The Ewing Theory is stupid at least with regard to Patrick Ewing.

[BigtimeNBAfan]

The year the Ewing theory gets used is the 99 playoffs since the Knicks made the Finals without Ewing, but did they really? Patrick Ewing was a key part of their upset series win over the Heat and he battled Alonzo Mourning as well as he could at that age and even outplayed him in the pivotal Game 5 putting up 22/11 in a 78 to 77 win. He also was good in the second round sweep of the Hawks. He also was decent putting up 16/10 and outplaying Rick Smits in their game 1 win over the Pacers in the ECF on the road. Then he got hurt. Yes they did win 3 more games to make the finals, but do people honestly believe they wouldn't have won those games with Ewing? You are telling me having a quality big man even though past his prime who would be the best rebounder in the series would have hurt you when he helped you win against the 1 seed Heat with Alonzo Mourning already and blew through the Hawks as well as already beat the 2 seed Pacers in Indiana?

Also it really falls apart when you consider the Knicks did poorly in the finals without Ewing losing 4-1 to the Twin Towers and the Spurs. You are telling me you wouldn't want to throw Ewing at Duncan and Robinson as they badly outplayed Camby and the Knicks were glaringly weak underneath. Also Larry Johnson was atrocious shooting the ball in that finals. You are telling me the Knicks wouldn't have been better having Ewing take some of those shots? You are telling me a good rebounder like Ewing wouldn't have been needed as the Knicks got outrebounded by the Spurs in the series?

C'mon. Also even if you buy into the Knicks being better without Ewing, he wasn't even their star player at that point. He was 36 and well past his prime. It was Allan Houston's team. Ewing was still a good productive player and was vital for the Knicks in their playoff run. It is almost as if Simmons believes Ewing got hurt before the playoffs and wasn't a contributor in many of their big wins.

[Priest24]

Yeah it's 2020 and we're worried about dying from a strange virus and becoming zombies at this point.

[Roger Murdock]

The Ewing Theory was a thing Bill Simmons had for him predating even his NBA days going back to Georgetown. It wasnt created because of 99, it was an example of it in action. And the point of the Ewing theory is literally that it doesn't make sense. The point is, hes a great two way player, leader, and team first player, but for some reason whenever he goes down everyone else over performs. Its a not about him being overrated, the theory is 'the team will overperform without him for no reason'

Its not Ewing bashing.

[AussieCeltic]

The Ewing theory was coined before the 99 playoffs. I think it does have merit.

How often do we see teams without their star players perform better in short spurts?

Lebron and AD less Lakers beat OKC by 20 points but we know if they went a full season without them, they'd lose 60 games.

This is because other guys play hard and step up, but it's just wouldn't be sustainable long term.

[dorkestra]

The Ewing Theory was a thing Bill Simmons had for him predating even his NBA days going back to Georgetown. It wasnt created because of 99, it was an example of it in action. And the point of the Ewing theory is literally that it doesn't make sense. The point is, hes a great two way player, leader, and team first player, but for some reason whenever he goes down everyone else over performs. Its a not about him being overrated, the theory is 'the team will overperform without him for no reason'

Its not Ewing bashing.

Simmons actually got the idea from a fan letter from Dave Cirilli. I used to work with him.

[Knicks7Tape]

Not a COVID19, not a COVID19, we talkin about the Ewing Theory? How silly is that?

[dhsilv2]

Not a COVID19, not a COVID19, we talkin about the Ewing Theory? How silly is that?

We're all locked in our homes banned from seeing the public (or we're supposed to be).

Gotta talk about something fun, right?

[Knicks7Tape]

Not a COVID19, not a COVID19, we talkin about the Ewing Theory? How silly is that?

We're all locked in our homes banned from seeing the public (or we're supposed to be).

Gotta talk about something fun, right?

I'm just teasing. Hopefully there is another frozen envelope in the Knicks future.

[homecourtloss]

Not a COVID19, not a COVID19, we talkin about the Ewing Theory? How silly is that?

We're all locked in our homes banned from seeing the public (or we're supposed to be).

Gotta talk about something fun, right?

Where do you live that youre locked in your home? (Unkess its satire)

[tanuki1031]

Not a COVID19, not a COVID19, we talkin about the Ewing Theory? How silly is that?

I see you, my guy, I see you.

[Lalouie]

ewing was not a winner.

his low lights were a cornucopia of goofs, chokes, an bad decisions. whether it was choking at the ft line, or deciding to finger roll at a key moment when he never ever finger rolled in his whole life(and missing of course) or promising to deliver a sure win(he lost of course, as he was trying to emulate messier's promised delivery to ranger fans). ewing was the benefactor of pitino-riley and playing in nyc. if not for playing in nyc, ewing would have been walt bellamy2

his shoes were not big enough for teammates to group together and NOT fill. his departure from nyk meant nada and his arrival at seattle was even nada-er. his stay @knicks was with a tough grind-it-out group of players and was fortunate that the great pat riley molded that team and the only reason pat ewing was a "star" was because the nyc media needed a star, but really ewing was just part of the gumbo. the REAL STAR was riley

[dhsilv2]

Not a COVID19, not a COVID19, we talkin about the Ewing Theory? How silly is that?

We're all locked in our homes banned from seeing the public (or we're supposed to be).

Gotta talk about something fun, right?

Where do you live that youre locked in your home? (Unkess its satire)

Satire, though if we were all good informed citizens we'd more or less be under self house arrest outside of critical things.

[metafisical]

I thought the Ewing theory was that he would sweat 5 gallons in the game if the Knicks lost, but 7 gallons if they win.

[DavidSterned]

ewing was not a winner.

his low lights were a cornucopia of goofs, chokes, an bad decisions. whether it was choking at the ft line, or deciding to finger roll at a key moment when he never ever finger rolled in his whole life(and missing of course) or promising to deliver a sure win(he lost of course, as he was trying to emulate messier's promised delivery to ranger fans). ewing was the benefactor of pitino-riley and playing in nyc. if not for playing in nyc, ewing would have been walt bellamy2

his shoes were not big enough for teammates to group together and NOT fill. his departure from nyk meant nada and his arrival at seattle was even nada-er. his stay @knicks was with a tough grind-it-out group of players and was fortunate that the great pat riley molded that team and the only reason pat ewing was a "star" was because the nyc media needed a star, but really ewing was just part of the gumbo. the REAL STAR was riley

Silly hot take.

Ewing was a great player with strong longevity with roughly a 10 year prime. He clearly elevated his teams year in and year out. As a rookie, the Knicks were 18-32 with him and 5-27 without him, in 1995-96 they were 46-30 with him and 1-5 without him, and in 1997-98 they were 15-11 with him and 28-28 without him. It's probably not a huge coincidence that the Knicks were largely irrelevant for a long time before him and have been largely irrelevant since he left. And many of the Knicks' playoff losses were in hard-fought series that went the full 7. It's not like Ewing's teams were getting blasted.

Ewing was a bit out of his element as a number one scoring option. He was a good but not great scorer who had a tough time elevating his production in the postseason, and as a big guy had a tough time taking games over down the stretch. His defense was great and if he had had the luxury of focusing largely on that his legacy would be even better. The Knicks needed a 1B or 2nd option better than John Starks to get over the hump and Ewing didn't ever get that while he was in his prime. It's a shame that Bernard King got hurt and guys like Vandeweghe, McDaniel, Harper, and LJ were on the decline by the time they became Knicks. Good role players but that's not enough to get past Jordan/Pippen.

And LOL at using his time with the Sonics as evidence of Ewing being a loser. He was 38 and clearly washed up at that point. You can't even be serious with that.

[knicks512]

ewing was not a winner.

his low lights were a cornucopia of goofs, chokes, an bad decisions. whether it was choking at the ft line, or deciding to finger roll at a key moment when he never ever finger rolled in his whole life(and missing of course) or promising to deliver a sure win(he lost of course, as he was trying to emulate messier's promised delivery to ranger fans). ewing was the benefactor of pitino-riley and playing in nyc. if not for playing in nyc, ewing would have been walt bellamy2

his shoes were not big enough for teammates to group together and NOT fill. his departure from nyk meant nada and his arrival at seattle was even nada-er. his stay @knicks was with a tough grind-it-out group of players and was fortunate that the great pat riley molded that team and the only reason pat ewing was a "star" was because the nyc media needed a star, but really ewing was just part of the gumbo. the REAL STAR was riley

Silly hot take.

Ewing was a great player with strong longevity with roughly a 10 year prime. He clearly elevated his teams year in and year out. As a rookie, the Knicks were 18-32 with him and 5-27 without him, in 1995-96 they were 46-30 with him and 1-5 without him, and in 1997-98 they were 15-11 with him and 28-28 without him. It's probably not a huge coincidence that the Knicks were largely irrelevant for a long time before him and have been largely irrelevant since he left. And many of the Knicks' playoff losses were in hard-fought series that went the full 7. It's not like Ewing's teams were getting blasted.

Ewing was a bit out of his element as a number one scoring option. He was a good but not great scorer who had a tough time elevating his production in the postseason, and as a big guy had a tough time taking games over down the stretch. His defense was great and if he had had the luxury of focusing largely on that his legacy would be even better. The Knicks needed a 1B or 2nd option better than John Sarks to get over the hump and Ewing didn't ever get that while he was in his prime. It's a shame that Bernard King got hurt and guys like Vandeweghe, McDaniel, Harper, and LJ were on the decline by the time they became Knicks. Good role players but that's not enough to get past Jordan/Pippen.

And LOL at using his time with the Sonics as evidence of Ewing being a loser. He was 38 and clearly washed up at that point. You can't even be serious with that.

In an era where people defend LeBron's decisions to join other superstars, it's hard to imagine people blame Ewing for not winning a title when the second best option for most of his prime was John Starks. It's mind boggling to me. Grew up watching Ewing and as a Knicks fan today, I long for the days of being at worst a contender year in, year out.

[E-Balla]

We're all locked in our homes banned from seeing the public (or we're supposed to be).

Gotta talk about something fun, right?

Where do you live that youre locked in your home? (Unkess its satire)

Satire, though if we were all good informed citizens we'd more or less be under self house arrest outside of critical things.

And if we lived in a better country under better leadership we'd have an imposed quarantines like China did to get this under wraps before we go the route of Italy.

[dhsilv2]

Where do you live that youre locked in your home? (Unkess its satire)

Satire, though if we were all good informed citizens we'd more or less be under self house arrest outside of critical things.

And if we lived in a better country under better leadership we'd have an imposed quarantines like China did to get this under wraps before we go the route of Italy.

I think that's going a bit extreme, other than the knock at our "leadership".

[KokoKaizer]

Satire, though if we were all good informed citizens we'd more or less be under self house arrest outside of critical things.

And if we lived in a better country under better leadership we'd have an imposed quarantines like China did to get this under wraps before we go the route of Italy.

I think that's going a bit extreme, other than the knock at our "leadership".

He's right, it's just the beginning for you guys in the US.

We have the same in France --> Fake tough leader

You doesn't allow European airplanes but you allow british ones for example. That's laughable

[Lalouie]

ewing was not a winner.

his low lights were a cornucopia of goofs, chokes, an bad decisions. whether it was choking at the ft line, or deciding to finger roll at a key moment when he never ever finger rolled in his whole life(and missing of course) or promising to deliver a sure win(he lost of course, as he was trying to emulate messier's promised delivery to ranger fans). ewing was the benefactor of pitino-riley and playing in nyc. if not for playing in nyc, ewing would have been walt bellamy2

his shoes were not big enough for teammates to group together and NOT fill. his departure from nyk meant nada and his arrival at seattle was even nada-er. his stay @knicks was with a tough grind-it-out group of players and was fortunate that the great pat riley molded that team and the only reason pat ewing was a "star" was because the nyc media needed a star, but really ewing was just part of the gumbo. the REAL STAR was riley

Silly hot take.

Ewing was a great player with strong longevity with roughly a 10 year prime. He clearly elevated his teams year in and year out. As a rookie, the Knicks were 18-32 with him and 5-27 without him, in 1995-96 they were 46-30 with him and 1-5 without him, and in 1997-98 they were 15-11 with him and 28-28 without him. It's probably not a huge coincidence that the Knicks were largely irrelevant for a long time before him and have been largely irrelevant since he left. And many of the Knicks' playoff losses were in hard-fought series that went the full 7. It's not like Ewing's teams were getting blasted.

Ewing was a bit out of his element as a number one scoring option. He was a good but not great scorer who had a tough time elevating his production in the postseason, and as a big guy had a tough time taking games over down the stretch. His defense was great and if he had had the luxury of focusing largely on that his legacy would be even better. The Knicks needed a 1B or 2nd option better than John Sarks to get over the hump and Ewing didn't ever get that while he was in his prime. It's a shame that Bernard King got hurt and guys like Vandeweghe, McDaniel, Harper, and LJ were on the decline by the time they became Knicks. Good role players but that's not enough to get past Jordan/Pippen.

And LOL at using his time with the Sonics as evidence of Ewing being a loser. He was 38 and clearly washed up at that point. You can't even be serious with that.

In an era where people defend LeBron's decisions to join other superstars, it's hard to imagine people blame Ewing for not winning a title when the second best option for most of his prime was John Starks. It's mind boggling to me. Grew up watching Ewing and as a Knicks fan today, I long for the days of being at worst a contender year in, year out.

was ewing a choker at the ft line or not...in the biggest stage(

did he TRY to guarantee a victory and FAIL or not...after messier came through on his guarantee

did ewing gaffe on that decision to finger roll when he never ever tried a finger roll in his life...a 2' WIDE OPEN finger roll. he was so wide open he probably could have dunked. mj was gone.

ewing and starks were a perfect match...and it was riley who kept nyk relevant. without riley > jvg the knicks were a 500 team

LMAO...walton was right and he never should have recanted his opinion of ewing.

[Wigginstime]

Ewing's career will always be diminished by the 1994 NBA finals.

Back in the early 90s there was constant debate about who the best center in the NBA was. Ewing vs. Hakeem vs. Robinson.
They finished in MVP voting as
1992: Robinson (3), Ewing (5), Hakeem (N/A)
1993: Hakeem (2), Ewing (4), Robinson (6)
1994: Hakeem (1), Robinson (2), Ewing (5)

In 1994 in the NBA finals we got to see what was supposed to be a legendary showdown of Hakeem vs. Ewing. The game went a full 7 series despite Ewing have a drastically better supporting cast of Starks, Harper, and Oakley. Hakeem had a relatively weak supporting cast with his best teammates being Maxwell, Horry and Cassell.

The rockets won the series because Hakeem completely outclassed Ewing. They didn't even look like they were even close to being the same tier of player.

Hakeem average 27 on 50% shooting
Ewing averaged 19 points on 36% shooting

Ewing never did escape the criticism that followed that series.