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

[An Unbiased Fan]

I really have to disagree with this. The Knicks were only the #13 defense in 1990, and Ewing wasn't playing stellar D that year. The Knicks didn't become an elite defense until Pat Riley showed up and demanded it.

As a rebounder, he's was good, not great. In fact, I really would have to ask how he beats out Karl Malone, who had a higher PPG & RPG in 1990.

He was averaging about 4 bpg that season. I don't know why everyone feels like the entire offensive/defensive rating should fall on the shoulders of one player. This is basketball, a team sport, a 5 on 5 sport, everybody matters, not just one star.

Yes it is true that Knicks weren't great defensively until Riley showed up but defensive coaching has more impact on defenses than one individual player does anyways.

For reflection, the 1990 Knicks also had Oakley, who was a great defender. Oak also was NY's leading rebounder, not Ewing.

Ewing's 4 BPG don't mean much to me either, because I don't value blocks to begin with. I think counting BPG for D, is like counting dunks per game for offense. I'm only interested in whether the defender prevented a score, not how flashy he did it.

I'm failing to see how 1990 Ewing is on par with Karl Malone, Moses, or even Dwight. Nevermind the fact that Barkley has been forgotten, West is still around, Petitt has gotten no run, nor has Mikan.

[ElGee]

So only 1 team in the modern era won a title lower than a 3 seed. In fact 5 out of 6 NBA champions are 1 or 2 seeds. That shows how important seeding is in the NBA.

What do you think the correlation is between seeding and quality of team?

Seeding is still important when it comes to good teams. I looked at every team from 84-12 that was a 4 seed or lower and had a 4+ SRS.

39 teams qualify:
avg seed: 4.5
53-29 average record
5.10 SRS
22-39 series record (.361)

Twice the team with the best SRS in the league was in this sample and they combined for 2 series wins. the 10 Jazz had the best conference SRS but were swept in the 2nd round (hmmm).

So you want the 2010 Utah Jazz to be one of 39 examples as to how HCA matters because you made a very convoluted effort to control for team strength?

Do you realize that the 2010 Lakers were coming off 2 FInals appearance, probably weren't playing full throttle and had their 3 best players miss a total of 43 games? Or that they matchup with the Jazz so well (that team was overwhelmed inside) that they beat them by an average of 13.8 ppg during the year? The Lakers were 36-11 with Bynum, Gasol and Bryant starting (63-win pace) and a 49-win pace otherwise. (You can check the SRS's if you want.) Guess which team brutalized Utah?

But simply, and most importantly, each team played the same number of home games in the series!

18 out of the 39 won their 1st round series (.461). They faced each other in 7 series so when they didn't face each other, they had a .440 1st round series win% (11-14). Only 3 out of 39 teams even made it to the CF. Those were the 90 Suns who had the best SRS in the NBA that year yet still lost because they didn't have HCA in the WCF

And again, what's the issue here? The 90 Suns played the same number of home games as the Blazers they lost to. (Not to mention they beat the 6.7 Lakers the round before w.out HCA!)

, the 94 Jazz who beat the 8th seed Nuggets in the 2nd round so a fluke, and 06 Mavs who actually had the #2 record and had HCA in the WCF. Only the Mavs made it to the finals. Mind you, here is the average NBA finalist loser since 84:

56 wins
5.36 SRS
1.97 avg seed

So they literally have similar SRS, yet they those "good" teams never made it far while the finalist losers did because they were the higher seed. If that is not proof then I don't know what is. Let's limit it to 4 seeds or worse with a 5 SRS or better:

4.45 seed average
54 wins average
5.72 SRS
13-20 (.394) series record

10 out of the 20 won in the 1st round

And why didn't you control for the OPPONENT quality? You list these teams but don't mention the quality of their opponent. Because...

and only 2 out of the 20 (90 Suns and 06 Mavs) even advanced to the conference finals. needless to say, none of those teams won the title. If you limit to 6 SRS teams, they were only 3-4 (.429) with a 7.09 SRS average and just 1 conference finals berth. These are elite teams yet they never advanced far because they had low seeds.

No, they are elite teams that didn't advanced because they often played better teams. Or they just lost with HCA themselves.

92 Suns 5.7 SRS. Lost to 6.9 SRS team
94 Spurs 5.1 SRS. Lost to 4.1 SRS team (we've been over that one before, eh? And they played the same number of home games.)
95 Sonics 7.9 SRS. Lost to 0 SRS Lakers...WITH HCA.
97 Hawks 5.5 SRS beat Pistons 5.5 SRS (in 5th game w HCA)
97 Hawks 5.5 SRS lose to 10.7 SRS Bulls
00 Spurs 5.9 SRS lose to Suns 5.2 SRS...WITH HCA (no Duncan obviously)
00 Suns 5.2 SRS lose to 8.4 SRS Lakers
01 Jazz 5.0 SRS lose to 4.6 SRS Mavs...WITH HCA
04 Kings 5.4 SRS lose to 5.9 SRS Timberwolves (in 7 games)
05 Mavs 5.9 SRS lose to 7.1 SRS Suns
06 Mavs 6.0 SRS beat 6.7 SRS SPurs (w/out HCA)
06 Mavs 6.0 SRS lose to 3.6 SRS Heat...same number of home games played
07 Rockets 5.0 SRS lose to 3.1 SRS Jazz in 7g...with HCA
08 Jazz 6.9 SRS lose to 7.3 SRS Lakers...same number of home games (and vastly superior team post Gasol trade)
08 Suns 5.1 SRS lose to 5.1 SRS Spurs...in 5g
09 Blazers 5.0 SRS lose to 3.7 SRS Rockets...with HCA

So your statement is about the furthest thing possible from the truth.

If you want further proof, here is how each final winner and loser ranked in conference SRS:
Avg winner: 1.86 in SRS
Avg loser: 2.10 in SRS

Now compare that to finalists based on seed:
avg winner: 1.66 seed
avg loser: 1.97 seed

Out of 58 finalists, 30 of them were #1 in conference SRS while 32 times they were #1 seed. 15 of them were #2 in SRS and 15 were #2 seed so 47 out of 58 were top 2 seed while 45 out of 58 were top 2 SRS. 54 out of 58 were a top 3 seed while only 51 out of 58 were a top 3 SRS. Only 1 NBA champion was worse than a 3 seed, while 4 NBA champions were worse than #3 in SRS including 2 #6 SRS teams.

The #1 seed in both conferences faced off against each other 10 times while the #1 SRS team faced off each other just 6 times.

You can't ignore the data. The facts are that Seed and HCA is more predictive in the playoffs than SRS. Thats why its so important.

And the facts are that attendance "predicts" team success using your correlative reasoning. Look up what a confounding variable is. Then read about causation and correlation. Do it like 10x so you never have to be corrected by someone like me ever again.

[fatal9]

People are questioning this guy's defense?

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hylBSIMbeZg[/youtube]

Come on...this is '92-'94 Ewing but with way better knees. I mean every game I've seen of his from this season, it's the type of combo of scoring variety, defense and athleticism, Knicks fans always wished he had. He was seen as a better center than Hakeem that year, made the all-NBA first over him and had coaches around the league saying he was the best center in the league.

Parish said that Ewing "is a better player today because he has variety of shots, just doesn't throw the fadeaway jumpshot, he gives you the jump hook and his spin move on the baseline is the toughest thing for me to guard" (so this isn't exactly the fadeaway jumpers all game long offensive version of Ewing we remember most). From what I've read guys say about him, he took a big leap in his post game that season but declined as the 90s went on because his knees got worse and worse (and of course he aged, he was in his 30s during '92-'94...and consequently shot jumpers wayyyyyy more often), and as a result so did his efficiency. Even in something like FT shooting, it's way above his career average and his best year ever. He is doing a lot of heavy lifting offensively...must be turning the ball over a lot like he always did, but nope, while putting up the scoring numbers he did, he also posted the third best TOV% of his career. It's not like Ewing is inexperienced here either, he is 27-28 which is usually when players peak so career trajectory wise, it makes sense.

Knicks were still above average defensively considering the following things: a rookie head coach (Stu Jackson, fired 15 games into next season...and only coached one other team after that, the 6-33 Grizzlies), the second best defender on the team missing 21 games, a bad defensive backcourt particularly when Kiki joins the team. I would say he's making pretty good impact here (and we know he can probably make a lot more if he is on a championship caliber team where he doesn't have to score as much). This is one of the great interior defenders of all time, he didn't learn defense when he was 30 years old just like KG didn't magically learn to play defense when he joined the Celtics. His comparison was Bill Russell coming out of college, he was seen as one of the finest defensive talents ever. The questions weren't "can he defend?" but "can he add enough to his post game?" (and he did in 1990). In terms of interior defense, he's ones of the best ever, anything you threw around the basket was going to get challenged, no easy baskets even it meant you put him on a poster. He's second in the league in blocks behind Hakeem, I know averages aren't everything but this isn't Javale McGee we are talking about, but a fundamentally sound defensive player, who plays great post defense and whose block averages reflect his ability to absolutely lock down the paint. I'm going to guess a better moving version of the guy who was anchoring historic defenses a year and a half later was still pretty damn effective on defense. Seems like a reasonable conclusion.

Regarding the Ewing Theory. It refers to the mid/late 90s version of Ewing (in his mid 30s) who is 5+ years away from the year in question here and a CLEAR step down offensively. Even if it were true, it's not very relevant. It's like using Kobe's impact last couple of years to define his impact in '08.

One thing I kind of wish there was more of an argument for was D-Rob (who I think went a few spots too high) vs. Ewing. Would people really take '95 D-Rob in a playoff series over '90 Ewing? Has D-Rob ever taken over offensively for his teams in the playoffs like that? Could D-Rob give the bad boy Pistons defense 45 point game and then come back and drop 30 points in the second half of the next game? And don't forget the intangibles, Ewing was intimidating on the court, a better leader, a guy who has an impact over the entire mentality of the team. I think a great argument I read for D-Rob was that he'd be a great second banana offensively on a championship team but would still be the best overall player on the team...could the same thing not be said about '90 Ewing?

[Doctor MJ]

Serious question: Why hasn't Rick Barry/Bob McAdoo been mentioned. I mean if Bernard King is getting buzz these two should be.

For me personally, all these guys are respectable guys to be discussed around this ballpark, but for crying out loud, Jerry West is still on the board. I can't imagine anybody from the era picking Barry & McAdoo ahead of West.

[ElGee]

vote: 1968 Jerry West.

[lorak]

People are questioning this guy's defense?

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hylBSIMbeZg[/youtube]

Come on...this is '92-'94 Ewing but with way better knees. I mean every game I've seen of his from this season, it's the type of combo of scoring variety, defense and athleticism, Knicks fans always wished he had. He was seen as a better center than Hakeem that year, made the all-NBA first over him and had coaches around the league saying he was the best center in the league.

Parish said that Ewing "is a better player today because he has variety of shots, just doesn't throw the fadeaway jumpshot, he gives you the jump hook and his spin move on the baseline is the toughest thing for me to guard" (so this isn't exactly the fadeaway jumpers all game long offensive version of Ewing we remember most). From what I've read guys say about him, he took a big leap in his post game that season but declined as the 90s went on because his knees got worse and worse (and of course he aged, he was in his 30s during '92-'94...and consequently shot jumpers wayyyyyy more often), and as a result so did his efficiency. Even in something like FT shooting, it's way above his career average and his best year ever. He is doing a lot of heavy lifting offensively...must be turning the ball over a lot like he always did, but nope, while putting up the scoring numbers he did, he also posted the third best TOV% of his career. It's not like Ewing is inexperienced here either, he is 27-28 which is usually when players peak so career trajectory wise, it makes sense.

Knicks were still above average defensively considering the following things: a rookie head coach (Stu Jackson, fired 15 games into next season...and only coached one other team after that, the 6-33 Grizzlies), the second best defender on the team missing 21 games, a bad defensive backcourt particularly when Kiki joins the team. I would say he's making pretty good impact here (and we know he can probably make a lot more if he is on a championship caliber team where he doesn't have to score as much). This is one of the great interior defenders of all time, he didn't learn defense when he was 30 years old just like KG didn't magically learn to play defense when he joined the Celtics. His comparison was Bill Russell coming out of college, he was seen as one of the finest defensive talents ever. The questions weren't "can he defend?" but "can he add enough to his post game?" (and he did in 1990). In terms of interior defense, he's ones of the best ever, anything you threw around the basket was going to get challenged, no easy baskets even it meant you put him on a poster. He's second in the league in blocks behind Hakeem, I know averages aren't everything but this isn't Javale McGee we are talking about, but a fundamentally sound defensive player, who plays great post defense and whose block averages reflect his ability to absolutely lock down the paint. I'm going to guess a better moving version of the guy who was anchoring historic defenses a year and a half later was still pretty damn effective on defense. Seems like a reasonable conclusion.

Regarding the Ewing Theory. It refers to the mid/late 90s version of Ewing (in his mid 30s) who is 5+ years away from the year in question here and a CLEAR step down offensively. Even if it were true, it's not very relevant. It's like using Kobe's impact last couple of years to define his impact in '08.

One thing I kind of wish there was more of an argument for was D-Rob (who I think went a few spots too high) vs. Ewing. Would people really take '95 D-Rob in a playoff series over '90 Ewing? Has D-Rob ever taken over offensively for his teams in the playoffs like that? Could D-Rob give the bad boy Pistons defense 45 point game and then come back and drop 30 points in the second half of the next game? And don't forget the intangibles, Ewing was intimidating on the court, a better leader, a guy who has an impact over the entire mentality of the team. I think a great argument I read for D-Rob was that he'd be a great second banana offensively on a championship team but would still be the best overall player on the team...could the same thing not be said about '90 Ewing?

Another great post by fatal and I agree with you 100% (even youtube video you posted was uploaded by me, because I was so impressed by Ewing's play).

And Ewing theory is completly BS... at least until he was 36 years old. In 1986 he missed 32 games and NYK without him were worse by 6.2 efficiency pts (Ewing improved offense by 1 and defense by 5,2).

1987: 19 games missed, -7 without Ewing (0.4 offense, 6,6 defense)

1996: 6 games missed, -10.6 without Ewing (he improved defense by 12.2 drtg! but offense was worse with him by 1.6)

1998: 56 games missed, -5.4 without Ewing (he improved defense by 7.3 but offense was worse with him by 1.9)

1999: 12 games missed, NYK were better without him by 2.7 eff pts (but still defense was better with Ewing by 1.5)

2000: 20 games missed, team worse by 1.1 with Ewing (but with him offense was better by 3.5 and defense worse by 4.6)

So we see that through almost whole career he was great defensive player and during his early years, before knees were destroyed by injuries, he was also slightly positive player on offense. I really see no reason to put him so much behind DRob whose profile and impact on the game are very close to Ewing's.

vote: Ewing 1990

[bastillon]

I still don't see how Ewing's impact is better than Nash's but since the latter isn't getting any traction and people are actually voting for Moses now ( ) I'm changing my vote to Ewing 90. I was about to vote for him right after Nash anyway. what really works for Ewing though is that Knicks overperformed in the postseason along with Ewing's improvement and monster performances.

[ardee]

This Ewing backing it's exactly like what happened in the top 7-8 when people were voting against LeBron for the sake of voting against him, just like with Moses right now. As a consequence, Magic/Bird and in this case West, have suffered.

[bastillon]

This Ewing backing it's exactly like what happened in the top 7-8 when people were voting against LeBron for the sake of voting against him, just like with Moses right now. As a consequence, Magic/Bird and in this case West, have suffered.

I have Ewing ahead of both West and Moses so I don't see what's the problem. Moses is like 10th on my list right now (may be lower). actually we should be worrying why is he even being considered at this point. there's nothing that backs up his all time level IMPACT (as opposed to boxscore production).

[An Unbiased Fan]

This Ewing backing it's exactly like what happened in the top 7-8 when people were voting against LeBron for the sake of voting against him, just like with Moses right now. As a consequence, Magic/Bird and in this case West, have suffered.

I have Ewing ahead of both West and Moses so I don't see what's the problem. Moses is like 10th on my list right now (may be lower). actually we should be worrying why is he even being considered at this point. there's nothing that backs up his all time level IMPACT (as opposed to boxscore production).

For what reason is Ewing ahead of these guys? Better yet, how is he ahead of K. Malone who dropped 30+ ppg on 63% TS, with 11.1 rpg in 1990, all of which is better than what Ewing produced, and led Utah much better than Ewing did NY.

It seems again that criteria is arbitrarily changing. The idea that player A must not be ranked to far from player B is overtaking whether player A should ranked over player C, D, E, F.

If we're talking about defense, Dwight was DPOY, and the rebound champ in 2009, while taking the Magic to the Finals. Karl put up 31/11 in 1990 and that's not even his peak, Moses put up the same offense Ewing did, but followed it up with better rebounding. Was Ewing better than peak Barkley? What about Paul?

Ewing at #19 is just.....

[therealbig3]

Ewing did come out of left field a little bit, and he was a great player...but people need to realize that you can be separated by 7-8 spots and still be considered "close"...you don't HAVE to vote Ewing in now just because D-Rob was voted in a little while ago.

From the Ewing voters: why Ewing over Jerry West? Why Ewing over T-Mac? Why Ewing over Nash? Why Ewing over Barkley? A few people didn't really get behind Robinson that high, and personally, Ewing is slightly inferior on either side of the ball.

I'm changing my vote to 68 Jerry West, since T-Mac isn't really getting traction.

[lorak]

Ewing did come out of left field a little bit, and he was a great player...but people need to realize that you can be separated by 7-8 spots and still be considered "close"...you don't HAVE to vote Ewing in now just because D-Rob was voted in a little while ago.

True, but Ewing is better choice than '68 West and much better than '83 Moses. And I would vote for Pat soon anyway (after Nash and CP3), so from my POV it's still better to vote for him now.

And Ewing over;
- '68 West, because Pat was defensive anchor with positive impact on offense, while '68 West seems as 0 (in best case) on defense, his health was issue, and on offense was used in wrong way (he should play more with the ball, like in 1972 for example - that's when small players are the most valuable; it's really interesting that Lakers started to play better when West started to shot less and passing more... that's one of the arguments used against Stockton, but the same anti Stockton realGMers don't see the same trend with West...)

- '83 Moses, because his overrated value (people look only on PPG and RPG) was recently often discussed and I think he wasn't even the best player on that 76ers team

- '03 TMac, because I don't see how he could be more valuable than defensive anchor like Ewing. McGrady was clearly positive on offense, but it seems not so good as his PPG numbers suggest.


EDIT

West's PPG, Lakers SRS, West's FGA+ FTA

Code: Select all


PTS   SRS   fg+ft
31,3   2,76   34,3
31,2   1,76   33,2
31   1,7   33,1
30,8   1,8   36,2
28,7   0,31   31,4
28,7   0,89   31
27,1   2,67   30,8
26,9   3,26   28,7
26,3   4,99   27,7
25,9   3,84   28,8
25,8   11,65   28,2
22,8   8,18   24,8
-------------------
20,3   0,85   23,1 last season, only 31 games
17,6   -0,12   22,3 rookie year


[An Unbiased Fan]

It's hard to praise 1990 Ewing as a defensive anchor when the Knicks were only #13. For his offense/defense impact, NY was just a 0.78 SRS team, and this wasn't a team without talent either.

Again, both Barkley & Karl were better in 1990 than Ewing, and those weren't their peak years.

[C-izMe]

The 90 Knickshad no talent. Your crazy if you think otherwise.

Right now my list is:
03 TMac
66-68 West
90 Ewing
08-09 Paul

I still believe DRob went WAAAY too high (13 iirc when he should be about 20) but I think people are just voting for Pat because he's about to end up way below him (when he should be as little as one spot behind him). I also feel Nash/CP3 are getting overlooked right now (probably because TMac and West are dropping from where they need to be).

[ardee]

This Ewing backing it's exactly like what happened in the top 7-8 when people were voting against LeBron for the sake of voting against him, just like with Moses right now. As a consequence, Magic/Bird and in this case West, have suffered.

I have Ewing ahead of both West and Moses so I don't see what's the problem. Moses is like 10th on my list right now (may be lower). actually we should be worrying why is he even being considered at this point. there's nothing that backs up his all time level IMPACT (as opposed to boxscore production).

For what reason is Ewing ahead of these guys? Better yet, how is he ahead of K. Malone who dropped 30+ ppg on 63% TS, with 11.1 rpg in 1990, all of which is better than what Ewing produced, and led Utah much better than Ewing did NY.

It seems again that criteria is arbitrarily changing. The idea that player A must not be ranked to far from player B is overtaking whether player A should ranked over player C, D, E, F.

If we're talking about defense, Dwight was DPOY, and the rebound champ in 2009, while taking the Magic to the Finals. Karl put up 31/11 in 1990 and that's not even his peak, Moses put up the same offense Ewing did, but followed it up with better rebounding. Was Ewing better than peak Barkley? What about Paul?

Ewing at #19 is just.....

I disagree with most of this post (there is no way in hell Malone was better than Ewing in 1990, and he was much, much better overall than Howard), except for that last line.

It'll be a major disappointment to me if he's voted in over West and Nash.

On another note, I understand Moses gets a bit overrated, but the way people are talking about his 1983 season smacks of something fishy to me. MVP, Finals MVP, unanimous RealGM POY... What more could he have done? I understand he was not a very good defensive player, but seriously, I'm a bit disconcerted the way people just dismiss him as if he shouldn't even be in the DISCUSSION.

[C-izMe]

Karl puts up 31/11 with Stockton. Pat puts up 28/11 with Mark Jackson/Mo Cheeks and puts up 29.5/10.5 in the PS. He was clearly better than Karl.

[ardee]

Karl puts up 31/11 with Stockton. Pat puts up 28/11 with Mark Jackson/Mo Cheeks and puts up 29.5/10.5 in the PS. He was clearly better than Karl.

Sincere apologies, major typo

Ewing was definitely the better player in 1990 than Malone.

Off-topic: 1990 had MJ in his best all-around statistical season, 34-7-6 with 3 steals on 53% shooting, Magic having a 22-7-12 MVP year, Barkley going 25-12 on 60% from the field (!), Ewing having a 29-11 with 4 bpg, and Malone going 31-11.

Unbelievable year

[C-izMe]

Karl puts up 31/11 with Stockton. Pat puts up 28/11 with Mark Jackson/Mo Cheeks and puts up 29.5/10.5 in the PS. He was clearly better than Karl.

Sincere apologies, major typo

Ewing was definitely the better player in 1990 than Malone.

Off-topic: 1990 had MJ in his best all-around statistical season, 34-7-6 with 3 steals on 53% shooting, Magic having a 22-7-12 MVP year, Barkley going 25-12 on 60% from the field (!), Ewing having a 29-11 with 4 bpg, and Malone going 31-11.

Unbelievable year

Amazing. The second best player right now wouldn't even be top 5. Crazy.

[ardee]

Karl puts up 31/11 with Stockton. Pat puts up 28/11 with Mark Jackson/Mo Cheeks and puts up 29.5/10.5 in the PS. He was clearly better than Karl.

Sincere apologies, major typo

Ewing was definitely the better player in 1990 than Malone.

Off-topic: 1990 had MJ in his best all-around statistical season, 34-7-6 with 3 steals on 53% shooting, Magic having a 22-7-12 MVP year, Barkley going 25-12 on 60% from the field (!), Ewing having a 29-11 with 4 bpg, and Malone going 31-11.

Unbelievable year

Amazing. The second best player right now wouldn't even be top 5. Crazy.

And Bird had a 'quiet' season: 24-10-8, and led the league in FT%, games of 50-13-7 and 46-8-10

'84 to '93 was the best period of basketball ever. Wish I was able to witness those years live.

[ElGee]

I think an important thing to remember about these projects is how they are viewed and used in the future. They are educational, first and foremost, and a collection of information in one organized place. But people view the project at a distance, and have their curiosity piqued by the voting.

This doesn't mean the results need to be "perfect" or even perfectly reflect the group's opinions. But MANY people will look at the validity of the project and the worth of the arguments through the prism of the voting; They go to the front page, see the results that look different or even shocking to them, think "what the heck is going on there?" in some capacity, and investigate.

eg RPOY 2008 Kevin Garnett.
eg Top 100 Bill Russell

And so on. Most people are learning, or at the least have an explanation that validates the project, because the votes that go against the status quo are the votes supported with the most discussion and analysis.

That's not the case in the project though. There have been spots of good discussion, but this is really the 3rd or 4th time when it feels like the inmates have taken over the asylum. It's OK if we vote Patrick Ewing in 9th, let alone 19th...but there should be a LOT of argumentation for that. I mean, Michael Jordan's No. 1 -- we just voted him the highest standard in basketball history -- and he had very little argumentation. Why? He's widely accepted as No. 1. He's recent, so people have seen him play. No one is going to tune in to the project to hear the same MJ analysis regurgitated, and I'm pretty sure none of us here have some sort of radical anti-MJ stance to offer (the closest thing is the popular and shallow "only worth 2 wins meme" that have been thoroughly debunked before.)

People reading this project are going to be wondering why Wilt Chamberlain is No. 4. There was an ABUNDANCE of discussion surrounding that. But...They might wonder (too high or too low) why Kareem was No. 6...and what would their answer to that be? How would they explain that to someone asking about the conclusions of this panel?? Somehow there was no Tim Duncan-Kevin Garnett discussion. Then Oscar Robertson was voted at No. 14...do you think people reading that thread will go "well wow, there were some amazing arguments there for Oscar, I totally agree with that??" (I've re-read the thread, and the Oscar arguments are "QB PG's are valuable," "Oscar had nice in/outs in Milwaukee," "Oscar 63 had a good series against Boston." Not exactly persuasive.)

And now Patrick Ewing is on the verge of going 19th...when he hasn't been discussed in the project!! Fatal's posts have been great (as have drza's generally and therealbig3). But why would two brief, stylistic, non-comparitve posts take a guy no one has discussed and place him over people who have been widely considered better during and after their careers (namely Barkley and Malone)??

I would say what's even more suspect is that the Ewing support doesn't seem to be coming from people who supported David Robinson 3 threads ago save for 1 voter so far...but now people seem to be saying "well, if Robinson went Ewing can't be that far off!" This reads as some sort of childish tantrum vote. "Well, if YOU GUYS want to vote in Robinson bc of x y and z then I'm just going to vote in Ewing because his x y and z aren't that different. So there!"

Not to mention, most importantly, it lacks any useful information to the outside world. I think we all need to be better about this, especially being friendlier, but we should also keep in mind WHY this project would be worthwhile to others.