ewing legitimately improving his game. I mean what happened between 89 and 90 that Ewing became so much more potent offensively ? why sudden regress in 91 and then another sudden, bigger dropoff in 92 ? is it really all health ? I'm not sold on this.

I do think Ewing's prime gets underrated in comparison to D-Rob though. if the argument for D-Rob is that although he is a fundamentally flawed offensive anchor, he fits perfectly as the perfection 2nd option, the same holds true for Ewing. I would never trust him to run my offense through him because of his weak passing and heavy reliance on inconsistent jumpshot but I could see him being a much better 2nd option. D-Rob got voted in way too early though. his offensive impact was just weak in the postseason and I don't think his defense makes up for that.