Why Ewing never won an NBA title

[iamgine]

Why Ewing never won an NBA title.

By Hugo Lindgren

[QUOTE]Patrick Ewing led his teams to hundreds of victories. He played before adoring crowds packed with celebrities. He made tens of millions of dollars. By any definition, he led a charmed life. And yet as he retires from professional basketball, he does so as a tragic figure, an icon of not-quite-greatness, wearing, like a scarlet letter, the label of "couldn't win the big one."

There are two conventional views of Ewing's career, one charitable, one not. The nice version goes like this: Ewing was one of the greatest centers to ever play the game, his accomplishments limited only by the inability of Knicks management to surround him with sufficiently good players. The mean version: Ewing was a pigheaded, unimaginative player who was convinced he was much better than he really was and whose insistence on being the man dragged the Knicks' offense into the mud.

Joseph Nocera argued that Ewing's trade from New York to Seattle in 2000 was long overdue. The Knicks dumped the big man when he was all but worthless. Lindgren wrote that Jeff Van Gundy, who led New York to the finals in '99, spent years coaching a team with no discernable talent.

The New York papers are packed with (mostly fond) eulogies for Big Pat. The Daily News' Mike Lupica compares Ewing to Don Mattingly, another NYC legend who never delivered a ring. But the city never embraced Ewing like it did Matty. The Post's Kevin Kernan writes that Ewing "had that big smile, although he didn't smile nearly as much as he should have. He had a big sense of humor, too, although he rarely showed it to the outside world." ESPN.com's Mitch Lawrence says that "no player suffered more at the hands of Jordan than Ewing."

There is much evidence to support both opinions, though neither fully explains the sad arc of his career. Ewing's real problem, and by extension that of the near-great Knicks, was a quality that is usually admired in professional athletes: his obsession with improving and expanding his game. Ewing might, in fact, have won an NBA title if he'd done the opposite: if he'd narrowed his skills, refined them, and focused on the physical gifts that few others could match.

Consider the player that the Knicks drafted out of Georgetown with the first overall pick in the 1985 draft

[U got Served]

Top 3 reasons why Ewing never won a title....
1)Michael Jordan
2)Scottie Pippen
3)Hakeem Olajuwon

[sayitaintso]

I concur. Jordan and Hakeem were in his way. Jordan during the early 90s. And the year Jordan retired and the Knicks made it to the finals.

[Mr Clutch Melo]

Michael Jordan is Ewings nightmare:oldlol:

[Kblaze8855]

Hakeem got his fingernail on Starks jumper to win the title in game 6. Hakeem is a half second late Starks makes it and Ewing is suddenly great(though not finals MVP since Starks had played out of his mind for a while).

[bagelred]

If the 3 Point Shot John Starks takes in Game 6 was not blocked by Hakeem and goes in, Ewing wins a championship. History completely changes. Hakeem maybe doesn't win a championship ever and we are writing articles on "Why Hakeem never won an NBA title".

Stupid, right? Exactly.

[U got Served]

Well, we can't just assume that Stark's 3 was going in.

[Kblaze8855]

Well yea you cant know...but he was on fire. I wanna say he had 30 points with about 15 in the 4th. he had just hit a big 3 a little earlier. And he had a good look. Well I guess not that good since it got blocked but he had a look. hakeem just cgot there so fast...

[ShaqAttack3234]

This article makes it sound like Ewing's team consistently underachieved. He lost to the Bulls 3 consecutive seasons in the early 90's. Is someone going to seriously claim that Ewing's supporting cast was as good as Jordan's? Then he lost to Houston in 7 games, and even then his cast wasn't that great. Arguably better than Olajuwons', but no clear advantage as far as supporting casts. Then you have the suspension in 1997 and the injury in 1999.

And :oldlol: at the article making it sound like the 1999 Knicks were better without Ewing. Ewing led them to that game 5 victory over Miami. He outplayed a much younger, healthy Alonzo Mourning in his prime despite Ewing visibly being in pain. Ewing had 22/11 while Mourning had 21/5 on 43% shooting. Ewing led the Knicks in scoring and rebounding that game. What about the Atlanta series? Ewing played in all 4 games of the sweep and had 17/9 in game 4 to complete the sweep despite being far from 100%. They also won game 1 of the ECF with him.

Revionist history always makes it sound Ewing was injured and the Knicks made their run without him at all. They won 3 games during that run without him.

Ewing was one of the greats of his era and a better player than most of his contemporaries. He's the third best center of the 90's behind Olajuwon and O'Neal, IMO.

[DuMa]

I always wanted to see an Ewing/Shaq final for some reason.

[AMISTILLILL]

This article makes it sound like Ewing's team consistently underachieved. He lost to the Bulls 3 consecutive seasons in the early 90's. Is someone going to seriously claim that Ewing's supporting cast was as good as Jordan's? Then he lost to Houston in 7 games, and even then his cast wasn't that great. Arguably better than Olajuwons', but no clear advantage as far as supporting casts. Then you have the suspension in 1997 and the injury in 1999.

And :oldlol: at the article making it sound like the 1999 Knicks were better without Ewing. Ewing led them to that game 5 victory over Miami. He outplayed a much younger, healthy Alonzo Mourning in his prime despite Ewing visibly being in pain. Ewing had 22/11 while Mourning had 21/5 on 43% shooting. Ewing led the Knicks in scoring and rebounding that game. What about the Atlanta series? Ewing played in all 4 games of the sweep and had 17/9 in game 4 to complete the sweep despite being far from 100%. They also won game 1 of the ECF with him.

Revionist history always makes it sound Ewing was injured and the Knicks made their run without him at all. They won 3 games during that run without him.

Ewing was one of the greats of his era and a better player than most of his contemporaries. He's the third best center of the 90's behind Olajuwon and O'Neal, IMO.

Backed.

[TennesseeFan]

Top 3 reasons why Ewing never won a title....
1)Michael Jordan
2)Scottie Pippen
3)Hakeem Olajuwon
4)Reggie Miller


fixed.

[OnceInADECADE]

michael jordan


















/thread

[BRabbiT]

http://bill.goldschein.name/images/Phil%20Jackson.jpg

[GOBB]

Bulls dynasty stopped many from getting rings. Not just Ewing. Barkley, Stockton/Malone to name a few.


He's the third best center of the 90's behind Olajuwon and O'Neal, IMO.

I'm going with the guy in S.A.

[ShaqAttack3234]

I'm going with the guy in S.A.

Ewing>Robinson. Ewing was easily the better leader, better post scorer and rebounding was about equal while Ewing was just as solid of an anchor defensively. Robinson was the better passer, better on the perimeter and running the floor and more athletic, but there's a reason why Robinson has very few memorable playoff performances while Ewing has a ton. Ewing in 1990 was better than Robinson ever was as well.

[GOBB]

Ewing>Robinson. Ewing was easily the better leader, better post scorer and rebounding was about equal while Ewing was just as solid of an anchor defensively. Robinson was the better passer, better on the perimeter and running the floor and more athletic, but there's a reason why Robinson has very few memorable playoff performances while Ewing has a ton. Ewing in 1990 was better than Robinson ever was as well.

Nah. Drob > Ewing. Sorry.

[bdreason]

Ewing was a complete beast. Probably one of the most underrated (or least remembered) players of all time. As someone stated above, he's probably the 3rd best Center I've seen play in their prime (behind Shaq and Hakeem).

[ShaqAttack3234]

Nah. Drob > Ewing. Sorry.

Nope, I'll take the guy who actually shows up in the playoffs.

[GOBB]

Nope, I'll take the guy who actually shows up in the playoffs.

Fine by me. I'm going Drob.

http://i.cdn.turner.com/sivault/multimedia/photo_gallery/0902/this.day.sports.history.feb17/images/david-robinson.jpg

:pimp:

[SCdac]

In that 1994 Finals, didn't Ewing average 18.9 PPG on 36.8 FG% in a season where he was a 24 PPG player? .... I think he was a top-3 type center too, but not clearly ahead of other great centers in that era.... I know there's been some really lengthy threads on the subject before, which I tend to ignore because all these players were so sick in their own right.

[ShaqAttack3234]

In that 1994 Finals, didn't Ewing average 18.9 PPG on 36.8 FG% in a season where he was a 24 PPG player? .... I think he was a top-3 type center too, but not clearly ahead of other great centers in that era.... I know there's been some really lengthy threads on the subject before, which I tend to ignore because all these players were so sick in their own right.

Yes, Ewing wasn't particularly good offensively in the finals, but atleast he made Olajuwon work for his points, outrebounded him by about 3 per game and blocked more shots. Ewing had numerous other big playoff performances and series, though.

[mlh1981]

If this all happens someplace else besides New York, Ewing and that team don't get as much criticism for failing to win it all.

People point to Stockton/Malone, and those Jazz teams, and not many call them underachievers and degrade their teams years later. They are viewed as victims of the "Jordan era." Ewing and the Knicks, because of the media market they played in, don't get that same sort of "sympathy."

Maybe I'm wrong, but just seems to be that in NYC, anything less than titles is absolute BS, whereas in small market Utah, it's "hey, at least they are competitive!"

[zizozain]

a lil overrated maybe ?

[jlauber]

I never considered Ewing a GREAT player. Very good...yes...GREAT...no.

The truly GREAT players CARRY their teams to titles. True, most all of the greats have a quality supporting cast. But, the GREATS dominate when their teams need them the most.

Look at Tim Duncan. I don't think he was any more physically gifted than Ewing. Yet, he has four rings. And while Ewing fans can point to MJ and Hakeem, Duncan's Spurs faced the likes of Shaq-Kobe for most of their titles.

I also look at Chamberlain's career as somewhat of a disappointment, but at least was overwhelming in the vast majority of his post-season games. AND, he played on TWO title teams.

IMHO, Ewing would have been better suited as a "second-banana" behind a truly GREAT player. He, himself, was just not a true leader, that could take over a game. He was an Artis Gilmore-type player (maybe slightly better.)

[Shepseskaf]

Top 3 reasons why Ewing never won a title....
1)Sam Cassell
2)Sam Cassell
3)Sam Cassell

Fixed.

EDIT: The practice of downgrading a great player for not winning a championship is just stupid. Ewing was a great player and a top 10 center in league history, a fact that shouldn't even be debatable.

Is Barkley not "great" because he never won a title? or Karl Malone? How about Dan Marino in football? The answer is obvious.

The best that you can say about a great player is that he was among the primary reasons that his team at least reached the Finals, and then had a good chance to win it. Why is it Ewing's fault that he happened to play during the Jordan Era?

[Abraham Lincoln]

I never considered Ewing a GREAT player. Very good...yes...GREAT...no.

The truly GREAT players CARRY their teams to titles. True, most all of the greats have a quality supporting cast. But, the GREATS dominate when their teams need them the most.

Look at Tim Duncan. I don't think he was any more physically gifted than Ewing. Yet, he has four rings. And while Ewing fans can point to MJ and Hakeem, Duncan's Spurs faced the likes of Shaq-Kobe for most of their titles.

I also look at Chamberlain's career as somewhat of a disappointment, but at least was overwhelming in the vast majority of his post-season games. AND, he played on TWO title teams.

IMHO, Ewing would have been better suited as a "second-banana" behind a truly GREAT player. He, himself, was just not a true leader, that could take over a game. He was an Artis Gilmore-type player (maybe slightly better.)

I like the Artis Gilmore comparison. Only disagreement I have is that Pat was not a leader, for while I did feel he was a bit overrated when he played in NY he is now very underrated (though not as much as Gilmore). One can only wonder how far they expected him to go with Starks as his #2.

[Rameek]

The reason Ewing never won a title is because all those teams that won had 2 players you can count on...

It was always Ewing and ...(Dleaguer or Declining player) Ewings Ego played a major role in why he couldnt probably get a better supporting cast.

To me Shaq Hakeem/Ewing

[Hammertime]

Maybe I'm wrong, but just seems to be that in NYC, anything less than titles is absolute BS, whereas in small market Utah, it's "hey, at least they are competitive!"

Well, yeah, there's increased expectations when you have all the advantages that NYC does. When you have players publicly declaring they wouldn't play in Utah while a deal is still in the rumour stage, and when a broken down Ronny Seikaly refuses to come to SLC, maybe the Jazz organization get a pass.

What's the Knicks' excuse? As the article points out, it took them more than a decade to put some decent players around Ewing? You're telling me no free agents wanted to play in NYC? No trades could've been made? Hell, they couldn't have drafted anyone? Look at the Knicks draft picks in the 10-12 years following Ewing's arrival. http://www.basketball-reference.com/teams/NYK/draft.html

They drafted two young, talented PGs right after taking Ewing, and then traded both away. And it's not like it was a case of them developing after the trade. Mark Jackson was ROY, and Strickland played well as a backup, too. Then for the next 10 years, the Knicks were unable to draft anyone who could stick around the league for more than a few years or contribute anything significant. Well, Charlie Ward maybe doesn't fall into that category, but then drafting an anti-Semite when your team plays in New York is probably a pretty bone-headed move.

Regardless, how the hell do you have a decade of drafts where you cannot find one player who will actually be useful? Look at 1996. The Knicks had the 18th, 19th, and the 21st pick. Every one of the players they picked was utter garbage. Now, you could argue that most players picked afterwards were garbage too(which did not stop the Knicks from overpaying one of them as a FA from Utah a few years later), but then why not trade up? The 5 players picked ahead of NY's 18th pick were Kobe, Nash, J. O'Neal, Peja, and Tony Delk. If there were no talented players available from 18th pick on down, was there no way the Knicks could've traded 3 first round picks to move up a bit?

Ewing may have been pig-headed and conceited, and maybe even selfish, but when you expect him to lead a team consisting of undrafted CBA players and washed up former stars to the title, you're asking a bit much of him and not nearly enough of the front office.

[jstern]

The number one reason why Ewing doesn't have a championship right now is because Starks had a horrible game 7. If not he would have gotten 1 during the Jordan era. (Not really part of the Jordan era, since Jordan wasn't in the league.) Love Starks though. The number two reason, Michael Jordan. Another factor to consider was Ewing's health. Breaking my leg at 19 took away a lot of my athleticism, and I completely understand how injuries takes away so much from a person's game.

[Shep]

Ewing>Robinson. Ewing was easily the better leader, better post scorer and rebounding was about equal while Ewing was just as solid of an anchor defensively. Robinson was the better passer, better on the perimeter and running the floor and more athletic, but there's a reason why Robinson has very few memorable playoff performances while Ewing has a ton. Ewing in 1990 was better than Robinson ever was as well.
robinson was the best center in the 90's. and how can 1990 ewing be better than robinson ever was when 1990 rookie robinson was the real mvp, and only behind olajuwon in overall rankings?

[jlauber]

I have always thought rings were deceptive when comparing great players...until the last few months.

Wilt is the classic example. Many observers unfairly label him a "loser" and a "failure" because he "only" won two rings. He played in the era of the greatest dynasty in NBA history, and had FOUR game seven losses to Russell's Celtics, by a COMBINED NINE points. In many of those seasons, he played on rosters that would be average, at best, without him (and it could be argued that at least a couple of them would be cellar-dwellers without him.)

I have come to appreciate Russell's brilliance, and clutch play, though. It has to be more than a coincidence that his team's went 7-1 against Wilt's in the post-season. And, of course, 11-2 in the Finals (and injured in one of those losses)...just unbelieveable. Still, IMHO, Wilt played valiantly in so many post-seasons, and I just can't understand those that criticize him for his "lack of success." I laud Russell for undeniably leading his teams to so many titles...but I also appreciate the fact that it was Wilt, and his team's, that provided Russell's team's with the most competition. A few points, here-or-there, and Wilt could have held a 5-3 edge in rings over Russell.

As for Ewing... IMHO, as great as MJ and the Bulls were, and they most certainly were the best team of the 90's...Ewing was no better than the 4th best center of the era, behind Shaq, Hakeem, and Robinson. And, in the post-season, he was way behind Shaq and Hakeem.

Had Ewing played brilliantly in the post-season, even in defeat, as Wilt did so often...then yes, I would rank him higher. But, he never rose to the occasion.

[HylianNightmare]

He still has time

[redhonda76]

I never considered Ewing a GREAT player. Very good...yes...GREAT...no.

The truly GREAT players CARRY their teams to titles. True, most all of the greats have a quality supporting cast. But, the GREATS dominate when their teams need them the most.

Look at Tim Duncan. I don't think he was any more physically gifted than Ewing. Yet, he has four rings. And while Ewing fans can point to MJ and Hakeem, Duncan's Spurs faced the likes of Shaq-Kobe for most of their titles.

I also look at Chamberlain's career as somewhat of a disappointment, but at least was overwhelming in the vast majority of his post-season games. AND, he played on TWO title teams.

IMHO, Ewing would have been better suited as a "second-banana" behind a truly GREAT player. He, himself, was just not a true leader, that could take over a game. He was an Artis Gilmore-type player (maybe slightly better.)

I guess according to you, Karl Malone, John Stockton, Charles Barkley, Elgin Baylor, Dominique Wilkens, George Gervin, Iverson, Bernard King wasn't a great player either.
You can add David Robinson, Gary Payton, Scottie Pippen since they got their rings because they didn't lead and carry their team to the championship either.

I guess it was Ewing's fault that he had to be in the same conference as Jordan and that he had to faced him so many times, who arguably is the greatest player of all time and also the top 5 team of all time.

[jlauber]

I guess according to you, Karl Malone, John Stockton, Charles Barkley, Elgin Baylor, Dominique Wilkens, George Gervin, Iverson, Bernard King wasn't a great player either.
You can add David Robinson, Gary Payton, Scottie Pippen since they got their rings because they didn't lead and carry their team to the championship either.

I guess it was Ewing's fault that he had to be in the same conference as Jordan and that he had to faced him so many times, who arguably is the greatest player of all time and also the top 5 team of all time.

All of those players you mentioned were AMONG the best players of their eras. NONE of them were THE best. That is not a knock on ANY of them. But that is EXACTLY my argument. Ewing was a very good player, who played in the MJ, (and to a lessor extent, Hakeem) era (or if you go back to the 80's...Magic-Bird.)

Once again, compare what Duncan accomplished, in the Shaq-Kobe era, with what Ewing achieved. Similar players in terms of stats, but in terms of "clutch" and team chemistry...not even close.

[SmoothRED]

Nope, I'll take the guy who actually shows up in the playoffs.
That would be neither, neither of them were anything special in the playoffs. The fact that Ewing never did anything special against the Bulls frontcourt should show you that he wasn't any more clutch than Admiral was.

[jlauber]

I think a better question would be...where does Ewing rank among the all-time greats to have played in the NBA?

Most would probably rank him in the Top-50. I would even question that.

[SmoothRED]

I think a better question would be...where does Ewing rank among the all-time greats to have played in the NBA?

Most would probably rank him in the Top-50. I would even question that.
Wow, you must have never watched him play. He's Top 35 at the worst. I have him in my Top 30. Some probably have him in the Top 20 or even 25.

[ILLsmak]

But on the other hand, if Ewing wasn't in NY, nobody would even care why he didn't win...

-Smak

[jlauber]

Wow, you must have never watched him play. He's Top 35 at the worst. I have him in my Top 30. Some probably have him in the Top 20 or even 25.

Makes for an interesting discussion...

I'll think about it. Maybe other's can supply their take. GOAT has him at #41. Probably reasonable.

[crisoner]

Top 3 reasons why Ewing never won a title....
1)Michael Jordan
2)Scottie Pippen
3)Hakeem Olajuwon


/thread

[ProfessorMurder]

Makes for an interesting discussion...

I'll think about it. Maybe other's can supply their take. GOAT has him at #41. Probably reasonable.

I'd put him between 30-25 on my list... Just saying. He was a great player, and just couldn't get over the hump. He had huge games in the playoffs, but a few mistakes by him and teammates kept them short of the title.

From 89-90 to 98-99 they lost to the eventual champions 7 times, twice in the finals! Detroit, Chicago, Chicago, Chicago, Houston, Chicago, and Spurs. They had a really good team, just didn't have the luck.

[Da_Realist]

Ewing in 1990 was better than Robinson ever was as well.

He was very good in 1990. He came up with some monster performances to help the Knicks overcome an 0-2 deficit against the Celtics in the first round that year.

Game 3 (http://www.youtube.com/user/tjhunt76#grid/user/3F7DF477D083FB0B) -- 33 pts, 19 rebs

Game 4 -- 44 pts, 13 rebs, 5 asts

Game 5 -- 31 pts, 8 rebs, 10 asts -- Almost a triple double in a do-or-die situation on the road which also includes THE back-breaker 3pt shot to seal the series victory :eek:

I'm actually posting these games right now. Games 1-3 are already posted. Game 4 will be posted later today and Game 5 sometime this weekend.

[jlauber]

I'd put him between 30-25 on my list... Just saying. He was a great player, and just couldn't get over the hump. He had huge games in the playoffs, but a few mistakes by him and teammates kept them short of the title.

From 89-90 to 98-99 they lost to the eventual champions 7 times, twice in the finals! Detroit, Chicago, Chicago, Chicago, Houston, Chicago, and Spurs. They had a really good team, just didn't have the luck.

Professor,

I am just curious...can you post your Top-30? I have always respected your opinions here...so it would be worth looking at.

Incidently...a quick kudos to GOAT here...

Has anyone ever done a better job of explaining their Top- list? I just wish he would get to the finish line. I can hardly wait.

[robertshaw_1]

ewing woudnt win a championship in the 60

[SmoothRED]

Ewing made one All-NBA team his entire career, while Robinson made four. Robinson also has an MVP.

http://www.slamonline.com/online/wp-content/uploads/2009/04/david_robinson_mvp.jpg

[ProfessorMurder]

Ewing made one All-NBA team his entire career, while Robinson made four. Robinson also has an MVP.

http://www.slamonline.com/online/wp-content/uploads/2009/04/david_robinson_mvp.jpg

Yeah and Olajuwon punked him bad the day he got the trophy.

[purple32gold]

Yeah and Olajuwon punked him bad the day he got the trophy.
ya know im sure you could selectively choose the most terrible moment from many former HOF's careers and find fault...
no one is perfect...drob was/is the most athletic C in this era, he was a NCAA monster at navy. come on how can so many people hate the admiral.

back to topic, pat was sick. repped JA the finest it's been done in the NBA. also another NCAA giant...he and "akeem" had great battles in the early 80's

[ShaqAttack3234]

robinson was the best center in the 90's. and how can 1990 ewing be better than robinson ever was when 1990 rookie robinson was the real mvp, and only behind olajuwon in overall rankings?

Alright, Robinson was the best center of the 90's, whatever you say.....he was better than Olajuwon and O'Neal. :roll:

Robinson was the 1990 real MVP? :oldlol: Ewing wasn't the real MVP and he was clearly better than Robinson that year. I'm not even going to bring up Jordan, Magic, Barkley ect.

Ewing- 28.6 ppg, 10.9 rpg, 2.2 apg, 4.0 bpg, 1.0 spg, 55.1 FG%, 77.5 FT%, 3.4 TO
Robinson- 24.3 ppg, 12.0 rpg, 2.0 apg, 3.9 bpg, 1.7 spg, 53.1 FG%, 73.2 FT%, 3.1 TO

So Robinson grabbed one more rebound and had 0.7 more steals per game? That's about it. Ewing was scoring over 4 more ppg than Robinson and doing it more efficiently, plus Ewing was a monster in the playoffs.

Robinson did have an amazing rookie season, arguably the best of the last 20 years, and in that season he did play up to his ability in the playoffs(which you can't say for msot of his prime years). But Ewing was clearly a better player.



Had Ewing played brilliantly in the post-season, even in defeat, as Wilt did so often...then yes, I would rank him higher. But, he never rose to the occasion.


That would be neither, neither of them were anything special in the playoffs. The fact that Ewing never did anything special against the Bulls frontcourt should show you that he wasn't any more clutch than Admiral was.

In 1990, he led his team from down 0-2 to the more experienced, more talented Celtics with 3 straight victories. That included 44 points and 13 rebounds in game 4 and 31 points in game 5 to close out the series in Boston. Down 0-2 vs the defending champion Pistons in round 2, he had 45 points and 13 rebounds.

In 1992, he had a great series vs Detroit which included 31/19/3/3 in a deciding game 5. He had 34/16/5/6 vs the Bulls in game 1 as well. And facing elimination vs the much more talented, defending champion Bulls, Ewing with a bad ankle sprain scored 27 points to extend the series to a 7th game.

In 1993 he was very good throughout the playoffs averaging 25.5 ppg and 11 rpg on 51% shooting, but he fell to a more talented Bulls team in 6 games in the ECF. In 1994, he had 36/14/3/5 to closeout the Hornets, had a 24/22/7/5 game to closeout the series in game 7 and he had a monster 25/12/8 game to give the Knicks a 3-2 lead in the finals.

In the deciding game 5, a badly injured 36 year old Ewing also outplayed a prime Alono Mourning who had won DPOY and finished 2nd in MVP voting. He outscored and outrebounded Mourning while shooting a higher %, leading the Knicks in points and rbeounds and helping them become the second 8 seed to defeat a 1 seed in NBA history.

[jlauber]

Alright, Robinson was the best center of the 90's, whatever you say.....he was better than Olajuwon and O'Neal. :roll:

Robinson was the 1990 real MVP? :oldlol: Ewing wasn't the real MVP and he was clearly better than Robinson that year. I'm not even going to bring up Jordan, Magic, Barkley ect.

Ewing- 28.6 ppg, 10.9 rpg, 2.2 apg, 4.0 bpg, 1.0 spg, 55.1 FG%, 77.5 FT%, 3.4 TO
Robinson- 24.3 ppg, 12.0 rpg, 2.0 apg, 3.9 bpg, 1.7 spg, 53.1 FG%, 73.2 FT%, 3.1 TO

So Robinson grabbed one more rebound and had 0.7 more steals per game? That's about it. Ewing was scoring over 4 more ppg than Robinson and doing it more efficiently, plus Ewing was a monster in the playoffs.

Robinson did have an amazing rookie season, arguably the best of the last 20 years, and in that season he did play up to his ability in the playoffs(which you can't say for msot of his prime years). But Ewing was clearly a better player.





In 1990, he led his team from down 0-2 to the more experienced, more talented Celtics with 3 straight victories. That included 44 points and 13 rebounds in game 4 and 31 points in game 5 to close out the series in Boston. Down 0-2 vs the defending champion Pistons in round 2, he had 45 points and 13 rebounds.

In 1992, he had a great series vs Detroit which included 31/19/3/3 in a deciding game 5. He had 34/16/5/6 vs the Bulls in game 1 as well. And facing elimination vs the much more talented, defending champion Bulls, Ewing with a bad ankle sprain scored 27 points to extend the series to a 7th game.

In 1993 he was very good throughout the playoffs averaging 25.5 ppg and 11 rpg on 51% shooting, but he fell to a more talented Bulls team in 6 games in the ECF. In 1994, he had 36/14/3/5 to closeout the Hornets, had a 24/22/7/5 game to closeout the series in game 7 and he had a monster 25/12/8 game to give the Knicks a 3-2 lead in the finals.

In the deciding game 5, a badly injured 36 year old Ewing also outplayed a prime Alono Mourning who had won DPOY and finished 2nd in MVP voting. He outscored and outrebounded Mourning while shooting a higher %, leading the Knicks in points and rbeounds and helping them become the second 8 seed to defeat a 1 seed in NBA history.

Excellent post. I'll concede Ewing was better than I originally gave him credit for.

[Shep]

Alright, Robinson was the best center of the 90's, whatever you say.....he was better than Olajuwon and O'Neal.
olajuwon was close, o'neal was nowhere near

Robinson was the 1990 real MVP? Ewing wasn't the real MVP and he was clearly better than Robinson that year. I'm not even going to bring up Jordan, Magic, Barkley ect.
ofcourse ewing wasn't the real mvp, he wasn't even top 5

Ewing- 28.6 ppg, 10.9 rpg, 2.2 apg, 4.0 bpg, 1.0 spg, 55.1 FG%, 77.5 FT%, 3.4 TO
Robinson- 24.3 ppg, 12.0 rpg, 2.0 apg, 3.9 bpg, 1.7 spg, 53.1 FG%, 73.2 FT%, 3.1 TO

So Robinson grabbed one more rebound and had 0.7 more steals per game? That's about it. Ewing was scoring over 4 more ppg than Robinson and doing it more efficiently, plus Ewing was a monster in the playoffs.
yes, ewing had the slight edge in production, but the difference is so miniscule it isn't even worth mentioning. robinson, as a rookie, led his team to the biggest single season turnaround in nba history, won more games than any spurs team ever had, and wound up with the second seed in the west, all 1 year after the spurs only managed 21 wins, and as a team, they went from the 6 worst defense to the third best defense.
meanwhile ewings statistical improvement seemed to be of detriment to the teams success, evidently backed up by going from 52 wins and the second seed in 1989, to 45 wins and the fifth seed, with the same supporting cast. which is probably why he toned down his scoring for the next few years to a more comfortable 24ppg.
Robinson did have an amazing rookie season, arguably the best of the last 20 years, and in that season he did play up to his ability in the playoffs(which you can't say for msot of his prime years). But Ewing was clearly a better player.
actually robinson's rookie season is the fourth greatest rookie season of all time, and robinson was easily better.

[Da_Realist]

He was very good in 1990. He came up with some monster performances to help the Knicks overcome an 0-2 deficit against the Celtics in the first round that year.

Game 3 (http://www.youtube.com/user/tjhunt76#grid/user/3F7DF477D083FB0B) -- 33 pts, 19 rebs

Game 4 -- 44 pts, 13 rebs, 5 asts

Game 5 -- 31 pts, 8 rebs, 10 asts -- Almost a triple double in a do-or-die situation on the road which also includes THE back-breaker 3pt shot to seal the series victory :eek:

I'm actually posting these games right now. Games 1-3 are already posted. Game 4 will be posted later today and Game 5 sometime this weekend.

Game 4 (http://www.youtube.com/user/tjhunt76#grid/user/79AB0F7A12738B59) posted

[ShaqAttack3234]

olajuwon was close, o'neal was nowhere near

Sure, whatever you say.....


yes, ewing had the slight edge in production, but the difference is so miniscule it isn't even worth mentioning. robinson, as a rookie, led his team to the biggest single season turnaround in nba history, won more games than any spurs team ever had, and wound up with the second seed in the west, all 1 year after the spurs only managed 21 wins, and as a team, they went from the 6 worst defense to the third best defense.

Impressive, but while the majority of the credit has to go to Robinson, the Spurs also added Terry Cummings(about 22/8/3 with 1.4 spg) and they drafted Sean Elliott while keeping their leading scorer from a year before. Obviously adding a superstar will greatly improve a team, but other factors helped as well.


meanwhile ewings statistical improvement seemed to be of detriment to the teams success, evidently backed up by going from 52 wins and the second seed in 1989, to 45 wins and the fifth seed, with the same supporting cast. which is probably why he toned down his scoring for the next few years to a more comfortable 24ppg.

I don't see why you'd say Ewing's improvement hurt the team. Charles Oakley played in all 82 games in 1989 while he missed 21 games the following season. There's a significant difference right there because the team was 36-25 with Oakley and 9-12 without him. Mark Jackson declined a lot from the previous year, so much that Knicks fans were booing him and he lost his starting job. The previous season, Jackson had been very good. That's why you see the dropoff.


actually robinson's rookie season is the fourth greatest rookie season of all time,

I'm not going to dispute where Robinson's rookie season ranks because it's certainly among the best of all time, not sure exactly how to rank them. Other great ones that come to mind are Chamberlain's, Jabbar's, Jordan's, O'Neal's and Duncan's.


and robinson was easily better.

Nope, Ewing was the more productive player and he performed better in the playoffs. Robinson had the better supporting cast which is why he won more games.

[SmoothRED]

I don't feel like researching right now, but I'm more than perfectly positive that Robinson every bit as many or more than Ewing as far good post-season performances goes.

[ShaqAttack3234]

I don't feel like researching right now, but I'm more than perfectly positive that Robinson every bit as many or more than Ewing as far good post-season performances goes.

Well, you're 100% wrong on that one.

[SmoothRED]

Well if stats are all you care about...

http://www.basketball-reference.com/players/r/robinda01/gamelog/1991/
1991 Playoffs. Spurs vs Warriors

Game 1: 30 pts, 13 rbs, 8 blks, 90% FG. - W
Game 2: 28 pts, 15 rbs, 3 blks, 69% FG - L
Game 3: 27 pts, 12 rbs, 2 blks, 58% FG - L
Game 4: 18 pts, 14 rbs, 2 blks, 64% FG - L

Robinson averaged 25.8 PPG, 13.5 RPG, 69% FG, 3.8 BPG....And this is just one playoff series.

[ShaqAttack3234]

Well if stats are all you care about...

http://www.basketball-reference.com/players/r/robinda01/gamelog/1991/
1991 Playoffs. Spurs vs Warriors

Game 1: 30 pts, 13 rbs, 8 blks, 90% FG. - W
Game 2: 28 pts, 15 rbs, 3 blks, 69% FG - L
Game 3: 27 pts, 12 rbs, 2 blks, 58% FG - L
Game 4: 18 pts, 14 rbs, 2 blks, 64% FG - L

Robinson averaged 25.8 PPG, 13.5 RPG, 69% FG, 3.8 BPG....And this is just one playoff series.

And he lost in the 1st round vs a lower seeded team. The stats are nice, but they came against the Warriors who were the 4th worst defensive team in the league, and they played at such a fast pace that they gave up 115 points per game. Robinson's teammates had great series statistically as well, but the Warriors beat San Antonio despite winning 11 less games than them in the regular season. Willie Anderson improved from a 14/5/5 player on 46% shooting in the regular season to a 19/5/5 player on 49% shooting vs the Warriors. Rod Strickland improved from a 13/4/8 player in the regular season to a 19/5/8 player in the playoffs. Sean Elliot averaged 15/5/4 and Cummings averaged 15/9 on 51% shooting.

[SmoothRED]

And he lost in the 1st round vs a lower seeded team. The stats are nice, but they came against the Warriors who were the 4th worst defensive team in the league, and they played at such a fast pace that they gave up 115 points per game. Robinson's teammates had great series statistically as well, but the Warriors beat San Antonio despite winning 11 less games than them in the regular season. Willie Anderson improved from a 14/5/5 player on 46% shooting in the regular season to a 19/5/5 player on 49% shooting vs the Warriors. Rod Strickland improved from a 13/4/8 player in the regular season to a 19/5/8 player in the playoffs. Sean Elliot averaged 15/5/4 and Cummings averaged 15/9 on 51% shooting.
I knew you would complain about him losing, so I'll just give you his stats in close out games where he won or better yet series averages he won in.

1993 Playoffs: Spurs vs Blazers
Game 4 (Close-out Game): 20 Pts, 17 Rbs, 11 Asts, 7 Blks, 57% FG. - Triple double, hmm I don't recall Ewing ever getting a triple double at all in the playoffs.

How's that for a guy who doesn't show up in the playoffs?

1995 Playoffs: Spurs vs Lakers
Game 6 (Close-out Game): 31 Pts, 15 rbs, 2 blks, 53% FG

1996 Playoffs: Spurs vs Suns
Game 4 (Close-out Game): 30 Pts, 13 Rbs, 6 Asts, 57% FG

1999 Playoffs WCF: Spurs vs Blazers
Game 4 (Close-out Game): 20 Pts, 10 Rbs, 3 Asts, 2 Blks, 50% FG.

[ShaqAttack3234]

1993 Playoffs: Spurs vs Blazers
Game 4 (Close-out Game): 20 Pts, 17 Rbs, 11 Asts, 7 Blks, 57% FG. - Triple double, hmm I don't recall Ewing ever getting a triple double at all in the playoffs.

How's that for a guy who doesn't show up in the playoffs?


Impressive game, I can name many more impressive games from Ewing in the playoffs, though. Regardless, Robinson deserves credit for leading the Spurs over the higher seeded Blazers.


1995 Playoffs: Spurs vs Lakers
Game 6 (Close-out Game): 31 Pts, 15 rbs, 2 blks, 53% FG

Good game, nothing legendary, but good job closing out the lower seeded team with an impressive performance.


1996 Playoffs: Spurs vs Suns
Game 4 (Close-out Game): 30 Pts, 13 Rbs, 6 Asts, 57% FG

Good game, too bad this was probably Robinson's best playoff series and it came in the first round.


1999 Playoffs WCF: Spurs vs Blazers
Game 4 (Close-out Game): 20 Pts, 10 Rbs, 3 Asts, 2 Blks, 50% FG.

20/10 game up 3-0 in a series? Good, but nothing great. A broken down Ewing had a much more impressive game that same year vs a prime Alonzo Mourning.

You cited some good playoff performances, but not as impressive overall as the games I listed by Ewing and not as many either.

I can name just as many failures Robinson had in the playoffs. Do I even need to post the head to head stats with Olajuwon for the 95 WCF? I'll do it anyway.

Hakeem Olajuwon- 35.3 ppg, 12.5 rpg, 5.0 apg, 4.1 bpg, 56.0 FG%
David Robinson- 23.8 ppg, 11.3 rpg, 2.7 apg, 2.2 bpg, 44.7 FG%

Outscored by 11.5 ppg, outrebounded by more than a full board per game, "outassisted" by 2.3 per game, had his blocks per game almost doubled and Olajuwon shot 11.3 percentage points better from the field.

Averaged just an even 20/10 on 41% shooting while losing 3-1 to the lower-seeded Jazz in 1994.

1996 WCSF- 19.3 ppg, 9 rpg, 47.5% shooting and more turnovers than assists.

Shot 37% in the 2000 playoffs, in fact, for his career, his numbers dropped from 21/11 on 52% shooting to 18/11 on 48% shooting.

Since you mention closeout games, lets look at when he was facing elimination, which is when the pressure is really there.

WCSF Game 6[/B] Had 24/13/6 to extend the series to a 7th game.

WCSF Game 7- Couldn't find the numbers

1991 Western Conference 1st round game 4 Had 18/14/4 vs the Warriors in the 1st round, he did shoot 7/11 from the field, but he had 6 turnovers and overall, not a very impressive game vs the Warriors, particularly the 18 points and 6 turnovers.

1993 WCSF Game 6 Had 22/14/5/4 vs Phoenix in the WCSF, but he shot just 6/15 and he scored below his season average. Nothing embarrassing, but not what you expect from a superstar

1994 Western Conference 1st round game 4 Had 27/12/4/2 on 11/21 shooting in the 1st round vs Utah. Solid, but below his season averages and after the 2 embarrassing performances that proceeded it, this game hardly makes up for that.

1995 WCF Game 6 Had 19/10/5/4, but he shot 6/17 and had 6 turnovers. His counterpart, Hakeem Olajuwon, had 39/17/5/3 on 16/25 shooting. Just a poor performance by a superstar player, particularly that season's MVP

1996 WCSF Game 5 Had 24/15/3 to hold off elimination, but he did shoot 7 for 21 from the field. The second and last elimination game he ever won.

1996 WCSF Game 6 Had 17/8/3 on 7/14 shooting. Not very good at all for a superstar and MVP runner up.

1998 WCSF Game 6 Had 21/13/4, but he shot just 5 for 16.

2000 Western Conference first round game 4 Had 21/16/3/3, but he shot just 7 for 19

2001 WCF Game 4 Had 12/11 and he shot just 5 for 16

2002 WCSF Game 5 Had 0 points and 3 rebounds on 0 for 3 shooting from the field in 18 minutes

There's every elimination game he ever played, not too impressive, huh? Compare that to some of Ewing's elimination games I posted. In fact, for his career, Robinson is 2-10.

[Kblaze8855]

WCSF Game 7- Couldn't find the numbers

17/8 on 7/14 shooting.

[jlauber]

How about H2H then?

http://www.basketball-reference.com/play-index/h2h_finder.cgi?request=1&p1=robinda01&p2=ewingpa01

Robinson 23.2 ppg 9.3 rpg .506 shooting 2.6 apg 1.7 stl 2.8 blk
Ewing 19.8 ppg 10.4 rpg .434 shooting 2.2 apg 1.1 stl 2.6 blk

[ThaRegul8r]

IMHO, Wilt played valiantly in so many post-seasons, and I just can't understand those that criticize him for his "lack of success." I laud Russell for undeniably leading his teams to so many titles...but I also appreciate the fact that it was Wilt, and his team's, that provided Russell's team's with the most competition.

Bill Russell: As the Celtic championships began piling up, Wilt took offense at those who enjoyed labeling him a "loser." They said he "couldn't win the big one," as though there were some flaw or stumbling block in his character that prevented him from winning key games. This seemed to me nonsense. I prefer to think that the Celtics were winners

[jlauber]

[QUOTE=ThaRegul8r]Bill Russell: As the Celtic championships began piling up, Wilt took offense at those who enjoyed labeling him a "loser." They said he "couldn't win the big one," as though there were some flaw or stumbling block in his character that prevented him from winning key games. This seemed to me nonsense. I prefer to think that the Celtics were winners

[momo]

I think the main thing is NYC could have built around Ewing better. Add 1 guy he can really groove with and it might all be a different story. I liked the teams tho... they had character and grit.

[warriorfan]

John Starks 2 for 18

[Da_Realist]

He was very good in 1990. He came up with some monster performances to help the Knicks overcome an 0-2 deficit against the Celtics in the first round that year.

Game 3 (http://www.youtube.com/user/tjhunt76#grid/user/3F7DF477D083FB0B) -- 33 pts, 19 rebs

Game 4 -- 44 pts, 13 rebs, 5 asts

Game 5 -- 31 pts, 8 rebs, 10 asts -- Almost a triple double in a do-or-die situation on the road which also includes THE back-breaker 3pt shot to seal the series victory :eek:

I'm actually posting these games right now. Games 1-3 are already posted. Game 4 will be posted later today and Game 5 sometime this weekend.

Game 5 (http://www.youtube.com/user/tjhunt76#grid/user/F3870596A1142DC8) posted.

[ShaqAttack3234]

Game 5 (http://www.youtube.com/user/tjhunt76#grid/user/F3870596A1142DC8) posted.

Thanks for posting these. An incredible series with dominant performances from Ewing.

[Shep]

Sure, whatever you say.....
:applause:

Impressive, but while the majority of the credit has to go to Robinson, the Spurs also added Terry Cummings(about 22/8/3 with 1.4 spg) and they drafted Sean Elliott while keeping their leading scorer from a year before. Obviously adding a superstar will greatly improve a team, but other factors helped as well.
the spurs also lost alvin robertson who was putting up 17.3ppg, 5.9rpg, 6apg, 3spg, and .6bpg, johnny dawkins and his 14.2/3.2/7/1.7, and greg anderson (13.7/8/.7/1.2/1.3. so it evened out in the end, the difference was robinson.

I don't see why you'd say Ewing's improvement hurt the team. Charles Oakley played in all 82 games in 1989 while he missed 21 games the following season. There's a significant difference right there because the team was 36-25 with Oakley and 9-12 without him. Mark Jackson declined a lot from the previous year, so much that Knicks fans were booing him and he lost his starting job. The previous season, Jackson had been very good. That's why you see the dropoff.
thats all well and good, but when you win barely more than you lose, no matter what stats you put up, you won't be considered better than someone who puts up very similar stats, wins 56 games and accomplishes all that i have already mentioned.

Nope, Ewing was the more productive player and he performed better in the playoffs. Robinson had the better supporting cast which is why he won more games.
ewing was a dumb player who got into foul trouble almost every game, committing the same stupid fouls that left fans hanging their head in shame, and who relied on a 20 ft jumper too much. robinson, however, led d-leage rosters to the playoffs every year, was one of the best 3 or defenders in league history, and rightfully deserved 2 league mvp's.

[ShaqAttack3234]

the spurs also lost alvin robertson who was putting up 17.3ppg, 5.9rpg, 6apg, 3spg, and .6bpg, johnny dawkins and his 14.2/3.2/7/1.7, and greg anderson (13.7/8/.7/1.2/1.3. so it evened out in the end, the difference was robinson.

Obviously the biggest difference was Robinson, but I didn't even mention the addition in the point guard position. They had Mo Cheeks for the first 50 games of the season(10.9 ppg, 3.3 rpg, 6 apg, 1.6 spg, 47.8 FG%) and Rod Strickland for the final 31 games(14.2 ppg, 4.3 rpg, 8 apg, 1.6 spg, 46.8 FG%).

And Johnny Dawkins played in just 32 games the previous season and Alvin Robertson played in 65. Meanwhile, for 81 out of the 82 games in 1989-1990, they had a solid and productive point guard whether it be Cheeks or Strickland and they had Elliott and Cummings for 81 games each.

And compare that cast to Ewing's in 1990.


thats all well and good, but when you win barely more than you lose, no matter what stats you put up, you won't be considered better than someone who puts up very similar stats, wins 56 games and accomplishes all that i have already mentioned.

Ewing's Knicks were 8 games over .500(not barely more wins than losses) and upset a better team in the playoffs with monster performances from Ewing. All while facing elimination, you can look at Da Realist's post for the stats in those games, and that's not even mentioning his 45/13 game vs Detroit when the Knicks were down 0-2.


ewing was a dumb player who got into foul trouble almost every game, committing the same stupid fouls that left fans hanging their head in shame, and who relied on a 20 ft jumper too much. robinson, however, led d-leage rosters to the playoffs every year, was one of the best 3 or defenders in league history, and rightfully deserved 2 league mvp's.

Atleast Ewing had a solid back to the basket game, unlike Robinson who relied almost primarily on his faceup game as well as running the floor. In the post he had a turnaround jumper that he could shoot one way(it was as effective as Ewing's turnaround either) and a clumsy hook.

Robinson was 2-10 in elimination games, almost never matched his regular season production in the playoffs and was eliminated with homecourt advantage 6 times in the playoffs.

[Da_Realist]

Thanks for posting these. An incredible series with dominant performances from Ewing.

History has been unkind to Ewing. Was he Chamberlain or Russell? No, but he was still a great player. Reggie Miller's documentary made it a point to keep calling him a "loser" and Bill Simmons was especially negative toward Patrick in his book (which surprised me, since Bill had front row seats to his beloved Celtics coughing up a 2 game lead in a best-of-5 series with homecourt advantage to the Knicks because they couldn't do anything with Ewing. Ewing clogged up the middle defensively, contested shots and made life miserable for Boston's front line. Offensively, he forced the Celtics to double him and when he didn't score, he passed to wide open or cutting teammates for scores. Ewing totally disrupted the Celtics, especially in the last 3 games. I thought Bill would have remembered some of that :confusedshrug: ).

I posted it because Ewing deserves to be remembered for more than missing a layup to tie the series in Game 7 of the 95 Indiana series. How many people can say they led a team from the brink of elimination against Larry Bird without homecourt advantage?

[ShaqAttack3234]

History has been unkind to Ewing. Was he Chamberlain or Russell? No, but he was still a great player. Reggie Miller's documentary made it a point to keep calling him a "loser" and Bill Simmons was especially negative toward Patrick in his book (which surprised me, since Bill had front row seats to his beloved Celtics coughing up a 2 game lead in a best-of-5 series with homecourt advantage to the Knicks because they couldn't do anything with Ewing. Ewing clogged up the middle defensively, contested shots and made life miserable for Boston's front line. Offensively, he forced the Celtics to double him and when he didn't score, he passed to wide open or cutting teammates for scores. Ewing totally disrupted the Celtics, especially in the last 3 games. I thought Bill would have remembered some of that :confusedshrug: ).

I posted it because Ewing deserves to be remembered for more than missing a layup to tie the series in Game 7 of the 95 Indiana series. How many people can say they led a team from the brink of elimination against Larry Bird without homecourt advantage?

I don't get why people respect Bill Simmon's opinions about basketball? Really, to me, he seems biased and doesn't seem to understand the game very well. I mean, his bias against Chamberlain(didn't he imply Wilt was gay?) and Kareem, his absurd ranking of Shaq at 11th all time and his ignorance towards Ewing really makes me take anything he says with a grain of salt.

I watched Ewing often throughout the 90's and since then I've gone back and watched some games of Patrick when he was young in 1990, and even a less mobile Ewing in the Knicks contending seasons was an extremely valuable player. You could throw the ball into him in the post and he'd score, he'd be rebound, he'd block shots and protect the paint, he'd play through injuries and he came up with big some big clutch performances.

Unfortunately when Ewing was at his individual peak, he didn't have the team to contend. I could see Ewing doing some real damage in 1990 with a good supporting cast. I liked Charles Oakley, but he was no 2nd option, neither was Gerald Wilkins, and Mark Jackson was so bad that he was getting booed at Madison Square Garden and he was benched in favor of a 33/34 year old Mo Cheeks. Ewing was just playing unbelievable basketball in 1990, though. He also had 45/13 vs Detroit in the 2nd round, but he had carried his team as far as they could go.

What I noticed is that Ewing had a lot of the same moves he did in the mid 90's, but the were quicker and he rarely shot 18-20 foot jumpers like he did later on. His spins and fakes were a lot quicker and as a result more effective, he ran the floor better and he got more elevation on his turnaround. For some reason, I thought Ewing handled double teams and passed the ball better back then as well. He never really impressed me with his passing out of double teams(or really his passing in general), but he passed the ball better in the 1990 games I've seen. Not sure why. It's a shame that Ewing's true peak came before he had a contending team.

[raiderfan19]

shaq, you VASTLY overrate ewing. That said, saying he was Drob was even arguably better than dream or shaq was just moronic.

As for the never being better than 90 ewing, Drobs was 94 was signifigantly better.(yes i know hakeem torched him in the playoffs but dream was alot better than either of them). You point out ewings big games but he ended up with worse numbers(prime) with a similar prime record in the playoffs. Which means that he had crappy games to balance them out. Drob had better numbers but thats not even the point.

Drob was a better scorer, a better rebounder, a better passer, a better overall defender because of his athleticism, and a better shot blocker. He also did all of those things while being less turnover prone. He didnt have huge edges in all of those categories but it would be tough to argue any of them which makes it tough to argue that ewing was a better player.

[ShaqAttack3234]

As for the never being better than 90 ewing, Drobs was 94 was signifigantly better.(yes i know hakeem torched him in the playoffs but dream was alot better than either of them).

1994? You mean 1995, right? In 1994, D Rob wasn't even noticeably better statistically, and that's with Robinson padding his stats on the last day.

1994 Robinson- 29.8 ppg, 10.7 rpg, 4.8 apg, 3.3 bpg, 1.7 spg, 50.7 FG%, 74.9 FT%, 3.2 TO
1990 Ewing- 28.6 ppg, 10.9 rpg, 2.2 apg, 4 bpg, 1 spg, 55.1 FG%, 77.5 FT%, 3.4 TO

And then when you consider their playoff performances. Ewing was dominant in the playoffs as previously mentioned, while Robinson averaged 20/10 on 41% shooting and his team lost in 4 games to a lower seeded team.

As far as 1995 Robinson? Well, he averaged 27.6 ppg, 10.8 rpg, 2.9 apg, 1.7 spg and 3.2 bpg on 53% shooting(77% from the line), so Ewing is more impressive statistically. Robinson did win 62 games, but he had a much better supporting cast than Ewing. Rodman, Elliott, Avery Johnson and Vinny Del Negro all in their primes along with Chuck Person, Jr Reid and Terry Cummings off the bench. And once again, his playoff performance pales in comparison to Ewing's in 1990.


You point out ewings big games but he ended up with worse numbers(prime) with a similar prime record in the playoffs. Which means that he had crappy games to balance them out. Drob had better numbers but thats not even the point.

What are you defining as their primes? Ewing's numbers look better to me in the playoffs, and he definitely won more playoff series than Robinson pre-Duncan and he got farther in the playoffs as well.


Drob was a better scorer, a better rebounder, a better passer, a better overall defender because of his athleticism, and a better shot blocker. He also did all of those things while being less turnover prone. He didnt have huge edges in all of those categories but it would be tough to argue any of them which makes it tough to argue that ewing was a better player.

Robinson was a better scorer, but not any better than peak Patrick Ewing was in 1990, and Ewing was better in the low post and as a result, more efficient. Ewing was just as solid of a defensive anchor IMO, he was the backbone of those great Knicks defenses in the 90's and as a shot blocker? Well Ewing in 1990 was comparable to Robinson in any season.

And when you factor in things like toughness, leadership and longevity, Ewing is the clear winner.

[SmoothRED]

Ewing wasn't any better of a leader than Robinson was. Yes, Ewing was the better leader though, but not by much and Yes Ewing did have better intangibles. But honestly.

That's like saying Kevin Garnett is better than Kevin Durant, because he has more intangibles. Kevin Garnett use to be better than Durant, but that's not the case anymore at all. Garnett still has lot of intangibles but he's not better than Durant at least anymore.

You have to take the more talented and skilled player here. Ewing's intangibles don't make all of that up.

[ShaqAttack3234]

Ewing wasn't any better of a leader than Robinson was. Yes, Ewing was the better leader though, but not by much and Yes Ewing did have better intangibles. But honestly.

How can anyone say their leadership was close. Ewing won more elimination games in one 5 game series than Robinson won his entire career. Ewing has numerous truly memorable playoff performances, Robinson doesn't have one that anyone really remembers.


That's like saying Kevin Garnett is better than Kevin Durant, because he has more intangibles. Kevin Garnett use to be better than Durant, but that's not the case anymore at all. Garnett still has lot of intangibles but he's not better than Durant at least anymore.

Bad example, you're comparing a player who doesn't even play at an all-star level anymore(Garnett) to a legit superstar and top 3 MVP candidate(Durant). Ewing and Robinson were both superstars.

[SmoothRED]

How can anyone say their leadership was close. Ewing won more elimination games in one 5 game series than Robinson won his entire career. Ewing has numerous truly memorable playoff performances, Robinson doesn't have one that anyone really remembers.



Bad example, you're comparing a player who doesn't even play at an all-star level anymore(Garnett) to a legit superstar and top 3 MVP candidate(Durant). Ewing and Robinson were both superstars.
I can't think of anything, anything at all that Ewing did better than Robinson. Ewing had better intangibles and was the better playoff performer...Ok.

So are you going to tell me that....Trevor Ariza was better than Karl Malone? Ariza has intangibles and he was great in the playoffs, Malone was a choke artist just like you described Robinson.

Choker or not choker, Ewing didn't do anything better on the court.

[raiderfan19]

1994? You mean 1995, right? In 1994, D Rob wasn't even noticeably better statistically, and that's with Robinson padding his stats on the last day.

1994 Robinson- 29.8 ppg, 10.7 rpg, 4.8 apg, 3.3 bpg, 1.7 spg, 50.7 FG%, 74.9 FT%, 3.2 TO
1990 Ewing- 28.6 ppg, 10.9 rpg, 2.2 apg, 4 bpg, 1 spg, 55.1 FG%, 77.5 FT%, 3.4 TO

And then when you consider their playoff performances. Ewing was dominant in the playoffs as previously mentioned, while Robinson averaged 20/10 on 41% shooting and his team lost in 4 games to a lower seeded team.

As far as 1995 Robinson? Well, he averaged 27.6 ppg, 10.8 rpg, 2.9 apg, 1.7 spg and 3.2 bpg on 53% shooting(77% from the line), so Ewing is more impressive statistically. Robinson did win 62 games, but he had a much better supporting cast than Ewing. Rodman, Elliott, Avery Johnson and Vinny Del Negro all in their primes along with Chuck Person, Jr Reid and Terry Cummings off the bench. And once again, his playoff performance pales in comparison to Ewing's in 1990.



What are you defining as their primes? Ewing's numbers look better to me in the playoffs, and he definitely won more playoff series than Robinson pre-Duncan and he got farther in the playoffs as well.



Robinson was a better scorer, but not any better than peak Patrick Ewing was in 1990, and Ewing was better in the low post and as a result, more efficient. Ewing was just as solid of a defensive anchor IMO, he was the backbone of those great Knicks defenses in the 90's and as a shot blocker? Well Ewing in 1990 was comparable to Robinson in any season.

And when you factor in things like toughness, leadership and longevity, Ewing is the clear winner.
Ewing had one dominant offensive season in a run and gun league and you act like that was normal for him. It wasnt. You cant just say well ewing in 90.... That wasnt his baseline. He had a peak year. There have been a quite a few nba players who had spike years that were better than any other year in their careers and this is one of them.

And you cant seriously be saying that 30/11/5/3/2(rough averages) on a team with a 93 pace factor isnt more impressive than 29/11/2/4/1 on a team with a 101 pace factor. There is a difference. And yes the pace factor does take away from ewings numbers whether you think they do or not.

[ShaqAttack3234]

I can't think of anything, anything at all that Ewing did better than Robinson. Ewing had better intangibles and was the better playoff performer...Ok.

Ewing was definitely a better low post player.


So are you going to tell me that....Trevor Ariza was better than Karl Malone? Ariza has intangibles and he was great in the playoffs, Malone was a choke artist just like you described Robinson.

Once again, that's a terrible example. You're comparing a guy who is not even an all-star caliber player to a franchise player and a superstar.


Choker or not choker, Ewing didn't do anything better on the court.

Aside from post play, Ewing did a lot of things pretty much as well as Robinson and you can't disregard big playoff performances, toughness ect. That has a huge impact on teams. That's basically the entire argument for Russell over Chamberlain. Wilt did everything as good or better than Russell, and some things he did MUCH better like scoring. Yet, many people consider Russell better.

[godofgods]

Ewing's 'greatness' was overrated because he's in NY.

[raiderfan19]

Ewing was definitely a better low post player.



Once again, that's a terrible example. You're comparing a guy who is not even an all-star caliber player to a franchise player and a superstar.



Aside from post play, Ewing did a lot of things pretty much as well as Robinson and you can't disregard big playoff performances, toughness ect. That has a huge impact on teams. That's basically the entire argument for Russell over Chamberlain. Wilt did everything as good or better than Russell, and some things he did MUCH better like scoring. Yet, many people consider Russell better.
Many people are stupid. Wilt was better than russell.

That said the problem with that argument is that Russell is considered better because hes the greatest winner ever. On the other hand you are trying to use that Ewing, whos lasting legacy is that of a guy who couldnt win the big one, is better than someone who was better at nearly every thing on a basketball court than he was based on being a leader/winner. Thats a tough argument to make and even tougher to compare it to the wilt russell argument.

[chitownsfinest]

Ewing had one dominant offensive season in a run and gun league and you act like that was normal for him. It wasnt. You cant just say well ewing in 90.... That wasnt his baseline. He had a peak year. There have been a quite a few nba players who had spike years that were better than any other year in their careers and this is one of them.

And you cant seriously be saying that 30/11/5/3/2(rough averages) on a team with a 93 pace factor isnt more impressive than 29/11/2/4/1 on a team with a 101 pace factor. There is a difference. And yes the pace factor does take away from ewings numbers whether you think they do or not.
I don't think pace was a main factor as to why Ewing had monster numbers that season considering Ewing was a relatively slow player who didn't score too much on fast break opportunities since he was relatively slow coming down the court meaning easy baskets in transitions were small for a guy like Ewing. Even if you watch the Boston-NY series in 1990, you will notice a lot of Ewing's baskets come in the half court setting with him using post moves against Parrish and Kleine to score, or coming off screens and htting the jumper. He had a similar scoring season in 1991 as well. I think the reason he didn't have many monster scoring seasons after that was because of the slow it down, Riley ball being implemented which lowered Ewing's touches and actually led to worse spacing on offense, which was bad for a guy like Ewing who relied on hitting jumpers. If you watched some of the Knicks games from the Riley era, particularly against the Bulls, you will notice long periods at times where Ewing got few touches. I think Riley ball actually hurt the Knicks offensively.

[raiderfan19]

I don't think pace was a main factor as to why Ewing had monster numbers that season considering Ewing was a relatively slow player who didn't score too much on fast break opportunities since he was relatively slow coming down the court meaning easy baskets in transitions were small for a guy like Ewing. Even if you watch the Boston-NY series in 1990, you will notice a lot of Ewing's baskets come in the half court setting with him using post moves against Parrish and Kleine to score, or coming off screens and htting the jumper. He had a similar scoring season in 1991 as well. I think the reason he didn't have many monster scoring seasons after that was because of the slow it down, Riley ball being implemented which lowered Ewing's touches and actually led to worse spacing on offense, which was bad for a guy like Ewing who relied on hitting jumpers. If you watched some of the Knicks games from the Riley era, particularly against the Bulls, you will notice long periods at times where Ewing got few touches. I think Riley ball actually hurt the Knicks offensively.
Ummm you just said that the faster pace didnt help him then say that the reason he scored less later was because he played in a slower pace...Also the following year, they still played at a very high pace.

[ShaqAttack3234]

Ewing had one dominant offensive season in a run and gun league and you act like that was normal for him. It wasnt. You cant just say well ewing in 90.... That wasnt his baseline. He had a peak year. There have been a quite a few nba players who had spike years that were better than any other year in their careers and this is one of them.

Ewing followed it up with 26.6 ppg, 11.2 rpg, 3 apg, 1 spg and 3.2 bpg in 1991, which saw a 2 ppg dropoff(which is less of a decline than you see from Robinson's best to second best scoring year), his rebounding went up slightly and he averaged almost a full assist more per game.


And you cant seriously be saying that 30/11/5/3/2(rough averages) on a team with a 93 pace factor isnt more impressive than 29/11/2/4/1 on a team with a 101 pace factor. There is a difference. And yes the pace factor does take away from ewings numbers whether you think they do or not.

Look at Ewing's rebounding in those games, you honestly think he's going to average less than he did in 1993 or 1994 when he wasn't anywhere near that mobile or athletic? His rebounding was impressive, he was 5th in the league in rebounding.

By this logic, Kareem's 10.8 rpg with a 104.1 pace factor in an MVP season in 1980 is mediocre(despite being 8th in the league), same with his 10.3 rpg the following season(7th in the league) on a team with a 102.7 pace factor. I guess his 8.7 rpg in 1982 with a 103.1 pace factor must really suck, and his 7.5 rpg in 1983 with a 103.8 pace factor must be awful. And if you adjust his 6.1 rpg with a 102.7 pace factor in 1986.....

You honestly think Kareem's numbers are really going to be much lower? And he was playing at a faster pace than Ewing. If we adjust his 10.9 rpg then what do we have, a player 5th in rebounding who averages less than 10 boards? Wouldn't a more plausible explanation be that big men aren't always back for the quick shots? In fact, individual rebounding numbers were higher in 1994, Olden Polynice was 5th in the league with 11.9 rebounds per game.

As far as offensive numbers? Ewing was his team's halfcourt offense. You think he's getting less shots in a slower, more halfcourt-oriented game? Particularly with how efficient he was? He only used about 24.4 scoring attempts to average 28.6 ppg. In comparison, Robinson used 26.5 scoring attempts to average 29.8 ppg. Ewing didn't have a reliable second scoring option, who else are the Knicks going to go to more in a halfcourt game? Ewing wasn't shooting an unreasonable amount for a superstar, plenty of superstars shoot more even today.


I don't think pace was a main factor as to why Ewing had monster numbers that season considering Ewing was a relatively slow player who didn't score too much on fast break opportunities since he was relatively slow coming down the court meaning easy baskets in transitions were small for a guy like Ewing. Even if you watch the Boston-NY series in 1990, you will notice a lot of Ewing's baskets come in the half court setting with him using post moves against Parrish and Kleine to score, or coming off screens and htting the jumper. He had a similar scoring season in 1991 as well. I think the reason he didn't have many monster scoring seasons after that was because of the slow it down, Riley ball being implemented which lowered Ewing's touches and actually led to worse spacing on offense, which was bad for a guy like Ewing who relied on hitting jumpers. If you watched some of the Knicks games from the Riley era, particularly against the Bulls, you will notice long periods at times where Ewing got few touches. I think Riley ball actually hurt the Knicks offensively.

Exactly, almost all of Ewing's points came on turnaround jumpers and running shots in the lane.

[chitownsfinest]

Ummm you just said that the faster pace didnt help him then say that the reason he scored less later was because he played in a slower pace...Also the following year, they still played at a very high pace.
I meant that the faster pace didn't help him get his points and shot attempts. I meant it was more of the new style of offense that was put in (Riley ball) rather then the slower pace that led to his lower point total. A slower pace doesn't have that great of an effect on individual stats and I believe if Ewing was on another offense that played in the same pace as the 92-95 Knicks but did not have Riley's offensive system put in, Ewing is averaging 25-27 ppg every year. Like I said, Ewing would go long stretches without getting a shot attempt in Pat Riley's system.

[Samurai Swoosh]

Hakeem got his fingernail on Starks jumper to win the title in game 6. Hakeem is a half second late Starks makes it and Ewing is suddenly great(though not finals MVP since Starks had played out of his mind for a while).
I forget how well he played in the '94 Finals. Have stat or youtube clips?

[ShaqAttack3234]

I meant that the faster pace didn't help him get his points and shot attempts. I meant it was more of the new style of offense that was put in (Riley ball) rather then the slower pace that led to his lower point total. A slower pace doesn't have that great of an effect on individual stats and I believe if Ewing was on another offense that played in the same pace as the 92-95 Knicks but did not have Riley's offensive system put in, Ewing is averaging 25-27 ppg every year. Like I said, Ewing would go long stretches without getting a shot attempt in Pat Riley's system.

But we also have to consider that Ewing wasn't as mobile or athletic in those years either.

[chitownsfinest]

Many people are stupid. Wilt was better than russell.

That said the problem with that argument is that Russell is considered better because hes the greatest winner ever. On the other hand you are trying to use that Ewing, whos lasting legacy is that of a guy who couldnt win the big one, is better than someone who was better at nearly every thing on a basketball court than he was based on being a leader/winner. Thats a tough argument to make and even tougher to compare it to the wilt russell argument.
D-Rob had the same exact legacy but the difference was D-Rob had Tim Duncan come up and lead his team to a title. Ewing didn't have that luxury.

[Samurai Swoosh]

SnaqAttack ... question, how do you rank these all-time bigs

Hakeem, Duncan, Ewing, D. Robinson, Garnett

[raiderfan19]

D-Rob had the same exact legacy but the difference was D-Rob had Tim Duncan come up and lead his team to a title. Ewing didn't have that luxury.
Im using D-robs abilities as a basketball player to rank him above ewing though, not his status as a leader/winner

[SmoothRED]

Ewing was definitely a better low post player.



Once again, that's a terrible example. You're comparing a guy who is not even an all-star caliber player to a franchise player and a superstar.



Aside from post play, Ewing did a lot of things pretty much as well as Robinson and you can't disregard big playoff performances, toughness ect. That has a huge impact on teams. That's basically the entire argument for Russell over Chamberlain. Wilt did everything as good or better than Russell, and some things he did MUCH better like scoring. Yet, many people consider Russell better.
Ewing a better low post player? Ok. :oldlol: You clearly have a vendetta against Robinson. Nobody considers Russell better, they consider him greater. Get the difference. Justl ike not many people consider Bird greater than Magic, but a lot consider Bird better than Magic.

When talking about greatness, Robinson is head and shoulders above Ewing.

[ShaqAttack3234]

SnaqAttack ... question, how do you rank these all-time bigs

Hakeem, Duncan, Ewing, D. Robinson, Garnett

1.Hakeem
2.Duncan
3.Ewing
4.Robinson
5.Garnett

Robinson was a better scorer and defender than Garnett, but KG was no slouch as a defender while Garnett would probably rank as the better defender, more versatile and the better passer. Neither were what I'd call great leaders, although Garnett did win a title as the best player, I could easily see them winning with Robinson in his place. Robinson had considerably more success as the franchise player atleast if we're not including the 2008 Celtics. KG didn't lead his team any farther in 2004 than Robinson had, but I was more impressed with his leadership. Despite that, it's hard to rank Garnett in front of Robinson when the only thing you could say he clearly had as an advantage are perimeter skills and passing ability.

What about you? How do you rank them?


Ewing a better low post player? Ok. :oldlol: You clearly have a vendetta against Robinson. Nobody considers Russell better, they consider him greater. Get the difference. Justl ike not many people consider Bird greater than Magic, but a lot consider Bird better than Magic.

Ewing was a better low post player, look at the clips from 1990, Ewing's entire offensive game was basically based in the low post. Robinson was not great with his back to the basket. If you think he was a better low post player then you clearly didn't watch them play. Robinson did most of his damage facing the basket where he'd drive to the basket or shoot the jumper. And he was great running the floor. His face the basket game and his incredible quickness/athleticism is why he got to the line so often. Despite being better at running the floor and attacking off the dribble, Robinson at his scoring peak(1993-1995) was about even with 1989-1991 Ewing as a scorer. Why do you think that is? Ewing's low post game made it about even. Robinson had the 2 huge scoring years like Ewing, but they weren't consistently averaging 27 a game. Their scoring numbers for their peaks and careers are similar.

[SmoothRED]

Ewing was a better low post player, look at the clips from 1990, Ewing's entire offensive game was basically based in the low post. Robinson was not great with his back to the basket. If you think he was a better low post player then you clearly didn't watch them play. Robinson did most of his damage facing the basket where he'd drive to the basket or shoot the jumper. And he was great running the floor. His face the basket game and his incredible quickness/athleticism is why he got to the line so often. Despite being better at running the floor and attacking off the dribble, Robinson at his scoring peak(1993-1995) was about even with 1989-1991 Ewing as a scorer. Why do you think that is? Ewing's low post game made it about even. Robinson had the 2 huge scoring years like Ewing, but they weren't consistently averaging 27 a game. Their scoring numbers for their peaks and careers are similar.
So because his back to the game basket was better, he was the better low-post player? Sorry that would be like saying Z has a better back to basket game than Dwight Howard therefor he's a better low-post player, no you're ****ing wrong. If you are better at scoring in the post, passing, etc. then you are better. It doesn't matter what you do in the post, as long as it's in the ****ing post.

Kevin Garnett had better intangibles than Hakeem Olajuwon, not one idiot in the world would take Garnett over Olajuwon. Keep doing mind gymnastics.

[ShaqAttack3234]

So because his back to the game basket was better, he was the better low-post player? Sorry that would be like saying Z has a better back to basket game than Dwight Howard therefor he's a better low-post player, no you're ****ing wrong. If you are better at scoring in the post, passing, etc. then you are better. It doesn't matter what you do in the post, as long as it's in the ****ing post.

Kevin Garnett had better intangibles than Hakeem Olajuwon, not one idiot in the world would take Garnett over Olajuwon. Keep doing mind gymnastics.

You're a complete ****ing moron. Robinson played in the high post more often than Ewing and got more points running the floor.

You're the same moron who keeps using these mind-numbingly poor examples like. "Trevor Ariza had better intangibles than Karl Malone", "Garnett still has better intangibles than Durant" ect. How exactly do those apply when we're comparing 2 superstar players who do a lot of things at a similar level?

And as far as the Garnett/Olajuwon example? Another piss poor example. Olajuwon was a much better post player(and overall scorer), similar as a rebounder and definitely better defensively. And how exactly does Garmett have better intangibles than Olajuwon you moron? Olajuwon was the player who stepped up in the clutch, showed more leadership, played tougher ect.

Don't even bother discussing basketball with me, kid. You have no idea what the hell you're talking about.

[Samurai Swoosh]

1.Hakeem
2.Duncan
3.Ewing
4.Robinson
5.Garnett
Same ...

[jlauber]

I have to admit, following this thread...I have come to respect Ewing more than what I originally did.

IMHO, it is fairly easy to understand why he never won a title. Quite simply, he was never the best player in the league, nor was he ever really blessed with much of a supporting cast. He played in the Magic-Bird era, the Hakeem era, and the MJ-Pippen era.

From what I have gathered here...Barkley was in the same boat. Clearly, Ewing and Barkley were great players...just not good enough.

[SmoothRED]

You're a complete ****ing moron. Robinson played in the high post more often than Ewing and got more points running the floor.

You're the same moron who keeps using these mind-numbingly poor examples like. "Trevor Ariza had better intangibles than Karl Malone", "Garnett still has better intangibles than Durant" ect. How exactly do those apply when we're comparing 2 superstar players who do a lot of things at a similar level?

And as far as the Garnett/Olajuwon example? Another piss poor example. Olajuwon was a much better post player(and overall scorer), similar as a rebounder and definitely better defensively. And how exactly does Garmett have better intangibles than Olajuwon you moron? Olajuwon was the player who stepped up in the clutch, showed more leadership, played tougher ect.

Don't even bother discussing basketball with me, kid. You have no idea what the hell you're talking about.
:oldlol: Ok Buddy...Learn to read. I said Garnett had better intangibles than Olajuwon, yet your bring up defense, post player and overall scorer. :oldlol: Olajuwon a better leader? :oldlol: Olajuwon was clearly better, but you are a joke.

Aren't you the same idiot that would take Dwight Howard over David Robinson, until you learn to put your hate aside. I'm the one done talking to you buddy.

One more thing....

U MAD? :lol

[ShaqAttack3234]

:oldlol: Ok Buddy...Learn to read. I said Garnett had better intangibles than Olajuwon, yet your bring up defense, post player and overall scorer. :oldlol: Olajuwon a better leader? :oldlol: Olajuwon was clearly better, but you are a joke.

Are you this ****ing stupid? I mentioned what made Olajuwon so much better than Garnett because intangibles would only be the tiebreaker if they were close in the first place, hence the mention of scoring, defense ect.

And do you really think Olajuwon wasn't a better leader than Garnett? :roll: The same Garnett who led a team past the ifrst round a total of ONE time before he joined the Celtics? The same Garnett who was regularly criticized for not stepping up? You're a joke.

[SmoothRED]

Are you this ****ing stupid? I mentioned what made Olajuwon so much better than Garnett because intangibles would only be the tiebreaker if they were close in the first place, hence the mention of scoring, defense ect.

And do you really think Olajuwon wasn't a better leader than Garnett? :roll: The same Garnett who led a team past the ifrst round a total of ONE time before he joined the Celtics? The same Garnett who was regularly criticized for not stepping up? You're a joke.
Oh so it's an intangible to show up in the playoffs? :oldlol:

[magnax1]

How little people appreciate Garnett is insane. Especially saying he wasn't a great leader.

[ShaqAttack3234]

Oh so it's an intangible to show up in the playoffs? :oldlol:

Playing under pressure is an intangible, leading your team to overachieve ala the 1993 Rockets, not settling for outside jumpers, taking over down the stretch..... Those are things we saw from Olajuwon in the mid 90's that we didn't see so much of from Garnett.

[SmoothRED]

How little people appreciate Garnett is insane. Especially saying he wasn't a great leader.
Yeah, according to that idiot leading with your defense, rebounding and intensity isn't an intangible. I mean Russell did it and happened to win 11 rings.

[ShaqAttack3234]

Yeah, according to that idiot leading with your defense, rebounding and intensity isn't an intangible. I mean Russell did it and happened to win 11 rings.

What's up, RocketGreatness? :roll:

[magnax1]

Playing under pressure is an intangible, leading your team to overachieve ala the 1993 Rockets, not settling for outside jumpers, taking over down the stretch..... Those are things we saw from Olajuwon in the mid 90's that we didn't see so much of from Garnett.
Compare KG's 03 team too Hakeems 93 team. Garnett's team overachieved just as much, probably more then Hakeem's team.

[SmoothRED]

Compare KG's 03 team too Hakeems 93 team. Garnett's team overachieved just as much, probably more then Hakeem's team.
Let him do his mind gymnastics. He has about as inconsistent of logic as it comes. Check out the Build around: Robinson vs Howard thread.

[ShaqAttack3234]

Compare KG's 03 team too Hakeems 93 team. Garnett's team overachieved just as much, probably more then Hakeem's team.

And they didn't do shit in the playoffs. Olajuwon led a pretty average roster to a title and led a 6th seed to a title.


Let him do his mind gymnastics. He has about as inconsistent of logic as it comes. Check out the Build around: Robinson vs Howard thread.

Inconsistent? :roll: You mean like being a Rockets fan one day and a Celtics fan the other? You mean like arguing with yourself in the same threads? You're the joke of these boards, kid. That's why you make so many accounts. How many accounts do you have now? 25? 30?

[magnax1]

And they didn't do shit in the playoffs. Olajuwon led a pretty average roster to a title and led a 6th seed to a title.
Being a 6th seed with a very good team and going to the finals is very different then having a team with Wally and Troy Hudson as your second and third options and taking the reigning champs to 6 games (in a series with as bad of officiating as almost any)
And contrary to popular opinion Hakeem had a good team both years. Kenny and Vernon Maxwell were both 17point 7 assist players if the offense wasn't built the way it was, and Otis thorpe was a 21-10 player just exiting his prime. Then add in Horry and Sam Cassell, and the teams is more then just and average roster.

[ShaqAttack3234]

Being a 6th seed with a very good team and going to the finals is very different then having a team with Wally and Troy Hudson as your second and third options and taking the reigning champs to 6 games (in a series with as bad of officiating as almost any)
And contrary to popular opinion Hakeem had a good team both years. Kenny and Vernon Maxwell were both 17point 7 assist players if the offense wasn't built the way it was, and Otis thorpe was a 21-10 player just exiting his prime. Then add in Horry and Sam Cassell, and the teams is more then just and average roster.

Good team in 1994, not great, though, and nobody you'd call a typical championship-caliber second option. Certainly nobody as good as the 2004 version of Sam Cassell, and Latrell Sprewell was a very good third option.

[magnax1]

Good team in 1994, not great, though, and nobody you'd call a typical championship-caliber second option. Certainly nobody as good as the 2004 version of Sam Cassell, and Latrell Sprewell was a very good third option.
No, it wasn't as good as 04, but you have to put it into context. Sam Cassell was out for most of the Laker series, and Troy Hudson, who was the only capable back up point was gone all year. So KG was basically forced to play point guard.
Hakeem was a little better in his prime no doubt, but he wasn't on another level. I don't think he would've made it past the conference finals against Shaq Kobe Lakers under the same circumstances either.

[HisAirness3]

Sorry about that ShaqAttack, didn't mean to insult you which is why I deleted the post but that mind gymnastics thing is actually quite original. You are a smart poster, don't let SmoothRED get inside your head. You both have different opinions, let him have it.

[ShaqAttack3234]

No, it wasn't as good as 04, but you have to put it into context. Sam Cassell was out for most of the Laker series, and Troy Hudson, who was the only capable back up point was gone all year. So KG was basically forced to play point guard.
Hakeem was a little better in his prime no doubt, but he wasn't on another level. I don't think he would've made it past the conference finals against Shaq Kobe Lakers under the same circumstances either.

KG was a beast in 2004, no doubt, but Hakeem was simply better on both ends in my opinion. He'd regualrly go out and drop 30+, dominate with his shot blocking that was second to none and he played good post defense on some elite big men.

And :roll: at RocketGreatness deleting his post after he realized he responded with the wrong account! HisAirness3, huh? I'll remember that, also registered in March 2010? This is seriously getting ridiculous.

[HisAirness3]

KG was a beast in 2004, no doubt, but Hakeem was simply better on both ends in my opinion. He'd regualrly go out and drop 30+, dominate with his shot blocking that was second to none and he played good post defense on some elite big men.

And :roll: at RocketGreatness deleting his post after he realized he responded with the wrong account! HisAirness3, huh? I'll remember that, also registered in March 2010? This is seriously getting ridiculous.
Well again, I didn't mean to offend you with that mind gymnastics post but that is ****ing original and funny as hell and I would laugh at it no matter who the poster is. Again, I apologize for that.

[magnax1]

KG was a beast in 2004, no doubt, but Hakeem was simply better on both ends in my opinion. He'd regualrly go out and drop 30+, dominate with his shot blocking that was second to none and he played good post defense on some elite big men.

And :roll: at RocketGreatness deleting his post after he realized he responded with the wrong account! HisAirness3, huh? I'll remember that, also registered in March 2010? This is seriously getting ridiculous.
Garnett was just as good because he was capable of getting his team mates involved. Hakeem was a gargantuan ball hog. As great as he was, if the offense wasn't completely centered around him, he wasn't going to have that great of an impact. None the less hes a bit better on offense.
And defense is pretty flat even prime vs. prime. KG could rotate around and guard perimeter players, and was capable of protecting the rim, playing really great post D. Hakeem was a great shot blocker, but gambled a bit to much. Was a bit better post defender.
Yeah, I guess Hakeem was a bit better, but not a lot.

[SmoothRED]

ShaqAttack being stubborn again, at least it's working against me though. Maybe I should make a Robinson vs Ewing thread, I'm sure Robinson would destroy the thread again just like he did against the Dwight Howard thread.

[ShaqAttack3234]

ShaqAttack being stubborn again, at least it's working against me though. Maybe I should make a Robinson vs Ewing thread, I'm sure Robinson would destroy the thread again just like he did against the Dwight Howard thread.

Maybe you should stick to one account, or make another Dwight Howard vs Yao Ming thread. :roll:

[lakerHater]

http://img260.imageshack.us/img260/7127/72446b2d016850b4f8b8f7b.gif

Cuz he wouldnt have it!

[ukplayer4]

it would have been nice to have seen how the 99 finals might have gone if ewing had been able to play instead of the knicks having to use chris dudley at centre :ohwell:

[Kiddlovesnets]

Because he played for the Knicks...

[Shep]

Obviously the biggest difference was Robinson, but I didn't even mention the addition in the point guard position. They had Mo Cheeks for the first 50 games of the season(10.9 ppg, 3.3 rpg, 6 apg, 1.6 spg, 47.8 FG%) and Rod Strickland for the final 31 games(14.2 ppg, 4.3 rpg, 8 apg, 1.6 spg, 46.8 FG%).

And Johnny Dawkins played in just 32 games the previous season and Alvin Robertson played in 65. Meanwhile, for 81 out of the 82 games in 1989-1990, they had a solid and productive point guard whether it be Cheeks or Strickland and they had Elliott and Cummings for 81 games each.
ya, and i didn't even mention the massive dropoff in willie anderson's production from 1989 to 1990, frank brickowski going from 13.7ppg, 6.3rpg, 2apg, 1.6spg, and .5bpg and 52%fg to 6.6/4.2, and vernon maxwell and his 12/3/4 off the bench, turned into 7/3/3 in 49 games before they sold him for a bag of pasta. elliott really does not deserve a mention, 10 points in 25 minutes? c'mon

And compare that cast to Ewing's in 1990.
and compare the fact that ewing's core had been together for a few years and consider that it was robinson's first year in san antonio, cummings first year, strickland's first year, and elliott's first year, makes it even more astounding that robinson made it work.

Ewing's Knicks were 8 games over .500(not barely more wins than losses) and upset a better team in the playoffs with monster performances from Ewing. All while facing elimination, you can look at Da Realist's post for the stats in those games, and that's not even mentioning his 45/13 game vs Detroit when the Knicks were down 0-2.
the knicks were 4 games over .500, not 8. and congrats goes out to pat for winning 1 game in the conference semi's - good stuff, must've been some accomplishment considering he only played in 13 playoff games in 4 seasons prior to 1990

Atleast Ewing had a solid back to the basket game, unlike Robinson who relied almost primarily on his faceup game as well as running the floor. In the post he had a turnaround jumper that he could shoot one way(it was as effective as Ewing's turnaround either) and a clumsy hook.

Robinson was 2-10 in elimination games, almost never matched his regular season production in the playoffs and was eliminated with homecourt advantage 6 times in the playoffs.
robinson could you beat you in so many more ways that ewing could. he was a much better defender and passer, got to the free throw line a lot more, didn't make pathetic turnovers like ewing did constantly, and didn't have to rely on an iso to score.

almost all of robinson's teams had no business even being in those playoffs, due to the lack of support and a d-league roster, much less having homecourt advantage in any series, so just reaching the playoffs was a testament of his greatness

[Lebron23]

Patrick Ewing and the 1990's New York Knicks were very unfortunate because they played in the Jordan Era.

They were very tough defensive team in the 1990's.

Prime Ewing would be the best Center in the NBA today. ( Top 4 player in the league)

[ShaqAttack3234]

First, of all, Shep, since you seem to have rankings for almost every NBA season and player, I have a few questions.

Where do you personally rank Kevin Garnett's peak? And where do you rank him on the all-time list? I ask because his career seems to parallel Robinson's in some ways.

Where do you rank peak Patrick Ewing in that particular season compared to the other players in that season and all time?

Where do you rank Dwight Howard among NBA players in '08, '09 and '10, respectively.


ya, and i didn't even mention the massive dropoff in willie anderson's production from 1989 to 1990, frank brickowski going from 13.7ppg, 6.3rpg, 2apg, 1.6spg, and .5bpg and 52%fg to 6.6/4.2, and vernon maxwell and his 12/3/4 off the bench, turned into 7/3/3 in 49 games before they sold him for a bag of pasta. elliott really does not deserve a mention, 10 points in 25 minutes? c'mon

Massive dropoff in Anderson's production? He went from the leading scorer to the third leading scorer and they added over 20 rpg combined from the new PF and C. Yet his scoring efficiency remained the same, his assists were about the same, he turned the ball over less, and the 2.9 point drop in scoring and 0.6 drop in rpg is to be expected with the additions of Robinson who averaged 24 ppg and Cummings who averaged 22.


and compare the fact that ewing's core had been together for a few years and consider that it was robinson's first year in san antonio, cummings first year, strickland's first year, and elliott's first year, makes it even more astounding that robinson made it work.

Yes, a great achievement. No question about that, one of the all time great rookie seasons. Regardless though, he had a better cast than Ewing that season.


the knicks were 4 games over .500, not 8. and congrats goes out to pat for winning 1 game in the conference semi's - good stuff, must've been some accomplishment considering he only played in 13 playoff games in 4 seasons prior to 1990

Beating a more talented, more experienced and higher seeded team in the playoffs is nothing to sneeze at, particularly when you do it with 3 dominant games facing elimination like Ewing did vs Boston.


robinson could you beat you in so many more ways that ewing could. he was a much better defender and passer, got to the free throw line a lot more, didn't make pathetic turnovers like ewing did constantly, and didn't have to rely on an iso to score.

He wasn't a much better defender than Ewing and I'll take the with the better back to the basket game anyday if their production is similar.


almost all of robinson's teams had no business even being in those playoffs, due to the lack of support and a d-league roster, much less having homecourt advantage in any series, so just reaching the playoffs was a testament of his greatness

That'd be fine if he usually performed up to his standard in the playoffs. Not only was he usually below his regular season production for the entire playoff run, but he usually shot terribly in elimination games.


Patrick Ewing and the 1990's New York Knicks were very unfortunate because they played in the Jordan Era.

They were very tough defensive team in the 1990's.

Prime Ewing would be the best Center in the NBA today. ( Top 4 player in the league)

The only current player who you could argue over 1990 Ewing is Lebron.

[Shep]

First, of all, Shep, since you seem to have rankings for almost every NBA season and player, I have a few questions.

Where do you personally rank Kevin Garnett's peak? And where do you rank him on the all-time list? I ask because his career seems to parallel Robinson's in some ways.
30th, and 12th

Where do you rank peak Patrick Ewing in that particular season compared to the other players in that season and all time?
5th, and my peak rankings don't go that far back

Where do you rank Dwight Howard among NBA players in '08, '09 and '10, respectively.
8th, 4th, and '10 hasn't been complete yet so no official rankings have taken place

Massive dropoff in Anderson's production? He went from the leading scorer to the third leading scorer and they added over 20 rpg combined from the new PF and C. Yet his scoring efficiency remained the same, his assists were about the same, he turned the ball over less, and the 2.9 point drop in scoring and 0.6 drop in rpg is to be expected with the additions of Robinson who averaged 24 ppg and Cummings who averaged 22.
less points, rebounds, assists, steals, and blocks, and a worse shooting percentage in more minutes.

Yes, a great achievement. No question about that, one of the all time great rookie seasons. Regardless though, he had a better cast than Ewing that season.
yes he had the better supporting cast but he had to create chemistry with a bunch of players playing their first year in san antonio, ewing already had this chemistry developed

Beating a more talented, more experienced and higher seeded team in the playoffs is nothing to sneeze at, particularly when you do it with 3 dominant games facing elimination like Ewing did vs Boston.
nice series, but if he had showed up for games 1 and 2 maybe he wouldn't be facing such elimination games

He wasn't a much better defender than Ewing and I'll take the with the better back to the basket game anyday if their production is similar.
:lol ewing's production was, for the most part, nowhere near robinson's, and robinson was easily the smarter, and better defender. i'll take the better all-round player who didn't rely on a 20ft fadeaway every time.

That'd be fine if he usually performed up to his standard in the playoffs. Not only was he usually below his regular season production for the entire playoff run, but he usually shot terribly in elimination games.
he sometimes might have not played up to his own standards during the playoffs, but he still was better than 99% of the nba if he didn't, including ewing. playoff stats from '90-'99:
david robinson: 21.7ppg, 11.6rpg, 2.8apg, 1.34spg, 2.97bpg, 48%FG
patrick ewing: 21.6ppg, 10.5rpg, 2.2apg, 0.83spg, 2.3bpg, 47%FG
what about head to head from '90-'98 you ask?
robinson: 25.6ppg, 10.2rpg, 3apg, 1.79spg, 3.21bpg
ewing: 22.6ppg, 11.4rpg, 2.7apg, 1.14spg, 3bpg
spurs won 8 out of 14 in these games

[ShaqAttack3234]

less points, rebounds, assists, steals, and blocks, and a worse shooting percentage in more minutes.

The dropoff is marginal, particularly when you consider he went from being the leading scorer to the 3rd leading scorer.


yes he had the better supporting cast but he had to create chemistry with a bunch of players playing their first year in san antonio, ewing already had this chemistry developed

It's true that he had basically the same core the previous season, but building chemistry wasn't all that easy, particularly late in the season. Oakley missed the final 21 games of the regular season, around the same time they had to adjust to Vandeweghe's return as well as the midseason trade that brought Mo Cheeks over. Nevermind that their initial starting point guard was getting booed at home and benched for the final 13 games and the playoffs.

Prior to Oakley's injury, the team was 36-25.


nice series, but if he had showed up for games 1 and 2 maybe he wouldn't be facing such elimination games

He averaged 25/10 in the first 2 games.


:lol ewing's production was, for the most part, nowhere near robinson's, and robinson was easily the smarter, and better defender. i'll take the better all-round player who didn't rely on a 20ft fadeaway every time.

20 foot fadeaway? Ewing's favorite moves were a turnaround jumper in the post, running shots in the lane, a faceup 18-20 footer later on and once in a while, a jump hook.


he sometimes might have not played up to his own standards during the playoffs, but he still was better than 99% of the nba if he didn't, including ewing. playoff stats from '90-'99:
david robinson: 21.7ppg, 11.6rpg, 2.8apg, 1.34spg, 2.97bpg, 48%FG
patrick ewing: 21.6ppg, 10.5rpg, 2.2apg, 0.83spg, 2.3bpg, 47%FG
what about head to head from '90-'98 you ask?
robinson: 25.6ppg, 10.2rpg, 3apg, 1.79spg, 3.21bpg
ewing: 22.6ppg, 11.4rpg, 2.7apg, 1.14spg, 3bpg
spurs won 8 out of 14 in these games

Ewing was older than Robinson and though he was still an effective player and enjoyed some of his more successful seasons later, he was less equipped to deal with a player with Robinson's athleticism and mobility. From '90-'93 he easily outplayed him with the team's splitting the games.

At first glance, Robinson's playoff stats look a little better at that time, but Ewing played 108 playoff games during that span compared to 79 for Robinson. But he didn't have anywhere near the amount of memorable and clutch playoff moments Ewing had like the aforementioned '90 series vs Boston, '92 game 1 vs Chicago or 6 vs Chicago on a bad ankle, game 7 vs Indiana in 1994, game 5 vs Miami in 1999 while he was injured ect.

[TEXAS BATMAN]

Top 3 reasons why Ewing never won a title....
1)Michael Jordan
2)Scottie Pippen
3)blowjobs


/End thread

[Shep]

The dropoff is marginal, particularly when you consider he went from being the leading scorer to the 3rd leading scorer.
dropoffs across the board + more minutes = major dropoff

It's true that he had basically the same core the previous season, but building chemistry wasn't all that easy, particularly late in the season. Oakley missed the final 21 games of the regular season, around the same time they had to adjust to Vandeweghe's return as well as the midseason trade that brought Mo Cheeks over. Nevermind that their initial starting point guard was getting booed at home and benched for the final 13 games and the playoffs.

Prior to Oakley's injury, the team was 36-25.
cheeks was good enough to be the spurs starting point guard, but he wasn't good enough to be the knicks starting point guard, and even though jackson was having a bad year considering his play the previous season he was still good for 9.9/3.9/7.4/1.3, then you had oakley putting up more points then he ever had and ever would, and also the steady play of gerald wilkins who suited up for all 82, and gave you 15/5/4 nightly.

He averaged 25/10 in the first 2 games.
0-2

20 foot fadeaway? Ewing's favorite moves were a turnaround jumper in the post, running shots in the lane, a faceup 18-20 footer later on and once in a while, a jump hook.
he didn't get into the paint nearly as much as he could've, maybe this was due to his penchant for picking up stupid fouls because of a lack of mobility and overall smarts, and he didn't want to be called for offensive fouls, but, although he had a nice jumper, this is no excuse

Ewing was older than Robinson and though he was still an effective player and enjoyed some of his more successful seasons later, he was less equipped to deal with a player with Robinson's athleticism and mobility. From '90-'93 he easily outplayed him with the team's splitting the games.
robinson was only 3 years younger than ewing, and ewing was better in '94, and '95 than he was in '91, '92, or '93.

At first glance, Robinson's playoff stats look a little better at that time, but Ewing played 108 playoff games during that span compared to 79 for Robinson. But he didn't have anywhere near the amount of memorable and clutch playoff moments Ewing had like the aforementioned '90 series vs Boston, '92 game 1 vs Chicago or 6 vs Chicago on a bad ankle, game 7 vs Indiana in 1994, game 5 vs Miami in 1999 while he was injured ect.
robinson's stats are alot better, with higher averages across the board, and just because you might not think robinson was as spectacular as ewing it doesn't mean he wasn't more effective.

[ShaqAttack3234]

cheeks was good enough to be the spurs starting point guard, but he wasn't good enough to be the knicks starting point guard, and even though jackson was having a bad year considering his play the previous season he was still good for 9.9/3.9/7.4/1.3, then you had oakley putting up more points then he ever had and ever would, and also the steady play of gerald wilkins who suited up for all 82, and gave you 15/5/4 nightly.

Stats don't tell the whole story. Once again, Jackson was bad enough that he got booed at home and was benched in favor of Cheeks for the final 13 games of the season and the playoffs. Oakley was good(always a favorite of mine), but your team isn't going far when he's your second leading scorer. He wasn't a guy who could create his own shot particularly well. he scored on a lot of garbage baskets.


0-2

So you expect Ewing to play at the superhuman level he did in the last 3 games for all 5? You can't hold it against a player for not averaging 36/12 for an entire season. He averaged a respectable 25/10 and shot the ball well, but the Celtics team was just better those first 2 games. realizing that, ewing did what few players are capable of doing and he found another level and put on 3 legendary performances.


he didn't get into the paint nearly as much as he could've, maybe this was due to his penchant for picking up stupid fouls because of a lack of mobility and overall smarts, and he didn't want to be called for offensive fouls, but, although he had a nice jumper, this is no excuse

Ehh, he did quite a bit of damage in the paint. Remember his "3 step move'? :lol he fell in love with the jumpers more and more as his mobility declined. He was still efficient until 1996 when he was 33.


robinson was only 3 years younger than ewing, and ewing was better in '94, and '95 than he was in '91, '92, or '93.

I disagree with that and regardless, it doesn't mean that the younger, more athletic Ewing still wasn't a better matchup for Robinson. As effective as he was when he was holder, he simply couldn't handle a player with Robinson's athleticism then, however, he could from '90-'93.


robinson's stats are alot better, with higher averages across the board, and just because you might not think robinson was as spectacular as ewing it doesn't mean he wasn't more effective.

When their scoring is virtually the same with Ewing shooting just 1 percentage worse, one extra rebound, half a steal and a little more than half a block and a little more than half an assist per game, I'll take the guy who played in almost 30 more playoff games during that span and had the more memorable clutch performances.

[Da_Realist]

Ewing was older than Robinson and though he was still an effective player and enjoyed some of his more successful seasons later, he was less equipped to deal with a player with Robinson's athleticism and mobility. From '90-'93 he easily outplayed him with the team's splitting the games.

It wasn't really Ewing's age that was the problem. His knees were shot. He started playing an old man's game before his time i.e. plodding up the court, holding and grabbing for any advantage and playing physical to compensate for the loss of his quickness and mobility. If you watched him in 89 and then fell asleep for 5 years and saw him again in 94, you almost wouldn't recognize the old man that gained a little weight, painfully ran up and down the court and relied almost exclusively on his jumpshot to score points.

[Shep]

Stats don't tell the whole story. Once again, Jackson was bad enough that he got booed at home and was benched in favor of Cheeks for the final 13 games of the season and the playoffs. Oakley was good(always a favorite of mine), but your team isn't going far when he's your second leading scorer. He wasn't a guy who could create his own shot particularly well. he scored on a lot of garbage baskets.
cheeks was definately a starting point guard caliber player, and had been starting on the spurs before the trade had taken place. infact prior to coming to the knicks he had only started 2 games from the bench in 11 years, so he knew how to run a team. jackson on the other hand was coming off a freak year, a year in which he was a top 5 point guard, its not uncommon for players to have years like this. new york would accept him back into the starting slot soon after, and he would go on to have successful starting roles on teams producing nowhere near his '89 line.

So you expect Ewing to play at the superhuman level he did in the last 3 games for all 5? You can't hold it against a player for not averaging 36/12 for an entire season. He averaged a respectable 25/10 and shot the ball well, but the Celtics team was just better those first 2 games. realizing that, ewing did what few players are capable of doing and he found another level and put on 3 legendary performances.
he only realised that after being on the brink of elimination? :lol

Ehh, he did quite a bit of damage in the paint. Remember his "3 step move'? he fell in love with the jumpers more and more as his mobility declined. He was still efficient until 1996 when he was 33.
he only averaged 6fta per game in his first four seasons - the same amount of fta's he averaged when he was 36, so it wasn't due to mobility, it was due to facts already outlined.

I disagree with that and regardless, it doesn't mean that the younger, more athletic Ewing still wasn't a better matchup for Robinson. As effective as he was when he was holder, he simply couldn't handle a player with Robinson's athleticism then, however, he could from '90-'93.
:oldlol: what a joke. so ewing could handle robinson in '93, but by '94 he was too old :roll:

When their scoring is virtually the same with Ewing shooting just 1 percentage worse, one extra rebound, half a steal and a little more than half a block and a little more than half an assist per game, I'll take the guy who played in almost 30 more playoff games during that span and had the more memorable clutch performances.
i'll take the guy who had no business being in the playoffs with the roster he had to work with, who made careers out of nbdl players, who was a much better defender, a two time mvp, and a better playoff performer

[ShaqAttack3234]

cheeks was definately a starting point guard caliber player, and had been starting on the spurs before the trade had taken place. infact prior to coming to the knicks he had only started 2 games from the bench in 11 years, so he knew how to run a team. jackson on the other hand was coming off a freak year, a year in which he was a top 5 point guard, its not uncommon for players to have years like this. new york would accept him back into the starting slot soon after, and he would go on to have successful starting roles on teams producing nowhere near his '89 line.

Cheeks was still solid. I was merely pointing out that Jackson played poorly all seasosn.


he only realised that after being on the brink of elimination? :lol

It's not like he played poorly the first 2 games. Admit it, it's a great series and better than any playoff series Robinson had.


he only averaged 6fta per game in his first four seasons - the same amount of fta's he averaged when he was 36, so it wasn't due to mobility, it was due to facts already outlined.

Ewing was taking fewer shots in his first few seasons. He was averaging about 8 FTA in '90 and '91.


:oldlol: what a joke. so ewing could handle robinson in '93, but by '94 he was too old :roll:

By that logic, Kareem could hold his own with Hakeem head to head in '87, but in '88 he was too old? :rolleyes:


i'll take the guy who had no business being in the playoffs with the roster he had to work with, who made careers out of nbdl players, who was a much better defender, a two time mvp, and a better playoff performer

His casts in 1990, 1991, 1992, 1995 and 1996 were legit playoff supporting casts.

[guy]

I always Ewing had great supporting casts, but he didn't have a great sidekick. Still great supporting casts, just not that one designated go-to guy at the end of games. I always thought Reggie Miller, who was one of Ewing's biggest rivals, would've been a PERFECT complement to Ewing. Replace Starks and Houston with Miller in the 90s, and I think the Knicks win at least 1 title in 1994. They'd have a better chance vs. the Bulls in 92, 93, and 97 and vs. the Rockets in 95, but I still think they fall short just cause Miller wasn't great enough in 92 and 93 that I think it would've made enough of a difference vs. a great Bulls team, Hakeem and the Rockets were absolutely beasting by the time the 95 Finals came around, and Miller wouldn't be that much of an upgrade over Houston in 97.

And since this topic is talking about David Robinson, he would've been perfect with him as well. I think they might've won a title in 98 if they still managed to get Duncan, but I don't think they would've won in any other year for basically same the reasons as above.

[Da_Realist]

I always Ewing had great supporting casts, but he didn't have a great sidekick. Still great supporting casts, just not that one designated go-to guy at the end of games. I always thought Reggie Miller, who was one of Ewing's biggest rivals, would've been a PERFECT complement to Ewing. Replace Starks and Houston with Miller in the 90s, and I think the Knicks win at least 1 title in 1994. They'd have a better chance vs. the Bulls in 92, 93, and 97 and vs. the Rockets in 95, but I still think they fall short just cause Miller wasn't great enough in 92 and 93 that I think it would've made enough of a difference vs. a great Bulls team, Hakeem and the Rockets were absolutely beasting by the time the 95 Finals came around, and Miller wouldn't be that much of an upgrade over Houston in 97.

And since this topic is talking about David Robinson, he would've been perfect with him as well. I think they might've won a title in 98 if they still managed to get Duncan, but I don't think they would've won in any other year for basically same the reasons as above.

Miller would have been a great sidekick for Ewing, but not for those particular Knicks teams and they wouldn't have gotten any closer to beating the Bulls for one reason: Who would have slowed Jordan? Starks was a perfect player for a Knicks team build intentionally to challenge the Bulls. A better complement for Ewing against those Bulls would have been a great 2-way player like a Walt Frazier, not Reggie Miller.

[guy]

Miller would have been a great sidekick for Ewing, but not for those particular Knicks teams and they wouldn't have gotten any closer to beating the Bulls for one reason: Who would have slowed Jordan? Starks was a perfect player for a Knicks team build intentionally to challenge the Bulls. A better complement for Ewing against those Bulls would have been a great 2-way player like a Walt Frazier, not Reggie Miller.

Did Starks or anyone on the Knicks really slow down Jordan that much? I don't think so. Jordan had one bad series vs. them but I don't really know how much of that can be attributed to Starks, and he still had two all-time great playoff games in that series. I agree that the Knicks wouldn't have beaten the Bulls still, but I do think they would have had a better shot by having someone who would've been closer to matching Jordan scoring and clutch play.

[White Chocolate]

Ewing gets the short end of the stick because he played in New York. He plays anywhere else other than New York and Los Angeles, no one talks poorly about him. If it wasn't for MJ and Dream, Ewing has a minimum of 2 rings.

[DCL]

[I] We've had the Mikan era, the Russell era, the Kareem era

[DCL]

charles smith can't make a damn layup. bulls advance.

[dnyk1337]

lol Ewing was better than Robinson. An idiot online writing paragraphs will not change anybody's mind.