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

[fatal9]

Some context around the 1990 Knicks: The Knicks started out 34-17 before making the Strickland trade. Then finished the season 11-20 for a combination of reasons. I wish I had game 3 of the Celtics series on my computer because Peter Vecsey does a decent job in a halftime segment of showing all the chemistry issues the Knicks had in the last couple of months of the season (these issues were why Knicks were given no chance to beat the Celtics). From making the Strickland trade, to Mark Jackson getting booed on the court and benched for 33 year old Cheeks, to Oakley fracturing his left hand and missing games, to Kiki V coming back and joining the team. These are a LOT of lineup changes for a team to endure mid-season, Knicks had a different starting PG, a different starting PF, a different starting SF (all of whom were defensive downgrades) in the last month of the season than they did when they were winning and putting up one of the best records in the league. I don't think it's a coincidence how the team performance changed so much just as the Knicks began encountering instability in their lineup. Unfortunately this stretch thwarted Ewing's MVP campaign as well (he was in the convo with Magic, Barkley, MJ for it). That was a 50+ win team disguised by the issues at the end of the season, so I would say Ewing was doing a great job of getting the best out of what he was given.

Some posts here seem to be have no sense of context surrounding his season, no analysis of his game (probably haven't bothered to watch any games), just going off a very very superficial analysis of "let me check PER and team defensive rating" and draw conclusions. This type of analysis is only going to produce outrageous statements such as "90 Malone was better than Ewing" or that Ewing "wasn't even on par with Dwight".

This is a peak project, I have a feeling people are letting their bias from mid/late 90s Ewing (who I have issues with offensively too) cloud their judgement on how good he was this year. I had a similar bias, but then I began watching his games from that season (about 15 or so) and what I'm seeing a dominant defender (his defensive versatility is better here than later in the 90s, my one gripe defensively would be that he was more prone to foul trouble this season than he would be later) with an offensive package like we've never seen Ewing put together at any other point of his career.

Why was he so much better offensively? As I've been mentioning, he had more variety in his offensive game, this was something everyone in the league was talking about. He went from being a predictable offensive player who was easy to game plan for, to being a lot more well rounded who mixed up and expanded his scoring repertoire. He was better at creating space on his shots, got that extra bit of separation he wasn't quite getting later as the years went on and a result he was having a lot of success as a one on one scorer in the post. He was at his physical peak in the NBA, insane stamina, a lot more athletic, moved better, had a bit more spring in his legs, which naturally allowed him to have a better conversion rate around the basket. His aggressiveness is completely different, he wasn't content to bail you out with fadeaways all game, he attacked the defense more often ever and consequently posted the best FTA numbers of his career (combined with a career best FT% which further raised his efficiency). His passing also took a big leap that year. While he wasn't Shaq or prime Hakeem, he was competent at reading doubles, this is another observation that is obvious to me from watching games and also reading/listening to what people around the league were saying.

This isn't a guy who saw an increase in his averages because he just upped his numbers and feasted on bad defenses either (like say D-Rob in '94), he was lighting up everyone. Here he is putting up 41/15 on Eaton: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O45_E9hkgLk. Here is the game where he put up 45/16 against the best defensive team in the league: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HoPOSrHEgHk. His offensive numbers against good defensive teams/centers were very good over the course of the entire season.

Here's an article midway through the season (when Knicks were 25-10) talking about Ewing's amazing improvement on offense and how surprised everyone was by how much he improved:

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/vault/ ... /index.htm

Some things which stand out:

"But what the NBA is seeing these days, and is likely to be seeing through a good bit of the next decade, is much, much more. Some of the old images of Ewing are dated. He has buried them under an avalanche of soft, turnaround jump shots. "The book on him always was, Make him shoot over you, make him earn it," says Boston's backup center, Joe Kleine. "Well, now he's earning it." The power, the intimidation, the fearlessness are still there, but so are grace and finesse and economy of movement, terms previously associated with Houston's Akeem Olajuwon, Ewing's yardstick through most of the '80s, and San Antonio rookie David Robinson, the only other NBA center currently mentioned in the same breath with Ewing and Olajuwon."

Ewing's play has been an even more important component of New York's success. "He might be the best in the game right now," Los Angeles's Mychal Thompson told the New York Daily News after Ewing scored 29 points in a 115-104 loss on Dec. 3. "He and Magic [Johnson] are shoulder to shoulder."

"I know what people are saying now," says Jazz coach Jerry Sloan, "but when he came out of college, I don't recall anybody thinking he would score like this."

"I worked on some things this summer, just like I always do. I wanted to get better on coming into the lane with my left hand, and I've done that. I'm getting to the foul line more [his eight attempts per game are about two more than last season], and that's helped my scoring. But I haven't changed my jump shot. It just got better.

Ewing gradually improved under Pitino, but only recently has the whole package been unwrapped. It reveals an agile seven-footer whose turnaround jumper is accurate up to 20 feet; a heady player who discourages double-teaming with canny passes; an outstanding athlete who has somehow figured out the exotic fast-break passing strategies of point guards Mark Jackson and Rod Strickland, both of whom never make a simple move when 13 complicated ones will do; and a defensive intimidator whose 3.7 blocks per game at week's end were second only to Olajuwon's league-leading 4.2.

''He has taken his game to another level,'' Johnson continued, ''a level I've never seen him play at before. He's dominating offensively and defensively, but he's also making the right plays at the right time. He's leading his team, as opposed to before, when it seemed he'd just as soon let somebody else lead. That's the real mark of an MVP.''

[colts18]

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

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.

There's no reason to control for opponent strength. In fact it supports my point that seeding matter. If you are the #1 seed you are facing weaker opponents than a #4 seed. If you are a #4 seed you have to beat the #5 seed, then beat the #1, #2, #1 seed all without HCA. Its possible to win one of those, but no one ever wins 3 times without HCA to win a title.

If you want more evidence that seeding matters, here it is.

#4 seeds or lower with a 4+ SRS:
Avg SRS: 5.10
18 out 39 won 1st round (.461)
3 out of 39 makes CF (.077)
1 makes finals (.026)
0 wins titles (.000)
0.56 average series wins
22-39 series record (.361)


Since those teams averaged at 5.10 SRS, I wanted to find #1-3 seeds of similar quality so I found all the #1-3 seeds with a 5 SRS +/- 0.50 (so 4.50 to 5.50), here are the results:

Avg SRS: 5.08
17 out 19 make 2nd round (.895)
11 out of 19 make conference finals (.579)
5 make finals (.261)
4 win title (.211)
1.95 average series wins
37-15 series record (.712)


So in half the sample, the #1-3 seeds make the CF 4x more, and finals 5x more.

Let's look at the 5+ SRS teams that were 4 seeds or lower:
Avg SRS: 5.72
10 out of 20 make 2nd round (.500)
2 out of 20 make CF (.100)
1 makes finals (.050)
0 win title (.000)
0.65 average series wins
13-20 series record (.393)

Here are the #1-3 seeds that are 5.70 SRS +/- .5 (5.2-6.2)

AVG SRS: 5.71
24 out of 26 make 2nd round (.923)
17 make conference finals (.654)
6 make finals (.231)
4 win title (.154)
1.96 average series wins
51-22 series record (.699)

Once again we see the same thing. In both comparisons, the #1-3 seeds were more likely to win a title than the #4 or lower seeds are to even make the conference finals. In both samples the #1-3 seeds were more likely to make the CF than the #4 or lower seeds are to even make the 2nd round. Those numbers don't lie, that is a huge difference in terms of outcome.

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.

It's ridiculous to even compare attendance to seeding and you know that. Seeding to SRS is a fair comparison, attendance to winning is not.

[Doctor MJ]

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.

So to ElGee's general point, I think the reality is that generally speaking, this is just a more difficult project to pull off. I'd say what's happening is that it's essentially a Top 100 project that doesn't allow you to think about arc and longevity, and those areas happen to be the stuff that are most objective. It's rough, but we just gotta do what we can. If you recognize that you personally, haven't been really focused on the debate, try to focus more.

Regarding Ewing right now, I don't know what the trend is right now honestly. I think it can make sense for new candidates to burst in after we've had the same top contenders for a while and they've mostly been voted in...

Of course, "mostly" means, Jerry West still isn't in, and there I'm puzzled. It's funny, ElGee is seeing a trend of Ewing getting consideration because a rival of his got in recently, and I think he's right, but nothing like that has happened for West & Oscar. These are two players who have always gotten voted in consecutively in Top 100 projects, with the Oscar arguments typically being based on his longevity, and here we are discussing peaks and Oscar is way out in front.

I see two clear causes:

1) In the RPOY project (which wasn't even our last project interestingly), people were really blown away by Oscar's team offense and his in/out. Myself included. I had some doubts about him, and the micro-data really assuaged them.

What's a bit more weird though is that seems to have crystalized in people's minds that Oscar was well ahead of West, when in reality, West has some huge in/out numbers too, and in the best of times, he was running the best offense in the league ahead of Oscar.

2) I really think West's missed time in '68 is the biggest block at this point, and this is resulting in some effects I did not expect. I simply expected that if people disagreed on which season was a player's peak, they'd rally around another season. Instead, it seems like people have taken to heart the negatives from both sides.

People now knock the '68 year for the missed time, and they knock other years (like '66) based on the criticisms people like me have had of them, and they're just left not that impressed.

A while back I made clear that I felt strongly enough about the difference between '68 & '66 that I wouldn't just switch to '66 to make West win. There were players I rank in between '68 West and '66 West....

But that ship sailed a while ago. Take your pick, '68, '66, '70...any of these years of West are more impressive to me than any of the other candidates out there.

[Doctor MJ]

Its possible to win one of those, but no one ever wins 3 times without HCA to win a title.

Um, the '95 Rockets won 4 straight without HCA to win the title.

[colts18]

Its possible to win one of those, but no one ever wins 3 times without HCA to win a title.

Um, the '95 Rockets won 4 straight without HCA to win the title.

And they are the exception to the rule. They are the only 4 seed or lower to win a title in the 16 team playoff era. Thats why Hakeem was propped up so much in this board because the 95 playoff run in unprecedented. He beat 4 57+ win teams. All without HCA. Teams with HCA typically win around 75% of series in the 2nd round or later. So thats quite impressive to win 4 series without HCA.

The only teams to win a title with 2 wins w/o HCA in the 16 team playoff era are the 93 bulls, 04 Pistons, 06 Heat, and 11 Mavs. And no coincidence that on 3 of those teams, they had a guy already voted in this project. No other team won 3 w/o HCA to win a title (but the 99 Knicks did win 3 in a row but in lockout era and with no title). So the 95 Rockets are an outlier. The goal of this project is to win a title. The facts are just 1 team won a title with a lower than 3 seed. So saying seed doesn't matter is ridiculous when lower seeds even of high quality don't advance in the playoffs.

[An Unbiased Fan]

Some posts here seem to be have no sense of context surrounding his season, no analysis of his game (probably haven't bothered to watch any games), just going off a very very superficial analysis of "let me check PER and team defensive rating" and draw conclusions. This type of analysis is only going to produce outrageous statements such as "90 Malone was better than Ewing" or that Ewing "wasn't even on par with Dwight".

Well since this is clearly aimed at my posts, let me respond.

1) As most know, I could care less about PER. I always favor an overall analysis.

2) I watched 90 Ewing play realtime, and while a great player, he wasn't even at his peak yet, not a Top 5 player that year, IMO. People are looking at his PPG, and ignoring the fact that his team was mediocre defensively with him anchoring, despite having Oak next to him for 61 games.

If you only want to look at Ewing's positives, and post articles highlighting them, cool. But don't get upset when some of us point out his shortcomings.

3) Saying that's it's outrageous to say Malone was better in 1990, is......in of itself outrageous.

Karl Malone, who for some reason has been forsaken, has a great case over 1990 Ewing, and again, that's not even Malone's peak. Karl put up 31 PPG on 63% TS, which again is rather amazing. His eFG% was 56.7%, and actually shot less shots per game than Ewing did. He grabbed more rebounds than Ewing, so you basically have to elevate Ewing's defense to All-D level in order for me to seriously give him the nod, which I can't. Karl was a much more complete, skilled, polished, dominant player than Ewing.

And I would put 2009-10 Dwight over 1990 Ewing. He did much more defensively, with less defensive talent than Ewing had. Ewing is better offensively, but the obvious tie-breaking is Dwight far superior rebounding. Never mind the impact difference. But again, I'm not sure what people are looking at when comparing, because guys who just missed out on higher ranks, aren't even getting mentions now. Criteria changes from thread to thread.

4) Historically speaking, people didn't regard Ewing as having some all-time great year in 1990, not at all. In fact he was just #5 in MVP voting that year, and didn't made a All-Defense team. Now accolades should not determine a player's year, but in the absence of compelling evidence in other areas, I find Ewing's case very lacking at this point. If this project is about the best peak years, I have to wonder how he's at #19. I don't even feel 1990 is Ewing's peak year, much less better than guys who have been mentioned for multiple threads now.

[fatal9]

Re: the D-Rob/Ewing stuff. I only wrote a little bit of a blurb regarding D-Rob and Ewing, mainly to point out that even if you have questions about Ewing's offensive game, he could be used in the same capacity on a championship team that people were arguing could make D-Rob the best player on a title team. I don't think it's fair to give D-Rob the benefit of the doubt when making that argument, but not Ewing. To be clear, I thought it was a good argument for D-Rob and find it may be appropriate here to ease concerns about Ewing's offense for some posters. The point is that these are both players who can be really easy to build around if you are aware of their weaknesses.

But regardless, the voting doesn't matter to me (I haven't even asked to participate in the vote, I care only for the discussion), and Ewing is not a player I normally champion here or anywhere (he's someone I respect, but wouldn't call myself a fan of). It's just a season I feel needs to be argued for because it can be easy to overlook given the biases we have from other versions of him and from what I detect is a lack of awareness of his team, his skills, and the overall level he was playing at on both ends that season.

[C-izMe]

So we'll just ignore John Stockton and his effect on Malone's numbers...

[fatal9]

Yea, I'm not sure whether to waste my time on that post or not. I've read your posts before and feel like it's going to be an endless cycle of me having to repeat myself and not getting anywhere. All I'll say is, we see the game very differently. I don't think you realize how little it means to me when you say something like "but Malone averaged 31 ppg on 63 TS%!!", especially that particular version of Malone.

[PTB Fan]

Great discussion going on guys. Keep it up.

[thizznation]

I have no problem with Ewing going this high. He was an elite two way center who tended to get underrated by many people in the past, mainly due to never winning it all. However as ElGee mentioned, it is startling to see the manner he was quickly ushered in and how rapidly votes swayed. And like ElGee said, when voting in players, the reasoning of "Well since DRob just got in, I guess it's about Ewing's time" is a lazy and inaccurate analysis. I strongly urge all voters to keep your voting criteria as consistent as possible during the entire project in order to help the overall quality of the results.

[Dr Positivity]

I haven't had a lot of problem with the amount of Ewing discussion so far. He's been brought up a few times in the last few threads, and a lot in this one. 1990 Ewing is an absolutely sick season. One of the reasons I had been a little apprehensive about 90 Ewing at the time of the Robinson vote, is that I always assumed people considered Hakeem and Robinson to be a step above Ewing as defenders. However if it's widely considered he's in that range, in addition to 29ppg with floor spacing offensively, I see no controversy in this season being in the top 20 for ability to build a title team around

Ewing has been underrated for some time on RGM in general. Any time someone makes a thread asking whether they'd build a franchise around Ewing and guys like Barkley, Dirk, Moses, if Ewing didn't win, he'd at least get "toss-up" status, despite for a long time never getting respect on the ATL - Pippen, Frazier(!), and Baylor(!!) beating him on the top 100 was ridiculous IMO. Because of the value of building around a defensive anchor at C who gives you offense, vs offense only players like Barkley and Moses and Tmac and Nash, it's definitely defend-able to say choosing to build around Ewing because of his two way impact, is the correct, if less sexy choice

[An Unbiased Fan]

In defense of Moses who has dropped WAY too far. I have to remind people that Moses was All-Defense 1st team in 1983, while winning both MVP & FMVP, AND leading the NBA in rebounds. That's a fairly exceptional peak year. Philly went from the #20 rebounding team in the NBA, to #1 with the addition of Moses in 1983. Houston went from #5 with Moses, to #22 in 1983, and remember there were only 23 teams. He dropped 26/16 in the PS, and 26/18 in the Finals.

A big who can score & rebound is still incredibly valuable(Shaq/KAJ), just like bigs who play D/rebound(like Russell/Walton) had great impact. It's puzzling how Moses is still around at this point.

[Doctor MJ]

In defense of Moses who has dropped WAY too far. I have to remind people that Moses was All-Defense 1st team in 1983, while winning both MVP & FMVP, AND leading the NBA in rebounds. That's a fairly exceptional peak year. Philly went from the #20 rebounding team in the NBA, to #1 with the addition of Moses in 1983. Houston went from #5 with Moses, to #22 in 1983, and remember there were only 23 teams. He dropped 26/16 in the PS, and 26/18 in the Finals.

A big who can score & rebound is still incredibly valuable(Shaq/KAJ), just like bigs who play D/rebound(like Russell/Walton) had great impact. It's puzzling how Moses is still around at this point.

Well, let me break Moses' impact down a little bit here using factors:

In '81-82, the 76ers had a TS% of 56.6 and a TO% of 15.5
In '82-83, the 76ers had a TS% of 54.9 and a TO% of 16.3

Their offensive rebounding of course got WAY better, but that still wasn't enough to make the team's offense better than before because of what I laid out here. Despite the fact that Moses presence meant that the team was taking a lot more gimme put back shots, the offense got WORSE with the addition of Moses.

I don't see how you can understand that fact and not dampen your enthusiasm for a man who stands out first to people based on his 25 & 15 stat line. They rearranged their offense around him, and it got worse.

I haven't done a detailed weighted assessment of their playoff offensive performance, but the offense doesn't appear to have made dramatic changes their either.

So, short of anyone contradicting me in the details, I just want everyone to get it clear in their head:

The '83 76ers improved because of their DEFENSE not their offense.

So when you say here "he did X, and Y, and Z, and he made All-D", I respond with "He helped their defense. Period."

Now, y'all know I have Russell as my GOAT. I believe that you can be the MVP by a large margin based largely on your defense. I have trouble though thinking of Moses in that way, first and foremost because Moses' Houston teams were always TERRIBLE on defense.

In Moses' 1st MVP year for example, his team was 21st of 22 teams on defense. I fully acknowledge that one player by himself cannot make a defense great, but with Moses bursting on the scene to become the MVP of the league, wouldn't you think he'd be improving his team's defense if he was truly an all-around great defensive player?

It's worth noting that those Houston teams typically had great offenses, and I'd say Moses was certainly a part of that, but what does this all mean when you add it up?

Well, that you've got a guy who can make a difference on offense or on defense in the right situation, but he's not someone who just did his thing and left a large footprint of impact wherever he went, and this key because he did put up big numbers wherever he went.

The big numbers combined with Philly's great success led people to say, "We must go crazy over someone in Philly, how can it not be Moses?". But in reality, this was already a great team that just became a bit more well rounded on defense with Moses' presence. Does that really sound like an all-time individual season to y'all?

It doesn't for me, and I'll leave you with this: Consider what I've said, and consider what happened after '83. Philly fell apart pretty quickly, Moses was soon bouncing from team to team while still putting up strong numbers.

If Moses' simple game, with the gaudy stats it always produced, was adding instant impact everywhere, would this really be happening? If that defensive over-the-top push that Moses gave in '83 basically only happened in that exact one place, isn't this clearly a "last piece of the puzzle" type of situation?

[Dr Positivity]

To defend Moses a little bit, I don't love the 82 and 83 Sixers comparison because the 82 team lost Caldwell Jones (3rd MP, 4th WS), Steve Mix (9th MP, 6th WS), Lionel Hollins (5th MP, 7th WS), Daryl Dawkins (7th MP, 8th WS), Mike Bantom (8th MP, 10th WS) all who had pretty good careers. While the 83 Sixers are one of the ultimate depth-less great teams, after Moses/Erving/Jones/Toney/Cheeks, they pretty much just had fill-ins like Clint Richardson, Franklin Edwards, Clemon Johnson, Mark Iavaroni making up the rest of the team. I think with C Jones, Hollins, Mix, Dawkins coming off the bench instead of replacement players, that team could've stepped it up a notch. The way they dismantled the playoffs when the rotation got shorter, also gives me confidence that the Sixers top 5 guys could take on just about anyone's

I think Moses is a great player, just in the way Clyde Drexler and Scottie Pippen and Walt Frazier are great players - great but with a few more guys ahead of him to vote in first, IMO

[bastillon]

I feel like I should make a general post regarding this whole voting process. I think people are complaining not for the sake of this project but for their own biased choiced not being selected. you can see who the most frustrated posters are (by the most time spent on complains) and who they choices were (LeBron, West mainly). now the problem I've referred to in the past of this project and one that has gotten to attention so far, is that discussion and arguments have been there all along, it's the opposition that provides little evidence to the contrary.

I talked about this before but let's just make a quick summary of what happened in #5-#10 threads with LeBron. couple of posters had a huge issue with LeBron 09 getting voted in so soon. there was a large anti-LeBron discussions with major flaws being exposed as the time went on. things that got mentioned included postseason defense, Cavs underperforming vs largely unimpressive Orlando team, their playoff opposition being horrendous in the 1st 2 rounds (Pistons were like 30 win team in the last 50 games, Hawks were all injured), Orlando's strategy letting LeBron get his etc. there were also major concerns about LeBron's fundamental flaws such as post-up game, offensive portability and defensive versatility/impact over the course of a playoff series. so what happened in those threads is that multple posters argued against LeBron, voted for other players for those very reasons and suddenly LeBron's followers started complaining about no debate.

at the time I didn't really get into much of this discussion as I always wanna focus on the merits but I felt "WTF" as I was reading those comments. you had LeBron being seen as fundamentally flawed player in the eyes of multiple posters and you're wondering why they're selecting players without major flaws in their games ? the problem was not with the players selected or their proponents, it was on the other side, LeBron's followers didn't really present anti-Dream, anti-Bird, anti-Duncan arguments. if you wanna argue for one player over another, why don't you show me why I wouldn't vote for the player that I selected ?

the same holds true for Oscar. ElGee keeps repeating this nonsense story (I'm sorry but it is what it is) as if Oscar was voted in without any arguments:

Oscar 1963. video game RS stats, amazing well-documented impact throughout his career, huge portability without pretty much any ceiling (look at his impact on 71-72 Bucks, they were like +12.5 with him being healthy, +4.25 before his trade, +4.8 when he missed games). in 63 he also put up ridiculous series against one of the greatest defensive teams of all time with peak Russell anchoring that defense. year after that he won the MVP over Russell/Wilt at their best (64 was among their very best seasons) so his skillset from 63 must've been pretty impressive. team success is what he lacked because of poor defensive bigs. historical accounts portray him as the best small player of his generation. there's GOAT talk, "he had no weaknesses" type of talk, well known competitive nature etc.

there were MAJOR reasons to vote for Oscar so if you just say "Oscar got voted in out of the blue without any discussion" it's just not going to convince the people who voted for him. imagine we are not irrational asylum guys that you reffered to, we actualy had a pretty strong reasoning to get behind. in particular Oscar posted one of the best series of all-time in conference finals against top2 defense ever going by margin vs league avg. let's just go through some posts:

vote: Oscar '63

great non box score impact (Robertson wasn't worse than Magic), obviously great box score numbers, amazing performance in the playoffs vs one of 3 best defensive teams of all time. Flawless player.

Vote: 1963 Oscar Robertson

For the reasons already outlined so well by drza and others. It was a difficult choice to change my vote from Kobe, but I think the Original Triple Double deserves his props.

I think ardee meant DavidStern instead of drza though. let's go back to the previous thread:

why not Oscar Robertson ? his impact was insane. he was leading top ranked offenses every year throughout the 60s. when he missed games Royals were the worst team in the NBA. then he came to Bucks and with other minor changes they went from 4.25 SRS to 11.91 SRS. next year, they were at about 12.5 SRS before Oscar's injury (abdominal strain, same thing KG had in 08 and Bosh last year in the playoffs). Oscar almost had no ceiling. you can argue 1971 Bucks are the best offensive team in history, better than 1987 Lakers. this is past prime Oscar, mind you. Kareem was the best player on that roster but Oscar had the most impact offensively. Bucks offense simply skyrocketed in 71, going from 29 OWS to 43 OWS (Lakers 87 had ~40 OWS). from what I've seen of Oscar in the late 60s/early 70s (there couple games available), he was extremely efficient, without any flash whatsoever, he just methodically backed you where he wanted you to be and just shot over you, he was great in transition, seemed to have this 4-eyes type of vision and was a great, great leader.

I think over the years I've been here Oscar has been one of the most appreciated players. I've heard so many fallacious comments about him, and not just from casual posters, I'm talking about the very best of 'em. TrueLAFan always made his case against Oscar based on poor defense (that's why he was guarding Jerry West...), ballhogging (that led to top ranked offenses), being a bad leader (sources only tell us his teammates were sometimes afraid of him) or that he had a great supporting cast and underperformed on a team-level (like 3-14 without him in 68). I remember having several debates with him and the myths created beforehand have an impact today as well.

Oscar deserves a lot more credit. recently I've been analysing his 70s years with the Bucks and he really seems like he's having significant impact. he was far better in the 60s, because he was able to put up 25-35 pts and 8-14 assists every night depending on what his team needed. just a great player, so versatile, always quoted by his peers as having no weaknesses in his game and he was just so efficient when you look at the tape. his peak is pretty impressive too, he won an MVP over pretty much peak Wilt and peak Russell (64, both had amazing years). I think he got overlooked as this project was rolling on, but it's probably time for him to get in.

ThaRegul8r,
do you have any info about Oscar vs Celtics in 1963 playoffs? Any stats, game recaps?

I'll save TheRegulat8or some time for that.

vs Celtics '63

Game 1: 43 points, 14 rebounds, 10 assists (17/25 FG, 9/12 FT)
Game 2: 28 points, 13 rebounds, (9/15 FG, 10/11 FT)
Game 3: 23 points, 12 rebounds, 8 assists (7/21 FG, 9/10 FT)
Game 4: 25 points, 15 rebounds (8/23 FG, 9/11 FT)
Game 5: 36 points, 12 rebounds, 10 assists (14/26 FG, 8/8 FT)
Game 6: 36 points, 15 rebounds (14/31 FG, 8/9 FT)
Game 7: 43 points, 6 rebounds, 6 assists (11/24 FG, 21/22 FT)


Series Averages: 33.4 PPG, 12.4 RPG, 8.5 APG (?) on 48.5 %FG, 89.2 %FT, 58.1 %TS

Credit to Hoops Nation for the stats.

Edit: Also...

http://www.risingabovetherim.com/boxscores

This site has the box score of a ton of Russell games. Save it for future use. A very valuable source

Re: Oscar's peak season

It's either the '63 or '64 season. In '63, he went from a superb RS where he posted near triple double numbers to LeBron '09 like performances throughout the entire playoffs. He killed from the first to last game there. I don't have the full stats for the series against the Nationals (TheRegulat8or, if you have anything, it would be appreciated) but from the data I found, Oscar had 41 points, 15 rebounds and 12 assists in Game 2 to tie the series.

http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=2v ... tson&hl=en

He averaged 29.4 points for the series. I'm assuming he wasn't too far off his playoff numbers... double digit numbers in rebounding and close to double digit numbers in assists. His rebounding is what impresses me most this season though.. he had a fair amount of games where he was the leading rebounder for his Cincinnati. If you look at the advanced numbers, you'll probably see his TRB% below CP3's and other rebounding PGs but even so, they don't speak for his ability and will to do the dirty work which translates well in any era.

He took it to a whole new level against the Celtics though. In terms of carrying a team on your back, this is as good as it can be. In '64, he had a much better RS: led his team to #1 record, won his only MVP award, posted career high numbers in nearly statistical category and was equally amazing in the first round. He got injured at one point in the PS.

http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=vu ... ries&hl=en


Now.. how much did the injury effect him, how serious was it.. we can't tell. His numbers did slip versus Boston to 28/6 (credit to TheRegulat8or for the stats) on around 40% FG% efficiency in a series where his teammate Lucas also re-injured himself and that killed the Royals' chances badly to beat Boston.

Now.. it's on a point where you decide do you go with the 63 version who put sick playoff numbers from a great regular season and shows his excellence in terms of putting a team on his back... or you go to the '64 version.. a guy who had his best RS of his career, led his team to #1 record in Celtics dominance, promised a lot, dominated opening round and fell off to Boston with less fight this time due to many things.

Thank you very much PTB Fan!

So Oscar was amazing. Against one of three best defensive teams of all time (1963 Celtics drtg relatively to league average was around -9, only Celtics 64 and 65 were better with drtg around -10) he averaged 33 ppg, 12 rpg and 8-9 apg with 58.1 TS% (when league average was 49.3!). AMAZING.

@ Kobe and Dr J voters,
why KB and Doc over Oscar?

According to in/out we have Robertson had bigger impact than both of them and box score numbers confirms his greatness - with great performance vs 1963 Celtics (one of 3 best defensive teams of all time) as the best example of his brilliance (+10 TS% with high volume vs such great defensive team!)

@ Kobe and Dr J voters,
why KB and Doc over Oscar?

According to in/out we have Robertson had bigger impact than both of them and box score numbers confirms his greatness - with great performance vs 1963 Celtics (one of 3 best defensive teams of all time) as the best example of his brilliance (+10 TS% with high volume vs such great defensive team!)

At the moment I'm definitely teetering towards Oscar.

The more I read the arguments, to be honest, I feel Oscar needs to be given more consideration.

I wish we could get a one day extension on this. I never thought it would be so hard to decide on voting after the top 10-12

Really stuck between Bryant, Erving and Oscar right now.

Just for fun.

Robertson vs 1963 Celtics (3rd best defensive team of all time, -9.1 drtg relatively to league average) averaged: 33.4 PPG, 12.4 RPG, ~8.5 APG and 58.1 TS% (+8.8 relatively to league average!)

Jerry West, against the same Celtics, averaged in the finals: 29. 5 PPG, ~7.0 RPG, ~5.3 APG and 52.2 TS% (+2.9)

Kobe against similar defense (2008 Celtics, -8.6 drtg) averaged in the finals: 25.7 PPG, 4.7 RPG, 5.0 APG and 50.5 TS% (-3.5!)

Dr J never in the playoffs faced defense close to that level.

Of course Oscar's and West's PPG, RPG and APG numbers are affected by pace so in that area Kobe doesn't look as bad in comparison with them as raw numbers suggest. But efficiency is different story. Bryant is much worse than Logo and Robertson and Oscar himself is also much better than West.

so let's go back to the Oscar's peak thread:

What all this is telling me is that West's even more impressive as I thought. Give him the right offensive role to work with, and he could create a dominant offense for you even if he had to deal with a bad fit along the way. While he still doesn't show evidence of taking control of offensive strategy like Oscar did, Oscar also never had to join an existing alphas team.

that's a pretty ridiculous statement. I don't where that came from, perhaps I just misunderstood what you were saying but Oscar joined Kareem, deferred to him on offense and that worked out beautifully. I have no idea why Oscar's 71-72 seasons are getting so disrespected. in 72 he posted one of the best in/out runs ever. in 71 he joined a 4.25 SRS team and transformed them into 11.91 SRS team. if we had in/out on that season I believe that'd make Oscar 71 GOAT candidate by that metric. certainly more impressive to go from 4 to 12 than from 0 to 8. a lot more impressive. ElGee never mentioned it as if it didn't even exist. but Oscar's role in those Bucks was huge and his impact was at all-time level, apparently.

I've just watched Knicks vs Bucks game from the beginning of '71 season, with Oscar just traded to Bucks and Reed pre-injury. Knicks won that game snapping Bucks 16-game winning streak but you could see Oscar's impact. when he was leading the offense, he made sure they got a good look. Kareem was praising Oscar for his contributions in halftime interview pointing out how he lowered his turnovers and made his life easier. Kareem also pointed out that Oscar made everyone else a lot better, including Dandridge, McGlocklin and Greg Smith. there's a reason why everyone posted their career highs on those Bucks and they were posting that kind of numbers until Oscar's injury in the 2nd half of '72. Oscar was never really the same again as age was starting to get to him, but his impact until that injury is getting seriously underrated. Bucks were +13 team and the credit should be divided accordingly. it wasn't a one-man team.

My take on missing games in the regular season in relationship to the greatness of a player's year, is that if I can't see where it actually hurt the team, I just don't take it that seriously. Now, obvious I don't mean by that that if the player's team did great without him I'd ignore that juicy factoid. I just mean that in the end, I don't care very much about regular season standings. If the team was still in a position to thrive in the playoffs, and they do, it'd take a ton for me to really care about the missed time.

so now you don't really care about RS standing or whether player missed 1/3 of the season but when Wade was concerned you couldn't believe anybody would rather have his '10 version because he posted much better RS numbers ? if you're not penalizing West for missing games, you can't penalize someone for coasting in the RS. missing games hurts your team a lot more. kind of hypocritical of you to argue against one and for the other in the same thread...

I'd also like to point out that everybody who was championing Bill Walton '77 for his intangibles should be doing the same for Oscar. Oscar was controlling the tempo, setting up the offense, telling everybody where to go and just orchestrated everything. he was also a guy who kept his teammates at high intensity, something Kareem would've never been doing. Erving was getting praised for his leadership but nobody mentioned Oscar's qualities in that area. you gotta love the double standards not to give Oscar credit for those things. especially with his in/out runs being as they are.

oh and I'm pretty sure nobody knows this (well, maybe Reg), but Oscar was Bucks best perimeter defender in 71 and coach Costello put him on the best offensive players. that resulted in some devastating defensive performances, holding Jerry West and Mullins to ass-tastic shooting nights, something announcers commented on in that Knicks-Bucks game. it was early in the season and you could already hear praises of Oscar's impact, how he was the difference between the Bucks being a good team the year before and great team at the time. seriously, everybody who says Oscar didn't play defense or that he was the one to blame for Royals poor defense is simply talking out of his ass because there's really no historical source for this nonsense. there was no player/coach comment that would make it seem as if Oscar was a poor defender. he was certainly capable in that area and as his offensive responsibilities diminished, he started playing very good man defense as well.

from what I can tell from player/coach quotes and quantitative analysis it seems like Oscar was quarterbacking both offense and defense. "quarterbacking" is actually the term that announcers used regarding Oscar's floor generalship, not some made-up wise-sounding description of Walton's game that we like to use 35 years later, it's actually the original sources that said it about Oscar.

BTW, West vs 1968 Celtics (-5 drtg):
31.3 PPG, 5.8 RPG, 5.7 APG, 55.9 (+6.1) TS%
So still significantly worse than Robertson 1963 vs much better defensively Celtics (-9.1 drtg): 33.4 PPG, 12.4 RPG, 8.5 APG, 58.1 TS% (+8.8)

It's like comparing LeBron (Oscar) and Kobe (West). It's no contest unless we are biased by narrative, stories, reputation, style of play.

Vote: Jerry West '68

Still waiting to see what people really think of this pick. I'm a bit bothered that no real Oscar vs West debate seems like it's going to happen despite some initial arguments presented there.

I do think think West's explosiveness on both ends of the court combined with his high BBIQ more than matches Oscar's savant offensive game with a not so explosive defense.

However, if Oscar gets in here, I can't really say as I think it's a terrible choice. Very few players had a brain like Oscar.

typing 1 handed with newborn on other arm...

Focus. Hasnt the general defensive trend been that small wings rarely have big defensive impacts? that unless we're talking lebron-level defense at the least, that a battle of offensive beasts is primarily decided on the offensive end?

do we have any type of evidence that west was more lebron (clear, quantifiable defensive impact) than kobe (mega rep and defensive awards but without the quantified impact)?

because on offense it sure seems to me that oscar was better. he matched west's volume on similar scoring efficiency but played a much larger role as a floor general

so clearly, "no discussion around Oscar" is a complete nonsense. there was only no discussion if you didn't read it. West's followers have been asked this question multiple times: why didn't West perform similarly well vs the Celtics ? well you didn't and so Oscar is now considered better. yet you're wondering why as if crazy people from asylum got together, picked a random guy and joined their forces in the voting process. yeah, keep thinking that. and no matter how many times you repeat that Oscar was voted in without discussion/for no reason it's not gonna change the fact that there were both strong arguments in his favor AND enough discussion. this debate may have been pretty short but it wasn't because of lack of arguments in his favor. it was because Oscar's opponents didn't really point to any evidence to suggest otherwise.

note I only care about the quality of the debate so if I called out someone it's not personal, it's for the sake of the project. generalising just doesn't work, you have to be specific. and so I was. if that seemed offensive or whatever, I apologise. to me factually correct debate is more important.

[Doctor MJ]

Would it be possible for any of you fantastic specimens of basketball brainhood to do a vote tally with with voter names?

That would be really awesome. Thanks.

[An Unbiased Fan]

Well, let me break Moses' impact down a little bit here using factors:

In '81-82, the 76ers had a TS% of 56.6 and a TO% of 15.5
In '82-83, the 76ers had a TS% of 54.9 and a TO% of 16.3

Their offensive rebounding of course got WAY better, but that still wasn't enough to make the team's offense better than before because of what I laid out here. Despite the fact that Moses presence meant that the team was taking a lot more gimme put back shots, the offense got WORSE with the addition of Moses.

I don't see how you can understand that fact and not dampen your enthusiasm for a man who stands out first to people based on his 25 & 15 stat line. They rearranged their offense around him, and it got worse.

I haven't done a detailed weighted assessment of their playoff offensive performance, but the offense doesn't appear to have made dramatic changes their either.

It's a bit strange to blame Moses for the drop in TS%, when he had a 57.8% TS in 1983. if anything, he was a major reason it was even that high. The rather obvious reason for Philly's dropoff was Dr. J'. In 1982 he scored 24.4 ppg on 59.3% TS, but dropped to 21.4 ppg on 56.6% TS in 1983.

And Philly was still the #5 Ortg in 1983 like they were in 1982. And relative to the league average, they performed better in 1983 than they did in 1982.

1982 76ers - 109.6 ORtg/103.9 DRtg (5.7+)
1982 NBA Average - 106.9 ORtg/DRtg

1983 76ers - 108.3 ORtg/100.9 DRtg (7.4+)
1983 NBA Average - 104.7 ORtg/DRtg
^
I'm perplexed at how you can say Philly's offense got worse, when it actually was better with Moses. BOTH offense & defense was better with his addition, and that's reflected in their improves SRS, and the end result they got in the PS which was an epic all-time great playoff run.

Philly went from a poor rebounding team, to the best. You mention offensive rebounding, but Moses grabbed 9.6 defensive rebounds, at a league leading 28.2% rate. That's a massive amount of extra possessions for his team. Again, Philly went from the #20 rebounding team in the NBA, to #1 with the addition of Moses in 1983. Houston went from #5 with Moses, to #22 in 1983. That a MASSIVE impact.

For comparisons sake, let's look at Houston before and after Moses....

1982 Houston - 108.3 ORtg/108.3 DRtg (0)
1982 NBA Average - 106.9 ORtg/DRtg

1983 Houstons - 97.0 ORtg/108.3 DRtg (-11.3)
1983 NBA Average - 104.7 ORtg/DRtg
^
Clearly they didn't have much defensively, though they were #16 in 1982 with Moses. But offensively they became the worse offense without Moses.

So, short of anyone contradicting me in the details, I just want everyone to get it clear in their head:

The '83 76ers improved because of their DEFENSE not their offense.

So when you say here "he did X, and Y, and Z, and he made All-D", I respond with "He helped their defense. Period."

As pointed out above, Philly improved on both sides of the floor, and their rebounding improvement was the biggest change by far, which had everything to do with Moses.

Now, y'all know I have Russell as my GOAT. I believe that you can be the MVP by a large margin based largely on your defense. I have trouble though thinking of Moses in that way, first and foremost because Moses' Houston teams were always TERRIBLE on defense.

In Moses' 1st MVP year for example, his team was 21st of 22 teams on defense. I fully acknowledge that one player by himself cannot make a defense great, but with Moses bursting on the scene to become the MVP of the league, wouldn't you think he'd be improving his team's defense if he was truly an all-around great defensive player?

It's worth noting that those Houston teams typically had great offenses, and I'd say Moses was certainly a part of that, but what does this all mean when you add it up?

Well, that you've got a guy who can make a difference on offense or on defense in the right situation, but he's not someone who just did his thing and left a large footprint of impact wherever he went, and this key because he did put up big numbers wherever he went.

The same could be said of the vast majority of Garnett's teams too. In 2007, KG anchored a Minny defense that was #21, and then he goes to Boston and they end up #1. Did KG get better all of a sudden, or was it the system? Why were the Knicks mediocre defensely before Riley, and then elite when he came? It's clear that Moses didn't care much about defense before going to Philly, but a team culture can change the mindset of a player. Shaq never led a great defense until 2000 when Phil showed up.

What's obvious is that Moses crazy 9.6 Drpg prevented plenty of 2nd chance points, and gave him team the possession edge. Was Moses playing like Hakeem, no, but he wasn't far off from 00' Shaq defensively.

The big numbers combined with Philly's great success led people to say, "We must go crazy over someone in Philly, how can it not be Moses?". But in reality, this was already a great team that just became a bit more well rounded on defense with Moses' presence. Does that really sound like an all-time individual season to y'all?

It doesn't for me, and I'll leave you with this: Consider what I've said, and consider what happened after '83. Philly fell apart pretty quickly, Moses was soon bouncing from team to team while still putting up strong numbers.

If Moses' simple game, with the gaudy stats it always produced, was adding instant impact everywhere, would this really be happening? If that defensive over-the-top push that Moses gave in '83 basically only happened in that exact one place, isn't this clearly a "last piece of the puzzle" type of situation?

KG's only great defenses came in Boston, so if we were to extrapolate this thesis, should we question his defensive impact? Who's to say Moses wouldn't have crazy APM numbers, which is extremely likely due to the massive possession edge he gave to the 76ers. He played 81 games which negate with/wihtout numbers, and doesn't have the benefit of +/- sorcery, so he's left out in the cold, and his play is being picked apart.

What I see is a player who put up massive RS & PS numbers. Was voted All-NBA/All-D 1st team by his era, won MVP, and led Philly to an all-time great PS run en route to winning FMVP. The 76ers when from a bad rebounding team to the BEST with Moses leading the league. Both their offense & defense improved, while Houston went into the tank. Every metric improved with Moses.

Hands down, Moses should have been picked long ago. The guy was putting up 26/16 in the PS, and 26/18 in the Finals. He took KAJ's lunch money in those 1983 Finals.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0PQz4BGMYHk[/youtube]

[bastillon]

Yea, I'm not sure whether to waste my time on that post or not. I've read your posts before and feel like it's going to be an endless cycle of me having to repeat myself and not getting anywhere. All I'll say is, we see the game very differently. I don't think you realize how little it means to me when you say something like "but Malone averaged 31 ppg on 63 TS%!!", especially that particular version of Malone.

Yea, I'm not sure whether to waste my time on that post or not. I've read your posts before and feel like it's going to be an endless cycle of me having to repeat myself and not getting anywhere. All I'll say is, we see the game very differently. I don't think you realize how little it means to me when you say something like "but Malone averaged 31 ppg on 63 TS%!!", especially that particular version of Malone.

yeah it's really weird that someone would follow the NBA at the time and still think Malone was better offensively. at the time Malone was a D-Rob type offensive force. scored tons of pts in transition (famous thunder jam), in the pick and rolls etc. he was more aggressive on the block though, which resulted in higher FG% on isolations because he didn't settle for those fadeaways all the time. but the offense didn't really run through him, Stockton was doing a lot more creating than he did. his passing was underwhelming then and he improved a lot in this area as the 90s went on. but his fundamental game was flawed - his passing, jumpshot, defense all significantly improved later on and he wasn't as much of an offensive force as he would be later. his scoring really overstates his actual abilities and I'm pretty sure it's something elite teams could easily take advantage of in the postseason. even Ewing's seems suspect to me even though his passing/jumpshot/post offense was clearly better than Malone. scoring a lot of garbage pts doesn't seem as important as HCO-friendly skillset.

btw, if it actually came down to this, I'd vote Ewing over D-Rob. but as it is D-Rob's already in and I don't think he should really be. Ewing's flaws (especially now after fatal's posts) seem really small compared to some of the guys that are being discussed. he doesn't have a flawed style like Moses (attacks ORB, can't run the offense through him, lacks skills 1 on 1, poor team defender) or Malone (overstated scoring abilities being his go-to argument over anyone, suspect help defense to say the least).

his impact just seems legit from a philosophical point of view. he's just doing what he's supposed to and doesn't have those major flaws in his game that others candidates surely do. nothing's inflated in his case, he doesn't steal rebounds from his teammates like Wilt or Lucas, he doesn't chase blocks like Moses or 80s Hakeem, he doesn't gamble for steals like 80s Hakeem, West or Wade, he doesn't attack the offensive glass too much so he gets back on defense in time, he creates most of his scoring but is good enough jumpshooter/finisher to play without the ball as well. yeah, I could definitely see Ewing's peak going this high, it would've been a different story if we debated career. but peak-only Ewing actually seems underrated and probably should've already been selected some time ago. this version is probably better than Wade/D-Rob/Kobe/Dirk.

I'd really to hear some more anti-Ewing arguments, especially concerning team strength and lineup discontinuity. too bad fatal didn't wanna engage in all out debate with UAF. we might've missed something that would put Ewing over the top in the eyes of many posters.

[therealbig3]

90 Ewing - 4 (Dr Positivity, Lightning25, DavidStern, bastillon)

83 Moses - 3 (PTB Fan, JordansBulls, SDChargers#1)

68 West - 3 (Doctor MJ, ElGee, therealbig3)

03 T-Mac - 1 (Ciz-Me)

66 West - 1 (ardee)


Not sure if drza officially voted for Ewing or not.