Moderators: Clyde Frazier, Doctor MJ, trex_8063, penbeast0, PaulieWal
scrabbarista wrote:To mod:
I changed my vote from Hondo and KD to now KD and Wade (edited in the original post already).
pandrade83 wrote:JoeMalburg wrote:pandrade83 wrote:
On the defensive piece: There was a rotating cast of characters in there and not all were good at defense:
Allan Houston eventually replaced Starks, Larry Johnson replaced Mason & Spree/John Wallace replaced Charles Smith/Anthony Bonner - that's a downgrade of several players who ate a lot of minutes, they generally had aging point guards or weak defensive point guards until Ward showed up, the head coach changed and still - the defense remained strong during all those years. Many of the roster moves were made with offensive firepower in mind. His offense fell off before his D - his D rebounding rates & block rates remain strong. The '98 & '99 defensive ratings are partially propped up by Dudley & Gumby to be fair. While he was still a strong defender when on the court, he missed a lot of time both years.
I called out his offensive shortcomings for sure in my post on him - so I'll be the first to acknowledge it. At the same time, it's worth remembering that he did not play with another player in their prime who will even sniff this list. That creates a lot of additional pressure. The Larry Johnson move was shortsighted in general - he was inferior to Mason and his athletic explosiveness was gone by the time the Knicks got him. He was reasonably efficient, but benefited from Ewing/Houston soaking up attention.
The fact that Houston had a worse TS% than Ewing during their years together speaks to weak offensive point guard play - but also the fact that he was not an adequate offensive anchor. He was more of a volume scorer. While the Knicks tried to address the issue, they never truly did solve for it.
Ultimately Ewing deserves some of the blame - he was the offensive anchor after all - but the context matters as well - and the fact that he never played with another guy who will sniff this Top 100. But I don't see anyone left - other than Durant - who you put in his shoes and Ewing goes in theirs year for year who does better.
It wasn't a total defense of Ewing - but it's where I stand on the issue.
When they were great defensively with Oakley, Charles Smith, The Anthony's Mason and Bonner off the bench, and a rotating cast of solid two excellent defense PGs including Doc Rivers, Derek Harper and Mo Cheeks, that was comparable to the Bad Boys as was Rileys design. VanGundy inherited the system, and largely for players to fit in the system in place. Not saying every move was the right move, but it's not like they made huge mistakes either.
You're right that none of Ewing's teammates are likely to appear in the top 100, but how many of them are bad players? From 1991 through the rest of the decade Ewing always had a very strong starting lineup and typically Starks is one of the premier six man off the bench. Not a dominant team necessarily, but always good enough to contend.
How much, if at all, does Ewing suffer from being a notch below the elite (Barkley, MJ, Hakeem, Malone, Robinson) during his era? We're passing up guys who were closer to elite when they played and achieved more in terms of all-NBA and MVP attention.
On Point Guards: You're pointing out point guards who had strong careers but were past their prime by the time they got to the Knicks and point guards lose it defensively before they lose it offensively. Harper - it's evident by how the Mavs completely fell off a cliff his last couple years there and how his #'s dropped quickly. Cheeks was 33 by the time he was a Knick and while he could still competently run an offense (albeit at a much lower level), his days of being any sort of defensive presence were done. Doc was 31 & at the end of his rope. These guys were not excellent defensive PGs by the time they got to the Knicks and they weren't "good" point guards by that time either.
On the rest: The Knicks rarely had bad players - but everyone was a role player in some form or fashion with no true "2 way" players. Prime Mason (15/9/4) or peak Starks is the closest they came - but Mason played over 40 minutes to get those #'s and Starks' efficiency is sub-par in the 3 years he broke 15 PPG.
And by the time the Knicks got better offensive players, Ewing was still highly valuable but only had one prime season left ('97) and was at the end of a decade long prime streak.
I'm not taking a crap on them - I loved those teams. I loved the heart, the intensity & the desire.
But when you compare it to a Bad Boys situation . . . that's a bridge way too far. More continuity for sure and better players.
I'd take peak Laimbeer, Dumars & Rodman over anyone that Ewing played with and Dantley - though he had his own issues - was a far greater offensive threat in '87 & '88 than anything Ewing ever had.
lolathon234 wrote: Have a great regular season in 2016 capped off by a terrible finals where he was badly oout played by his position counterpart? Win a title with a stacked cast vs a team decimated by injuries in a year where his primary in conference opposition missed the playoffs due to their own injury problems? Each of Durant's Finals are better than any playoff series Curry has ever had.
smartyz456 wrote:Duncan would be a better defending jahlil okafor in todays nba
andrewww wrote:Ewing - Best defensive player of the bunch, but he reminds me of a poor man's David Robinson. Wasn't much of a play maker on offense and could be relegated to a jump shooting big man. Was a consistently good floor raiser, but he strikes me as someone who would need at least one other dynamic offensive teammate to help his team be legitimate championship contenders. In other words, I have always found players of this mold (Garnett, Pippen, Havlicek) more difficult to build a top heavy team around.
smartyz456 wrote:Duncan would be a better defending jahlil okafor in todays nba
andrewww wrote:Very insightful post and a lot mirrors what I see as well. A few tidbits to add though:
KD - I think there is justification in the questioning of his impact numbers, being taken out of the game by physical on ball denial, and not being an exceptional offensive playmaker despite the box score stats. However, there have also been very few blemishes or series where we can all say "hey he lost it for them". I can buy the thought process that he may be the most complete player of the remaining candidates much like Kobe was fundamentally, and that this would translate into being a great ceiling raiser given his versatility, shooting, and portability. As a floor raiser, maybe not so much compared to say Curry/Nash or even Ewing.
Curry - Has the shortest resume by far, but a 5 year stretch that probably supercedes everyone remaining (2013-present). Shaq-like impact in warping defenses except from beyond the arc, but also has a propensity to be more easily taken out of the game. History has shown us players like this are incredible floor raisers, but at times and against certain match ups, they are more vulnerable (see Lebron's jump shooting for example).
Nash - I think his 2007 Suns even while playing small ball were more than championship worthy with Amare at the 5. Has shown he can score as the primary option where required, but was most deadly when dropping dimes and elite defenses game planned for him to beat them as a scorer while keeping everyone else's activity in check. His Dallas stint showed that a more traditional style of play would still make him more than all-star caliber, but not quite the historic offensive dynamo that he became in Phoenix. I think his peak supercedes that of CP3 even thought his biggest weakness (defense) wasn't quite as important at the 1.
Ewing - Best defensive player of the bunch, but he reminds me of a poor man's David Robinson. Wasn't much of a play maker on offense and could be relegated to a jump shooting big man. Was a consistently good floor raiser, but he strikes me as someone who would need at least one other dynamic offensive teammate to help his team be legitimate championship contenders. In other words, I have always found players of this mold (Garnett, Pippen, Havlicek) more difficult to build a top heavy team around.
Baylor - For his time, he was the best swing man combining elite rebounding and underrated play making. Was the co-anchor of the 62 Lakers squad that really should have beaten the Celtics, and was a pioneer for his style of play at the time. I do think he could have adapted his game better post injury especially since West was almost universally considered the superior player on his team.
lolathon234 wrote: Each of Durant's Finals are better than any playoff series Curry has ever had.
JoeMalburg wrote:pandrade83 wrote:JoeMalburg wrote:
When they were great defensively with Oakley, Charles Smith, The Anthony's Mason and Bonner off the bench, and a rotating cast of solid two excellent defense PGs including Doc Rivers, Derek Harper and Mo Cheeks, that was comparable to the Bad Boys as was Rileys design. VanGundy inherited the system, and largely for players to fit in the system in place. Not saying every move was the right move, but it's not like they made huge mistakes either.
You're right that none of Ewing's teammates are likely to appear in the top 100, but how many of them are bad players? From 1991 through the rest of the decade Ewing always had a very strong starting lineup and typically Starks is one of the premier six man off the bench. Not a dominant team necessarily, but always good enough to contend.
How much, if at all, does Ewing suffer from being a notch below the elite (Barkley, MJ, Hakeem, Malone, Robinson) during his era? We're passing up guys who were closer to elite when they played and achieved more in terms of all-NBA and MVP attention.
On Point Guards: You're pointing out point guards who had strong careers but were past their prime by the time they got to the Knicks and point guards lose it defensively before they lose it offensively. Harper - it's evident by how the Mavs completely fell off a cliff his last couple years there and how his #'s dropped quickly. Cheeks was 33 by the time he was a Knick and while he could still competently run an offense (albeit at a much lower level), his days of being any sort of defensive presence were done. Doc was 31 & at the end of his rope. These guys were not excellent defensive PGs by the time they got to the Knicks and they weren't "good" point guards by that time either.
On the rest: The Knicks rarely had bad players - but everyone was a role player in some form or fashion with no true "2 way" players. Prime Mason (15/9/4) or peak Starks is the closest they came - but Mason played over 40 minutes to get those #'s and Starks' efficiency is sub-par in the 3 years he broke 15 PPG.
And by the time the Knicks got better offensive players, Ewing was still highly valuable but only had one prime season left ('97) and was at the end of a decade long prime streak.
I'm not taking a crap on them - I loved those teams. I loved the heart, the intensity & the desire.
But when you compare it to a Bad Boys situation . . . that's a bridge way too far. More continuity for sure and better players.
I'd take peak Laimbeer, Dumars & Rodman over anyone that Ewing played with and Dantley - though he had his own issues - was a far greater offensive threat in '87 & '88 than anything Ewing ever had.
The only Player that I would say was that his peak when the pistons were playing for titles was John Salley. And I'd say Isiah, but others won't.
Aguirre, Vinne, Laimbeer, Edwards and Mahorn were all over 30 and were on their last legs.
Rodman and Dumars hit their prime after the Dantley trade, but Rodman was playing 25 mpg and Dumars was rarely finishing games.
I agree completely that the Knicks point guards were all past their prime and maybe it did hurt their defense. I was more trying to point out that like Detroit, the Knicks sought players who fit their system in terms of personality and style.
I'll try and condense my question now that I've had the benefit of this back and forth...
Why do you think the Knicks greatest improvement defensively came when Riley arrived and does that impact how you view Ewings impact as the defensive anchor?
Dr Positivity wrote:Ewing doesn't necessarily have a longevity advantage over Nash, the bulk of his career is still 8 years ish and then he has some other pre prime and post prime years, but so does Nash have Dallas version. Ewing brings great defensive value at best defensive position, Nash great offensive value at best offensive position. Nash's defense looks worse than Ewing's offensive value. So does Nash's offense have more impact than Ewing defense because individual players can impact offense more? Possibly, but I'm uncertain enough. Ewing never got the MVP support Nash did but defense may have been underrated vs offense.
Vote: Patrick Ewing
2nd: Steve Nash
Clyde Frazier wrote:JoeMalburg wrote:pandrade83 wrote:
On the defensive piece: There was a rotating cast of characters in there and not all were good at defense:
Allan Houston eventually replaced Starks, Larry Johnson replaced Mason & Spree/John Wallace replaced Charles Smith/Anthony Bonner - that's a downgrade of several players who ate a lot of minutes, they generally had aging point guards or weak defensive point guards until Ward showed up, the head coach changed and still - the defense remained strong during all those years. Many of the roster moves were made with offensive firepower in mind. His offense fell off before his D - his D rebounding rates & block rates remain strong. The '98 & '99 defensive ratings are partially propped up by Dudley & Gumby to be fair. While he was still a strong defender when on the court, he missed a lot of time both years.
I called out his offensive shortcomings for sure in my post on him - so I'll be the first to acknowledge it. At the same time, it's worth remembering that he did not play with another player in their prime who will even sniff this list. That creates a lot of additional pressure. The Larry Johnson move was shortsighted in general - he was inferior to Mason and his athletic explosiveness was gone by the time the Knicks got him. He was reasonably efficient, but benefited from Ewing/Houston soaking up attention.
The fact that Houston had a worse TS% than Ewing during their years together speaks to weak offensive point guard play - but also the fact that he was not an adequate offensive anchor. He was more of a volume scorer. While the Knicks tried to address the issue, they never truly did solve for it.
Ultimately Ewing deserves some of the blame - he was the offensive anchor after all - but the context matters as well - and the fact that he never played with another guy who will sniff this Top 100. But I don't see anyone left - other than Durant - who you put in his shoes and Ewing goes in theirs year for year who does better.
It wasn't a total defense of Ewing - but it's where I stand on the issue.
When they were great defensively with Oakley, Charles Smith, The Anthony's Mason and Bonner off the bench, and a rotating cast of solid two excellent defense PGs including Doc Rivers, Derek Harper and Mo Cheeks, that was comparable to the Bad Boys as was Rileys design. VanGundy inherited the system, and largely for players to fit in the system in place. Not saying every move was the right move, but it's not like they made huge mistakes either.
You're right that none of Ewing's teammates are likely to appear in the top 100, but how many of them are bad players? From 1991 through the rest of the decade Ewing always had a very strong starting lineup and typically Starks is one of the premier six man off the bench. Not a dominant team necessarily, but always good enough to contend.
How much, if at all, does Ewing suffer from being a notch below the elite (Barkley, MJ, Hakeem, Malone, Robinson) during his era? We're passing up guys who were closer to elite when they played and achieved more in terms of all-NBA and MVP attention.
You can go back and look at my ewing vote in the last thread for detail, but I can't stress this enough: if starks simply has a bad game in game 7 of the 94 finals as opposed to the worst game of his career, ewing gets his ring and these questions aren't asked. Not to mention that very simply, he never had a consistent second option in his prime. If the knicks even had say an eddie jones level player during his best seasons, they very likely could've taken down jordan at least once.
dhsilv2 wrote:Dr Positivity wrote:Ewing doesn't necessarily have a longevity advantage over Nash, the bulk of his career is still 8 years ish and then he has some other pre prime and post prime years, but so does Nash have Dallas version. Ewing brings great defensive value at best defensive position, Nash great offensive value at best offensive position. Nash's defense looks worse than Ewing's offensive value. So does Nash's offense have more impact than Ewing defense because individual players can impact offense more? Possibly, but I'm uncertain enough. Ewing never got the MVP support Nash did but defense may have been underrated vs offense.
Vote: Patrick Ewing
2nd: Steve Nash
Just to add, Ewing was never CLOSE to the MVP and only made the first team all nba ONCE. The objective league view of the two is NIGHT AND DAY for their peaks. Ewing had one season where he was seen as the best at his position, but was 5th in MVP voting. Nash was seen as the most valuable player twice and has multiple first team votes.
Era for era Nash was better thought of against his peers than Ewing, not sure there's a debate on this. So was Ewing's era that much better?
dhsilv2 wrote:Clyde Frazier wrote:JoeMalburg wrote:
When they were great defensively with Oakley, Charles Smith, The Anthony's Mason and Bonner off the bench, and a rotating cast of solid two excellent defense PGs including Doc Rivers, Derek Harper and Mo Cheeks, that was comparable to the Bad Boys as was Rileys design. VanGundy inherited the system, and largely for players to fit in the system in place. Not saying every move was the right move, but it's not like they made huge mistakes either.
You're right that none of Ewing's teammates are likely to appear in the top 100, but how many of them are bad players? From 1991 through the rest of the decade Ewing always had a very strong starting lineup and typically Starks is one of the premier six man off the bench. Not a dominant team necessarily, but always good enough to contend.
How much, if at all, does Ewing suffer from being a notch below the elite (Barkley, MJ, Hakeem, Malone, Robinson) during his era? We're passing up guys who were closer to elite when they played and achieved more in terms of all-NBA and MVP attention.
You can go back and look at my ewing vote in the last thread for detail, but I can't stress this enough: if starks simply has a bad game in game 7 of the 94 finals as opposed to the worst game of his career, ewing gets his ring and these questions aren't asked. Not to mention that very simply, he never had a consistent second option in his prime. If the knicks even had say an eddie jones level player during his best seasons, they very likely could've taken down jordan at least once.
Oakley gets grossly underrated. 91 was supposed to be Ewing peak, right? He had Jackson, Cheeks, Starks, and Vandeweghe too. That's just NOT a bad team or one lacking talent. Honestly I've always felt Oakley was the heart of the defense (other than the coaches), Ewing was the best chess piece.
lolathon234 wrote:Speaking of RAPM, you guys need to consider context. The Warriors run a motion offense, which requires the primary ball handler be able to space the floor. Curry's backup is LIvingston, who has 0 range outside of 15 feet. That's why their team struggles, well that and Draymond almost always sitting when Curry does.
Frank Dux wrote:LeChosen One wrote:Doc is right. The Warriors shouldn't get any respect unless they repeat to be honest.
According to your logic, Tim Duncan doesn't deserve any respect.
