Robinson vs. Ewing

[westsideozzie]

Both are Hall of Famers and Olympians, but who was the better player?

I think you can make compelling arguments for both. But I think that Robinson was slightly better because of his athleticism and ability to do more things on the court.

[Sakkreth]

Admiral slightly.

[Rake2204]

With complete bias, I select Dave.

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-D1MIffu-AFM/TheX3CDe7VI/AAAAAAAAALU/Ga8bJh2xTBc/s1600/admiral.jpg

[ProfessorMurder]

Robinson slightly, but I'd take Ewing if I were a GM.

[Xiao Yao You]

Robinson easily. Ewing was a great scorer but never close to the all-around player David was.

[jstern]

I remember having this conversation on youtube with a bunch of people. At 1st, on paper Robinson looked better, but after looking deeper into it, they all agreed that Ewing. So Ewing. Just heart alone Ewing. Ewing didn't need an Avery Johnson, a non superstar calling him out for being soft.

[westsideozzie]

I remember having this conversation on youtube with a bunch of people. At 1st, on paper Robinson looked better, but after looking deeper into it, they all agreed that Ewing. So Ewing. Just heart alone Ewing. Ewing didn't need an Avery Johnson, a non superstar calling him out for being soft.


Robinson did not love basketball like most other stars. I think it was a vehicle to other interests that he had. Ewing had a more consistent jumper, but he was never the rebounder and shot blocker Robinson was. Robinson also was an NBA IBM winner four times, a testament to his all around game.

[Whoah10115]

Definitely David Robinson if we're talking about prime. But Ewing had greater longevity at an elite level and I think he's arguably ahead on the all-time list.



But Robinson in his prime was close to Hakeem...could have been even better.

[Owl]

Robinson and it's not close. Teams led by Robinson did so well (they were almost always 55+ win good, apart from a couple of years where the coaching was in turmoil) that they too good for him ever to get any good help.
Robinson has the better numbers, the MVP, frankly pretty much everything over Ewing.
If Robinson lacked "heart" whilst leading the league in points, blocks and rebounds and coming top 5 in fg% and top 5 in steals, being the only center other than Shaq and Wilt to post an 30+ PER season, well thank goodness he wasn't really trying.

Ewing didn't win a title with Charles Oakley, Anthony Mason, John Starks and Derek Harper, if prime DR had a team that talented he would probably have had multiple rings in his prime.

[Bigsmoke]

the one with the MVP, DPOY award, rebounding title, scoring title, and championships.

[Harison]

Give me the Admiral, thank you :cheers:

[Big#50]

Robinson would have been the GOAT had he never been a big softie. Nobody could guard the guy. Nobody came close to his freak speed and strength. Only thing he lacked was back to the basket game. I think due mostly to not wanting to get physical. He was after all a freaking bible thumper.

[dyna]

Robinson

[jlauber]

How did they fare H2H?

[Owl]

How did they fare H2H?
http://www.basketball-reference.com/boxscores/199001130NYK.html
http://www.basketball-reference.com/boxscores/199001170SAS.html
http://www.basketball-reference.com/boxscores/199102280NYK.html
http://www.basketball-reference.com/boxscores/199103260SAS.html
http://www.basketball-reference.com/boxscores/199111160SAS.html
http://www.basketball-reference.com/boxscores/199112260NYK.html
http://www.basketball-reference.com/boxscores/199303210NYK.html
http://www.basketball-reference.com/boxscores/199304040SAS.html
http://www.basketball-reference.com/boxscores/199311170SAS.html
http://www.basketball-reference.com/boxscores/199401190NYK.html
http://www.basketball-reference.com/boxscores/199411120SAS.html
http://www.basketball-reference.com/boxscores/199411210NYK.html
http://www.basketball-reference.com/boxscores/199512100NYK.html
http://www.basketball-reference.com/boxscores/199603270SAS.html

Covers their primes
If you really want to copy them up feel free.

Anyway as stated above it's Robinson.

[redhonda76]

I'll take Ewing. While Robinson was an amazing freak of athlete, he lacked the desire and hunger in which Ewing possess. Statistic-wise, Ewing was always be lower than Robinson due to the fact that the Knicks offense ran much slower pace than San Antonio. Slower pace = less possessions. Ewing's Knicks were always rank one of the lowest offensive pace at that time.
Ewing also was a better leader than Robinson. He would often give his teammate an earful if he didn't get the ball, ill-advised technicals, dumb plays. Ewing was never afraid to be the man to take the last shot. I can't say the same for Robinson.

[jlauber]

http://www.basketball-reference.com/boxscores/199001130NYK.html
http://www.basketball-reference.com/boxscores/199001170SAS.html
http://www.basketball-reference.com/boxscores/199102280NYK.html
http://www.basketball-reference.com/boxscores/199103260SAS.html
http://www.basketball-reference.com/boxscores/199111160SAS.html
http://www.basketball-reference.com/boxscores/199112260NYK.html
http://www.basketball-reference.com/boxscores/199303210NYK.html
http://www.basketball-reference.com/boxscores/199304040SAS.html
http://www.basketball-reference.com/boxscores/199311170SAS.html
http://www.basketball-reference.com/boxscores/199401190NYK.html
http://www.basketball-reference.com/boxscores/199411120SAS.html
http://www.basketball-reference.com/boxscores/199411210NYK.html
http://www.basketball-reference.com/boxscores/199512100NYK.html
http://www.basketball-reference.com/boxscores/199603270SAS.html

Covers their primes
If you really want to copy them up feel free.

Anyway as stated above it's Robinson.

I knew that BTW, but I pretty much based my argument on that simple fact. Robinson was actually dead even with Hakeem in their 42 regular season H2H games, BTW.

[Owl]

I knew that BTW, but I pretty much based my argument on that simple fact. Robinson was actually dead even with Hakeem in their 42 regular season H2H games, BTW.
Okay fair enough but your argument (and their H2H) wasn't posted in this thread at least so put it here so either you or anyone interested in H2H after your comments.

I think I'd heard you say that about Hakeem vs Robinson before (in a debate which in itself was reffering to a previous thread). Not entirely surprising Robinson vs Olajuwon was considered equal or Robinson a little better at the time (Robinson particularly favourable when Olajuwon nearly left Houston in 92), and Robinson's numbers were a little better. Olajuwon had better longevity (Robinson's career numbers below what they could have been partly because of 2 year Navy stint, year missed injured and the affects of those injuries and the fact he sublimated his game and minutes once Duncan arrived) of course so probably is a little ahead (in GOAT list) but the gap isn't what most would have it as IMHO. Of course Hakeem was exceptional vs D-Rob in that one series and it happened to be important but I don't hold that as a huge negative for assessing Robinson's career.

[Anaximandro1]

I'll take Robinson

:cheers:

[NugzHeat3]

Patrick Ewing was a better player at his best than David Robinson's mermaid loving ass ever was.

[LockoutOver11]

damn i want this kind of talent back in the nba..... i miss the 5 centers i was spoiled on ewing, robinson, alonzo, shaq, and hakeem...

robinson accomplished more... but ewing carried a team in ny and couldve been one of the all time greats for doing so if he'd won his two chips in the finals. possibly three... :(

[Owl]

damn i want this kind of talent back in the nba..... i miss the 5 centers i was spoiled on ewing, robinson, alonzo, shaq, and hakeem...

robinson accomplished more... but ewing carried a team in ny and couldve been one of the all time greats for doing so if he'd won his two chips in the finals. possibly three... :(
Robinson carried a lot worse teams the first half of his career.
Oakley, Mason and Starks all made All-Star games and Harper is one of the greatest non all-stars. Robinson's teams did a little better with significantly worse teammates.
Rodman was Robinson's all-star teammate and he was erratic in his SA stint and his skill set didn't complement Robinson's.

[redhonda76]

Robinson carried a lot worse teams the first half of his career.
Oakley, Mason and Starks all made All-Star games and Harper is one of the greatest non all-stars. Robinson's teams did a little better with significantly worse teammates.
Rodman was Robinson's all-star teammate and he was erratic in his SA stint and his skill set didn't complement Robinson's.

Mason was an All Star when he was with the Heat. Harper was already past his prime. Oakley and Starks were great supporting cast, never was close to being a star players.

[LockoutOver11]

Robinson carried a lot worse teams the first half of his career.
Oakley, Mason and Starks all made All-Star games and Harper is one of the greatest non all-stars. Robinson's teams did a little better with significantly worse teammates.
Rodman was Robinson's all-star teammate and he was erratic in his SA stint and his skill set didn't complement Robinson's.


my point is that if ewing wouldve won ny chips in the 90's... it would be ewing in the top 15 atleast if not more and replacing hakeem... doing in a stage like ny just makes legacies uprise more so than other places...

[Owl]

Mason was an All Star when he was with the Heat. Harper was already past his prime. Oakley and Starks were great supporting cast, never was close to being a star players.
Mason's AS appearance was indeed whilst at the Heat but I'd argue he was as good in his last couple of years in NY as he was at that time. Harper was past his prime but wasn't bad. Ewing had also played with Rod Strickland and Mark Jackson, guys who had seasons leading the league in assists and are amongst the all-time assists leaders so it's not like he was stuck with bad pgs.
Avery Johnson was a CBA refuge, who was okay at running a team but wasn't particularly strong at creating his own shot, finishing, shooting from range was undersized and wasn't a great defender. Before that the Spurs experimented with Vinny Del Negro and Lloyd Daniels at the point. I'd take post prime Harper over those guys.
I wouldn't bill the Knicks as stars but I think they did make a very good, very strong defensive supporting cast.

[Big#50]

I miss the old 90's Knicks. They were ****ing tough. Smith, Oak, Mason, and Ewing in the middle. Theres no doubt in my mind if DROB had that kind of backup he would have won rings. He would have gotten then Knicks past the Bulls. He was much better on offense.

[jstern]

I'll take Ewing. While Robinson was an amazing freak of athlete, he lacked the desire and hunger in which Ewing possess. Statistic-wise, Ewing was always be lower than Robinson due to the fact that the Knicks offense ran much slower pace than San Antonio. Slower pace = less possessions. Ewing's Knicks were always rank one of the lowest offensive pace at that time.
Ewing also was a better leader than Robinson. He would often give his teammate an earful if he didn't get the ball, ill-advised technicals, dumb plays. Ewing was never afraid to be the man to take the last shot. I can't say the same for Robinson.

That's what kind of what I was talking about in my previous post, that you can't just go by stats. I'm not just picking Ewing because I'm a Knicks fan, but just that people who were not Knicks fan disected them and they all choice Ewing after originally pickin Robison. I'll stick with Ewing.

[StateOfMind12]

Ask anybody who isn't from New York or who isn't a Knicks fan this question and they will all tell you the answer is Robinson. That is all you really need to know. Robinson was just on another tier than Ewing and it was just like that when they were both in their primes.

If you put Robinson on those Knicks, I honestly think they would have gotten past the Bulls or had a much better chance of getting the Bulls instead of Ewing.

[jstern]

Just want to post a Ewing video, since we rarely talk about him. Clutch shots vs Jordan. Kind of lucky in the last one thought http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=huqgGxxVy94

But yeah, Ewing just had much more heart. Didn't he use to yell give him the ****ing ball. That is the opposite of Robinson. You never heard one of Ewing's teamates calling soft. Avery Johnson, Dennis Rodman calling Robinson soft, and who knows how many countless others.

[blablabla]

give me ewing

[NugzHeat3]

I'm not sure if Robinson could lead the Knicks.

Patrick Ewing was a mean dude and the Knicks mentality was moulded around him. Pat Riley built that team with the same concept as the Bad Boys built theirs. Knicks, like Ewing, were gritty and weren't afraid to rough you up, knock you down and get physical which are all traits I would never associate with David Robinson. Teams tend to take the identity of its best player so I'd be skeptical of Robinson leading that team.

It wouldn't be the same although I'd still like to see Robinson on the same frontcourt as Mason and Oakley who were probably the most meanest dudes in the league. Definitely a contrast in their personalities so I'd like to see how they would fit. Robinson's personality was one of the reasons Rodman didn't like him since they were polar opposites.

As for the Bulls, I don't see them losing to Robinson. I don't really see Robinson doing much better. He'd be a hard cover for a guy like Cartwright because of his quickness while facing up and in transition but Bulls could get away with sticking Horace Grant on him (and Grant has shut down Robinson before) and double teaming from all angles which Robinson can't deal with which is a stylistic issue. He was shook against the Rockets double teaming of guys like Horry and Drexler, he'd be toast against Pippen and Jordan and consider that NYK's spacing was a big issue since they didn't have enough shooters and the paint was clogged more than usual.

Just want to post a Ewing video, since we rarely talk about him. Clutch shots vs Jordan. Kind of lucky in the last one thought http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=huqgGxxVy94

But yeah, Ewing just had much more heart. Didn't he use to yell give him the ****ing ball. That is the opposite of Robinson. You never heard one of Ewing's teamates calling soft. Avery Johnson, Dennis Rodman calling Robinson soft, and who knows how many countless others.
Lets not get carried away. Robinson being soft is an issue as well as his body type + lack of a back to basket game which are both related but all that included, I don't see him getting outplayed by Rik Smits like Ewing did in the playoffs in various games and that was a big reason why Indiana beat New York in 1995.

That's why it's easier for me to say peak Ewing was better but Ewing, like Robinson, has a lot of duds in the playoffs.

[Owl]

Just want to post a Ewing video, since we rarely talk about him. Clutch shots vs Jordan. Kind of lucky in the last one thought http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=huqgGxxVy94

But yeah, Ewing just had much more heart. Didn't he use to yell give him the ****ing ball. That is the opposite of Robinson. You never heard one of Ewing's teamates calling soft. Avery Johnson, Dennis Rodman calling Robinson soft, and who knows how many countless others.
Didn't hear teammates or anyone calling Ewing MVP either. Or good at stealing the ball. Or DPoY. Or a good (or average) passer. Or the league leader in points, blocks or steals.

How did this magnificent heart manifest itself on the basketball court? Getting beaten by an inferior Pacers team?

Or specifically the manner in which he beasted Rik Smits in '95
http://www.basketball-reference.com/boxscores/199505070NYK.html
http://www.basketball-reference.com/boxscores/199505090NYK.html
http://www.basketball-reference.com/boxscores/199505110IND.html
http://www.basketball-reference.com/boxscores/199505130IND.html
http://www.basketball-reference.com/boxscores/199505170NYK.html
http://www.basketball-reference.com/boxscores/199505190IND.html
http://www.basketball-reference.com/boxscores/199505210NYK.html

BTW is there a source for Avery calling Robinson soft, I couldn't care less what Rodman said, but would be interested in seeing where Avery said that.

[jstern]

Didn't hear teammates or anyone calling Ewing MVP either. Or good at stealing the ball. Or DPoY. Or a good (or average) passer. Or the league leader in points, blocks or steals.

How did this magnificent heart manifest itself on the basketball court? Getting beaten by an inferior Pacers team?

Or specifically the manner in which he beasted Rik Smits in '95
http://www.basketball-reference.com/boxscores/199505070NYK.html
http://www.basketball-reference.com/boxscores/199505090NYK.html
http://www.basketball-reference.com/boxscores/199505110IND.html
http://www.basketball-reference.com/boxscores/199505130IND.html
http://www.basketball-reference.com/boxscores/199505170NYK.html
http://www.basketball-reference.com/boxscores/199505190IND.html
http://www.basketball-reference.com/boxscores/199505210NYK.html

BTW is there a source for Avery calling Robinson soft, I couldn't care less what Rodman said, but would be interested in seeing where Avery said that.

The source is Dennis Rodman in one his book, perhas Bad as I want to be. He was telling a story about during a playoff game Avery Johnson ripping DR for playing soft. Don't remember if soft was the word used, but might as well be *****, or any other such words.

Hey, I like David Robinson, don't get me wrong, just that it's not as simple as looking at his stats and basing it off that.

[Owl]

The source is Dennis Rodman in one his book, perhas Bad as I want to be. He was telling a story about during a playoff game Avery Johnson ripping DR for playing soft. Don't remember if soft was the word used, but might as well be *****, or any other such words.

Hey, I like David Robinson, don't get me wrong, just that it's not as simple as looking at his stats and basing it off that.
Okay well if it's one game and the source is Rodman, well put it this way I'm not losing any sleep over it. Cheers for the info tho anyway :cheers:

I don't think stats are the be all and end all but to close or overturn the (statistical) gap between Robinson and Ewing (especially peak wise) I'd have to hear something mighty convincing. Both were great players but to me Robinson was in a different league.


I'm not sure if Robinson could lead the Knicks.

Patrick Ewing was a mean dude and the Knicks mentality was moulded around him. Pat Riley built that team with the same concept as the Bad Boys built theirs. Teams tend to take the identity of its best player. Knicks, like Ewing, were gritty and weren't afraid to rough you up, knock you down and get physical which are all traits I would never associate with David Robinson. Teams tend to take the identity of its best player so I'd be skeptical of Robinson leading that team.

It wouldn't be the same although I'd still like to see Robinson on the same frontcourt as Mason and Oakley who were probably the most meanest dudes in the league. Definitely a contrast in their personalities so I'd like to see how they would fit. Robinson's personality was one of the reasons Rodman didn't like him since they were polar opposites.

As for the Bulls, I don't see them losing to Robinson. I don't really see Robinson doing much better. He'd be a hard cover for a guy like Cartwright because of his quickness while facing up and in transition but Bulls could get away with sticking Horace Grant on him (and Grant has shut down Robinson before) and double teaming from all angles which Robinson can't deal with which is a stylistic issue. He was shook against the Rockets double teaming of guys like Horry and Drexler, he'd be toast against Pippen and Jordan and consider that NYK's spacing was a big issue since they didn't have enough shooters and the paint was clogged more than usual.

Lets not get carried away. Robinson being soft is an issue as well as his body type + lack of a back to basket game which are both related but all that included, I don't see him getting outplayed by Rik Smits like Ewing did in the playoffs in various games and that was a big reason why Indiana beat New York in 1995.

That's why it's easier for me to say peak Ewing was better but Ewing, like Robinson, has a lot of duds in the playoffs.
I don't see why Robinson couldn't lead the Knicks just because he was Christian and didn't scowl (which is the implication behind the "hard vs soft" dichotomy). The Knicks identity was as a hard nosed defensive club and that was from everyone, Riley, Oakley, Mason, Starks, Harper (and before him Cheeks and maybe Rivers), Greg Anthony. Robinson was a DPoY and would be better equipped than Ewing to turn that elite D and rebounding into fast break points.

Looking at the logs it seems Chicago's dobermans did cause some TO problems (as I imagine they did to all go to guys), but Robinson logged some big fg% steal, block and rebound nights versus the Bulls.
http://www.basketball-reference.com/play-index/pgl_finder.cgi?request=1&player=&match=game&year_min=&year_max=&age_min=0&age_max=99&team_id=SAS&opp_id=CHI&is_playoffs=N&game_num_min=0&game_num_max=99&game_month=&game_location=&game_result=&is_starter=&is_active=&is_hof=Y&pos_is_c=Y&c1stat=&c1comp=gt&c1val=&c2stat=&c2comp=gt&c2val=&c3stat=&c3comp=gt&c3val=&c4stat=&c4comp=gt&c4val=&order_by=pts

[Rake2204]

If Robinson lacked "heart" whilst leading the league in points, blocks and rebounds and coming top 5 in fg% and top 5 in steals, being the only center other than Shaq and Wilt to post an 30+ PER season, well thank goodness he wasn't really trying.

Word up.

Again, I'm insanely biased because David Robinson is my favorite player of all-time, but that "heart" argument always seemed so flimsy and arbitrary. And the moment one teammate came out and said the same thing (Rodman), people committed it to memory as unwavering fact.

I just don't believe a player can do what Robinson did while not having heart. And like you said, if it was true (that he didn't have heart or will) then by god, I can't imagine what he would have accomplished if he did.

[ShaqAttack3234]

Robinson was more talented, and considerably more gifted as an athlete. Perhaps the most athletic 7 footer I've ever seen and definitely one of the best defensive players of all time.

However, his playoff performances and back to the basket game have always made him very questionable to me. I think he was kind of forced into the role of being the man offensively, when in reality, as good of an all around player as he was, I just don't think scoring 25+ per game in the playoffs was comfortable for him, particularly when there would be less opportunities for him to get easy baskets running the floor and on lobs. That's probably why Robinson's rookie team was his best cast as the man because Terry Cummings was really a focal point of their offense and they had more offensive weapons than his later teams.

He was a better passer than Ewing, but I prefer Ewing's toughness and post game, and also agree that Robinson leading the 90's Knicks doesn't sound like nearly as good of a fit as Ewing.

It gets tougher when looking at their entire primes. I'll take peak Ewing(1990) over peak Robinson and I'll favor prime Ewing over prime Robinson by a small margin simply because Ewing showed me a lot more throughout his playoff career. He had his failures as NugzHeat said, but not as weak as the way Robinson was going down such as '94 vs Utah. Even comparing their head to head series with Hakeem and the Rockets, despite Ewing's horrible shooting, he played Hakeem a lot tougher, imo and did battle him defensively, though he was helped a great deal by Mason and a great defensive team.

I also wouldn't hype up Ewing's point guards. I liked Harper as part of the cast, but Rod Strickland? He barely played on the Knicks and actually didn't show much until he was with the Spurs alongside David Robinson.

Mark Jackson started off well with the Knicks, but by '90 and '91, and he was getting booed at home and benched in favor of an aging Mo Cheeks.

Their casts weren't really that much different to me. Ewing's cast in his peak season was weak compared to the contending teams and considerably weaker than Robinson's cast that same season which included Terry Cummings, Willie Anderson, Rod Strickland and Sean Elliott(rookie).

His '95 cast was pretty good as well with Rodman, Sean Elliott, Avery Johnson, Vinny Del Negro, Chuck Person and Doc Rivers. Not great, but not bad either, and I wouldn't call Ewing's casts great either.


I don't think stats are the be all and end all but to close or overturn the (statistical) gap between Robinson and Ewing (especially peak wise)

Actually it's not big at all.

Ewing- 29/11/2/4/1, 55 FG%, 60 TS%
Robinson- 30/11/5/3, 1.7 spg, 51 FG%, 58 TS%

Though Ewing sustained it in the playoffs with 29/11/3/2, 1.3 spg, 52 FG%, 58 TS% over 2 series while Robinson dropped to 20/10/4/3 on 41 FG%/47 TS% in his only series that year.

So peak numbers are virtually identical, though over the course of their primes, Robinson has a clear edge statistically, though as you yourself said, stats aren't the end all be all.

[redhonda76]

I don't see why Robinson couldn't lead the Knicks just because he was Christian and didn't scowl (which is the implication behind the "hard vs soft" dichotomy). The Knicks identity was as a hard nosed defensive club and that was from everyone, Riley, Oakley, Mason, Starks, Harper (and before him Cheeks and maybe Rivers), Greg Anthony. Robinson was a DPoY and would be better equipped than Ewing to turn that elite D and rebounding into fast break points.

Looking at the logs it seems Chicago's dobermans did cause some TO problems (as I imagine they did to all go to guys), but Robinson logged some big fg% steal, block and rebound nights versus the Bulls.


The Knicks team would have an issue with Robinson. Oakley was always been very vocal in the locker room. He would call you out if your head was not in the game. Oakley even called out Vince for being soft when he was in Toronto. If Rodman didn't respect David, why would Oak?
Also there would no way Robinson can control Starks, Mason and Anthony. Ewing had to screamed at them and put them in their place when they got technicals, bone-headed plays, out-of control emotions and showboating antics.

As far as Avery Johnson calling out Robinson, it was during the 95 WCF where Hakeem demoralized him. Avery stepped up as a leader and told the Spurs that they cannot count of David and must step up.

[NugzHeat3]

Okay well if it's one game and the source is Rodman, well put it this way I'm not losing any sleep over it. Cheers for the info tho anyway :cheers:

I don't think stats are the be all and end all but to close or overturn the (statistical) gap between Robinson and Ewing (especially peak wise) I'd have to hear something mighty convincing. Both were great players but to me Robinson was in a different league.


I don't see why Robinson couldn't lead the Knicks just because he was Christian and didn't scowl (which is the implication behind the "hard vs soft" dichotomy). The Knicks identity was as a hard nosed defensive club and that was from everyone, Riley, Oakley, Mason, Starks, Harper (and before him Cheeks and maybe Rivers), Greg Anthony. Robinson was a DPoY and would be better equipped than Ewing to turn that elite D and rebounding into fast break points.

Looking at the logs it seems Chicago's dobermans did cause some TO problems (as I imagine they did to all go to guys), but Robinson logged some big fg% steal, block and rebound nights versus the Bulls.
http://www.basketball-reference.com/play-index/pgl_finder.cgi?request=1&player=&match=game&year_min=&year_max=&age_min=0&age_max=99&team_id=SAS&opp_id=CHI&is_playoffs=N&game_num_min=0&game_num_max=99&game_month=&game_location=&game_result=&is_starter=&is_active=&is_hof=Y&pos_is_c=Y&c1stat=&c1comp=gt&c1val=&c2stat=&c2comp=gt&c2val=&c3stat=&c3comp=gt&c3val=&c4stat=&c4comp=gt&c4val=&order_by=pts
I'm not strictly basing it on the numbers. I don't disagree that David Robinson was a better defender than Ewing but I don't think you can just replace Ewing with David without considering the intangibles and the possible impact of their personalities.

I just wonder how he'd fit into the Knicks concept. While the Knicks, like you mentioned, were great on defense at all positions, it was Ewing who anchored and led the defense which was hard nose, yes. But, they were also dirty and routinely one of the league leaders in techs, flagrant fouls, showed a lot of emotion, passion and weren't afraid to tell their teammates to rough someone up. I think it's possible Robinson's goody two shoes personality may rub off on his teammates the wrong way and I'm basing it because it actually happened since Rodman disliked him since he thought he didn't want to win badly enough, didn't show the same emotion and desire required to win.

Here's an example:


- Pippen did not seem to mind that Xavier McDaniel advised the Knicks' Charles Smith to be rough on Pippen and perhaps commit a flagrant foul early to let him know he meant business.

"If he gave him advice that would help, I'm sure he would be more than glad to take it," Pippen said. "If someone gave me good advice, I would take it as well."

That doesn't seem to be Smith's nature, but Pippen said that may not matter. "Once you get on a team that does that," he said, "you get that type of mentality."

http://articles.chicagotribune.com/1993-05-22/sports/9305220139_1_scottie-pippen-bulls-horace-grant

The bolded is the point I'm trying to get across since I'm curious to how Robinson would fit into that culture. I'm not entirely sure if Robinson could play with that mentality. Notice how McDaniel, who was an ex-Knick, suggests Charles Smith to take Pippen out. That's the kind of stuff I'm referring to.

As for the Bulls/Spurs season games, I wouldn't look a great deal into it since teams have more time to game plan around a player. I don't have the #s but I'd bet he didn't struggle to the same degree vs the Jazz in the 1994 and 1996 season as much as he did in the playoffs. Jazz made the switch with Karl Malone guarding him and he really bothered him with his swipe, pushing him away from the basket and from his favorite spots and the guards, especially Stockton, did a great job of helping out. The same way I'd expect Chicago to switch up their strategy, perhaps having Horace Grant guard him, sending more help ect. That's the biggest issue with Robinson since his flaws are just way too magnified in the playoffs against good defensive teams.

[Amare4lyfe]

This is where stats doesn't do justice for Ewing. Knicks ran one of the slowest offense ever in the NBA. Of course Ewing points and rebounds would be lower. Not to mention he played with Oakley, who also was a legit rebounder. Many young people in ISH never saw Ewing and Robinson and just base their opinion by looking at stats.
I'll take the warrior Ewing.

[JohnnySic]

Robinson's stats jump off the page more but I always got the sense that Ewing's play was more "substantial", if that makes sense...

[Kblaze8855]

Kinda annoys me when it seems like people intentionally leave out information that doesnt help their arguments. Elliot was a 2 time all star on the spurs and people talking about guys like Mason who made it on the Hornets and Harper who just...almost made it...on the Mavs.

[Bigsmoke]

David Robinson was just better. period.

[FindingTim]

video game: Robinson
real life: Ewing

[ShaqAttack3234]

This is where stats doesn't do justice for Ewing. Knicks ran one of the slowest offense ever in the NBA. Of course Ewing points and rebounds would be lower. Not to mention he played with Oakley, who also was a legit rebounder. Many young people in ISH never saw Ewing and Robinson and just base their opinion by looking at stats.
I'll take the warrior Ewing.

True, we saw the same thing with Robinson when he played with Rodman.

Robinson averaged between 12-13 rpg each of his first 3 seasons, then 11.7 in '93, but in '94, Rodman joined the team and Robinson's rpg dropped to 10.7 despite playing a career high 40.5 mpg.

Now look at the '95 season. In the 33 games Robinson played without Rodman, he averaged 12.5 rpg, but in 48 games with Rodman, Robinson averaged just 9.6 rpg.

Now look at 1996 when Rodman left, Robinson was back up to 12.2 rpg for the entire season.

You see a similar thing in 1990 with Ewing. Oakley missed 21 games that year and in those games, Ewing averaged 12.3 rpg, but when Oakley played, Ewing averaged 10.4 rpg. Of course, Ewing had better rebounding seasons after that as well as the Knicks forced more missed shots and Ewing's scoring load decreased.

Then in 1995, Oakley missed 32 games and Ewing averaged 12.7 rpg in those games, but in the 47 games with Oakley, he averaged just 9.8 rpg.

Ewing's career high in rpg actually came in '93 when he averaged 12.1, and Oakley actually played all 82 games that year. Riley was campaigning for Ewing to win MVP that year, though Hakeem, Barkley and Jordan obviously all had better years, and were better players at that time.


Kinda annoys me when it seems like people intentionally leave out information that doesnt help their arguments. Elliot was a 2 time all star on the spurs and people talking about guys like Mason who made it on the Hornets and Harper who just...almost made it...on the Mavs.

True, Elliott was a very good player. Athletic player who could shoot, take his man off the dribble and post up a bit, plus he had very good size. He was also always a good defender, imo.

Ewing had more help defensively, imo, while Robinson had better offensive casts. Their casts weren't made up of scrubs who were only in the league a few years.

Mason was certainly a quality player, very versatile as he did play some point forward, though I was never entirely comfortable with him handling the ball, though he was a good passer, used his strength well in the post, could rebound and he was an excellent defensive player, I've seen him do a very good job on perimeter players and PF/C.

Though Don Nelson trying to push for Mason to be the first option was a pretty big mistake in '96.

I'd only say that Ewing had weak casts in '90 and '91, and in fairness, they underachieved even for their talent level in '91, and the '96 teams had too many issues, and Ewing was partially to blame for feuding with his coach. Excluding Ewing's first few years, of course.

Robinson's weakest cast, imo was '94, though they had a few good players. His '91 team probably overachieved in the regular season with all of those injuries, but were upset in the first round, and Robinson really didn't dominate a Warriors team he should have with them playing their "big men" being Mario Elie(who was playing PF) along with Tom Tolbert and Tyrone Hill playing center.

And before someone posts Robinson's stats to that series, I'll just say watch the series, even during a few of the games, the announcers would say Robinson's numbers during the end of the game and mention how quiet they were. Plus, those Warrior teams always allowed big numbers due to their pace, style and lack of defense, along with the fact that they eliminated much of Robinson's defensive impact.

In general, I really have a hard time remember dominant playoff series from Robinson. The one that comes to mind would be '96 vs Phoenix, but that was a very weak defensive team, especially in the frontcourt, and after that, he had another really weak series vs Utah, as he always did. He did play well in '93 vs Phoenix, I don't put that loss on him, Phoenix was just the most talented team in the league and Barkley was amazing that series.

But it really was the lack of a go to move or two in the post. I really can't think of one that seemed reliable to me. He had that awkward looking hook he'd go to occasionally, and a turnaround that he didn't really fade on, but it was mostly facing up, hitting some 15 footers, running the floor and catching lobs. It wouldn't matter to me, except that didn't prove nearly as effective in the playoffs.

[knickswin]

i'm not even a huge ewing fan because he was kind of soft for his size and not such a willing passer, but I'd take ewing. he had a more complete scoring arsenal. better half court center. robinson was a face-up softy.

1990 patrick ewing :bowdown: too bad he got injured. guy was a monster.

[Whoah10115]

Didn't hear teammates or anyone calling Ewing MVP either. Or good at stealing the ball. Or DPoY. Or a good (or average) passer. Or the league leader in points, blocks or steals.

How did this magnificent heart manifest itself on the basketball court? Getting beaten by an inferior Pacers team?

Or specifically the manner in which he beasted Rik Smits in '95
http://www.basketball-reference.com/boxscores/199505070NYK.html
http://www.basketball-reference.com/boxscores/199505090NYK.html
http://www.basketball-reference.com/boxscores/199505110IND.html
http://www.basketball-reference.com/boxscores/199505130IND.html
http://www.basketball-reference.com/boxscores/199505170NYK.html
http://www.basketball-reference.com/boxscores/199505190IND.html
http://www.basketball-reference.com/boxscores/199505210NYK.html

BTW is there a source for Avery calling Robinson soft, I couldn't care less what Rodman said, but would be interested in seeing where Avery said that.




Let's not get carried away. Ewing's knee was in bad condition that series and the games he had (including the 25 and 15 in Game 6) were all heart. He was struggling.

[Owl]

Let's not get carried away. Ewing's knee was in bad condition that series and the games he had (including the 25 and 15 in Game 6) were all heart. He was struggling.
Not meant to do down Ewing. As I said in other posts both were great. But Robinson vs Hakeem in '95 is held against Robinson like it defines his career when playing against Hakeem playing as well as he ever played. So I a series to show that Ewing had poor series' too. This one versus a lesser player and in a manner that cost his team big. It's not representative, but nor is the "anti-clutch" picture of Robinson.


True, Elliott was a very good player. Athletic player who could shoot, take his man off the dribble and post up a bit, plus he had very good size. He was also always a good defender, imo.
I don't think he was. I think he did okay on the fast break Spurs but is a guy who is badly exposed by advanced metrics http://www.basketball-reference.com/players/e/elliose01.html . He played big minutes and a high(ish) ppg but thats it. His career averages are unrepresentative because of injuries but still, his best season PER was 16.3 and he was

Traded by the Pistons to the Spurs for the draft rights to Bill Curley and a 1997 second-round draft choice on 7/19/94.
That's how valuable he considered was in his prime. Okay that isn't representative of his real value but still.
Elliott was a 2 time all-star because the Spurs were so good that people felt they should have 2 players and Elliott was the spurs 2nd best player. Comparing him to Mason is a slap in the face to Mason an elite defender, a quality rebounder an efficient scorer and a guy with point forward skills.


I'm not strictly basing it on the numbers. I don't disagree that David Robinson was a better defender than Ewing but I don't think you can just replace Ewing with David without considering the intangibles and the possible impact of their personalities.

I just wonder how he'd fit into the Knicks concept. While the Knicks, like you mentioned, were great on defense at all positions, it was Ewing who anchored and led the defense which was hard nose, yes. But, they were also dirty and routinely one of the league leaders in techs, flagrant fouls, showed a lot of emotion, passion and weren't afraid to tell their teammates to rough someone up. I think it's possible Robinson's goody two shoes personality may rub off on his teammates the wrong way and I'm basing it because it actually happened since Rodman disliked him since he thought he didn't want to win badly enough, didn't show the same emotion and desire required to win.

Here's an example:

http://articles.chicagotribune.com/1993-05-22/sports/9305220139_1_scottie-pippen-bulls-horace-grant

The bolded is the point I'm trying to get across since I'm curious to how Robinson would fit into that culture. I'm not entirely sure if Robinson could play with that mentality. Notice how McDaniel, who was an ex-Knick, suggests Charles Smith to take Pippen out. That's the kind of stuff I'm referring to.

As for the Bulls/Spurs season games, I wouldn't look a great deal into it since teams have more time to game plan around a player. I don't have the #s but I'd bet he didn't struggle to the same degree vs the Jazz in the 1994 and 1996 season as much as he did in the playoffs. Jazz made the switch with Karl Malone guarding him and he really bothered him with his swipe, pushing him away from the basket and from his favorite spots and the guards, especially Stockton, did a great job of helping out. The same way I'd expect Chicago to switch up their strategy, perhaps having Horace Grant guard him, sending more help ect. That's the biggest issue with Robinson since his flaws are just way too magnified in the playoffs against good defensive teams.
I would agree that Robinson's personality doesn't immediately strike one as being compatible with the Knicks in your face culture. But you can look at it one of two ways. You can say he doesn't fit, or you can say Oakley gets to be the enforcer he never had (Rodman was more an instigator than an genuinely "tough" player imo). You can say that Oak gets to be the vocal lead and Robinson calms down some of the out of control players by setting a good example. You can say the Knicks get more favourable calls because "Robinson's goody two shoes personality" means the Knicks are looked on more favourably. You can play it out either way.

I think Robinson's percieved playoff decline is overstated because of the tremendous expectations on him and because some in the media chose to define him by being beaten by Hakeem and look at his career through that prism. As you aknowledge he had fine numbers versus the Warriors. I think the regular season numbers are valid at showing what Robinson was capable of versus that Bulls team. I would agree that good teams could focus their defensive plans on Robinson over a playoff series, but you know why they could do that. Because they sure as hell didn't have to plan on being beaten by Avery Johnson, Vinny Del Negro, Chuck Person or Dennis Rodman. My belief is that with a better team (like the mid 90's Knicks) Robinson would have been more unguardable in the playoffs, would have had a lower defensive burden and would probably have a title or 2 as the clear best player on the team.

[Kblaze8855]

If Robinson had Ewings will to win he probably would have been on the Jordan level. But he didnt. Ewing once he slowed down wanted it so bad but he didnt have that bounce like he used to(though I have seen him in the mid 90s do a near FT line dunk in game vs the Heat).

Him all padded down walking stiff and all....not as good as Drob. When he was doing shit like this:




Ewing was having a 29/11 season shooting 55% and blocking 4 shots a game. In the previous two months he had averaged 32/12 and 31/12 on 58 and 59% shooting. In April and march he had games of:

40/15
37/19/9 blocks
37/17 the game before that
37/21/6/5 two games before that

Which was 2 games after he had 51/18 and 41/12 in back to back games. He was having games of 44/22. And 44/24.





That Ewing had it in him to play as an equal vs probably any center ever in a single game.

But he started to operate less on the low block and in transition and more spotting up and facing up from 15-20 feet. He was never the same. Still great. But not the physical beast he used to be.

[Owl]

Actually [the gap between their statistical peaks is] not big at all.

Ewing- 29/11/2/4/1, 55 FG%, 60 TS%
Robinson- 30/11/5/3, 1.7 spg, 51 FG%, 58 TS%

Though Ewing sustained it in the playoffs with 29/11/3/2, 1.3 spg, 52 FG%, 58 TS% over 2 series while Robinson dropped to 20/10/4/3 on 41 FG%/47 TS% in his only series that year.

So peak numbers are virtually identical, though over the course of their primes, Robinson has a clear edge statistically, though as you yourself said, stats aren't the end all be all.
Robinson's peak came in a slower era (90 vs 94, 95 or 96) and one with lower fg% (I suspect). Robinson's advantages aren't really shown in the conventional big man stats they are in lower turnovers and fouls, they are in the assist and steals gap, and in Robinson's ability to get to the line. The combination of pace, and these small advantages cumulatively mean that Ewing's peak PER comes out at 25.8, Robinson's at 30.7. And that's accepting your assumption that peak means peak single season. Robinson posted 3 years of similar scores whilst Ewings peak seams anamolous never matching that years combination of usage and efficiency, or that years shot blocking prowess.

I'd also argue that Robinson playing in a division with Dikembe Mutombo and Hakeem Olajuwon (playing them 5 and 6 times respectively http://www.basketball-reference.com/teams/SAS/1994_games.html ) probably didn't help his numbers.

That Ewing "sustained it" that year only proves that his regular season peak and playoff peak coincided. Robinsons career playoff PER is superior (23 vs 19.6) AND is so despite playing a higher proportion of his career playoff minutes past his prime.


I also wouldn't hype up Ewing's point guards. I liked Harper as part of the cast, but Rod Strickland? He barely played on the Knicks and actually didn't show much until he was with the Spurs alongside David Robinson.

Mark Jackson started off well with the Knicks, but by '90 and '91, and he was getting booed at home and benched in favor of an aging Mo Cheeks.

Their casts weren't really that much different to me. Ewing's cast in his peak season was weak compared to the contending teams and considerably weaker than Robinson's cast that same season which included Terry Cummings, Willie Anderson, Rod Strickland and Sean Elliott(rookie).

His '95 cast was pretty good as well with Rodman, Sean Elliott, Avery Johnson, Vinny Del Negro, Chuck Person and Doc Rivers. Not great, but not bad either, and I wouldn't call Ewing's casts great either.
I possibly did oversell the Knicks pgs a little. But Sticks per 36 numbers in NYC were pretty sick. The point was he played with strong passers and legitimately good pgs. I think Strickland outplaying him was maybe what messed up Jackson.

I'll just agree to disagree on the supporting casts. The Knicks were one of the best defensive teams ever and multiple shot creators. The Spurs had an elite rebounder (who sagged off Horry to chase rebounds) and a headcase, Sean Elliott (dealt with in the previous post), a very much below average backcourt, and an aging Chuck Person. That year wasn't Robinson's best in the playoffs but he wasn't helped by Rodman getting himself suspended and taken out of games (http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/basketball/nba/news/1999/01/19/rodman_chronology/ http://www.nytimes.com/1995/05/14/sports/1995-nba-playoffs-lakers-enjoy-celebrity-atmosphere-again.html) or Person shooting .351 from the field an .289 from 3. As a result their 3 point average which had been above average (largely because of the Admiral drawing double teams, VDN and Person had their best three shooting years as Spurs) fell to a lousy .335 (source: http://www.basketball-reference.com/playoffs/NBA_1995.html) allowing teams to double Robinson confidently.

[Nelson14]

The admiral

[NugzHeat3]

I don't think it's just will to win that Robinson was missing. His body type is probably an equally big issue. A lot of people say he's built like a tank but that's all upper body which just helps him finish better with contact. Dwight has the same issue where his deltoids are huge but the rest of his body (compare his calves to Hakeem's in that practice vide) isn't in proportion with his shoulders and upper body strength.

David had relatively longer legs and torso and a higher center of gravity which aren't really beneficial to establishing post position, sealing his man or great balance in the post. If you compare him to a guy like Hakeem who had a wider base, lower center of gravity and a proportioned built throughout his body, you can clearly see why he was better at getting better position on the block.

He's also a bit mechanical in the post but the main issue is I don't think he was really built for back to basket play.


Not meant to do down Ewing. As I said in other posts both were great. But Robinson vs Hakeem in '95 is held against Robinson like it defines his career when playing against Hakeem playing as well as he ever played. So I a series to show that Ewing had poor series' too. This one versus a lesser player and in a manner that cost his team big. It's not representative, but nor is the "anti-clutch" picture of Robinson.

The people who JUST hold Robinson vs Hakeem against him need to look deeper into his career because Karl Malone roasted him just as bad as Hakeem did albeit in a different manner. Hakeem toasted him offensively, probably worse than anyone I've ever seen. He played good defense too but Robinson's main problem was he got swarmed and had a good bit of issue passing out of the post and establishing himself. Charles Jones would also come in and play some solid defense since he had fouls to give. Hakeem's individual defense was good; he was contesting David's jumpers but anytime Robinson got him in a face up situation in a clearout, he blew by him for either a bucket or a foul.

Malone outplayed him by making him a complete non-factor on offense (basically the reverse Hakeem). Those 1994 and 1996 playoff series vs Karl and Utah are just as big of a failure as the series vs Hakeem in my book.

They just aren't remebered as much because Robinson wasn't the MVP, he didn't have the best record in the league and it was earlier in the playoffs instead of the conference finals. Plus, it wasn't a direct match up since Hakeem and Robinson were two Cs and had been division rivals for 5 years.



I would agree that Robinson's personality doesn't immediately strike one as being compatible with the Knicks in your face culture. But you can look at it one of two ways. You can say he doesn't fit, or you can say Oakley gets to be the enforcer he never had (Rodman was more an instigator than an genuinely "tough" player imo). You can say that Oak gets to be the vocal lead and Robinson calms down some of the out of control players by setting a good example. You can say the Knicks get more favourable calls because "Robinson's goody two shoes personality" means the Knicks are looked on more favourably. You can play it out either way.
I don't really disagree here. I'm just saying I wouldn't rule out a possible clash between him and the team. That's why I said earlier I would actually be interested to watch just to see how it would play out because of the vast contrast between the best player and the teammates personalities.


I think Robinson's percieved playoff decline is overstated because of the tremendous expectations on him and because some in the media chose to define him by being beaten by Hakeem and look at his career through that prism. As you aknowledge he had fine numbers versus the Warriors. I think the regular season numbers are valid at showing what Robinson was capable of versus that Bulls team. I would agree that good teams could focus their defensive plans on Robinson over a playoff series, but you know why they could do that. Because they sure as hell didn't have to plan on being beaten by Avery Johnson, Vinny Del Negro, Chuck Person or Dennis Rodman. My belief is that with a better team (like the mid 90's Knicks) Robinson would have been more unguardable in the playoffs, would have had a lower defensive burden and would probably have a title or 2 as the clear best player on the team.
I disagree here.

For example, compare him to a former division rival in Hakeem when he had some bad talent in the late 80s when Sampson got injured, Wiggins and Lloyd were suspended to drug issues and was playing next to guys like Joe Barely Cares. He got swarmed a lot too and all the defensive focus was on him but he went out with some monster playoff performances. I'm mainly looking at the 1987 and 1988 playoffs here. I remember watching one of those games vs the Mavs and Don Nelson/Pete Van Wieren called the game and nearly half the game, all they did was talk about how well Hakeem had played and the lack of help he received from the guards. I don't hold these losses against Hakeem because he did everything he could. To me, the manner in which you lose in is just as important as the manner which you win in.

The manner in which David Robinson lost in was often questionable and just not impressive at all. Jordan lost putting up some monster perfromances vs Pistons in the late 80s and he was having the defense centered around him too. Shaq had the defense centered around him often and got no help from the perimeter but that didn't stop him from having a great series vs the 1995 Rockets with their game plan of double teaming him since Anderson and Scott weren't hitting anything.

As for his numbers vs the Bulls, I disagree. With more time to game plan and the Bulls raising their defensive intensity like they always did in the playoffs (it's evident in their pressure defense and trapping vs the Cavs and Knicks in 1992 and 1993), I wouldn't really base much on the season numbers.

I agree that the Knicks in the mid 90s were a little better than Robinson's cast mainly because of how good they were defensively but I don't think they really help him much offensively because of the spacing on the floor which was terrible and there's still no #2 guy to pick up the scoring load. Starks was a good player but not #2. He'd still see a lot of defensive attention so I don't see much of an effect offensively although I do see him having more impact defensively with better defensive teammates.

[L.Kizzle]

Ewing.

[Owl]

I don't think it's just will to win that Robinson was missing. His body type is probably an equally big issue. A lot of people say he's built like a tank but that's all upper body which just helps him finish better with contact. Dwight has the same issue where his deltoids are huge but the rest of his body (compare his calves to Hakeem's in that practice vide) isn't in proportion with his shoulders and upper body strength.

David had relatively longer legs and torso and a higher center of gravity which aren't really beneficial to establishing post position, sealing his man or great balance in the post. If you compare him to a guy like Hakeem who had a wider base, lower center of gravity and a proportioned built throughout his body, you can clearly see why he was better at getting better position on the block.

He's also a bit mechanical in the post but the main issue is I don't think he was really built for back to basket play.



The people who JUST hold Robinson vs Hakeem against him need to look deeper into his career because Karl Malone roasted him just as bad as Hakeem did albeit in a different manner. Hakeem toasted him offensively, probably worse than anyone I've ever seen. He played good defense too but Robinson's main problem was he got swarmed and had a good bit of issue passing out of the post and establishing himself. Charles Jones would also come in and play some solid defense since he had fouls to give. Hakeem's individual defense was good; he was contesting David's jumpers but anytime Robinson got him in a face up situation in a clearout, he blew by him for either a bucket or a foul.

Malone outplayed him by making him a complete non-factor on offense (basically the reverse Hakeem). Those 1994 and 1996 playoff series vs Karl and Utah are just as big of a failure as the series vs Hakeem in my book.

They just aren't remebered as much because Robinson wasn't the MVP, he didn't have the best record in the league and it was earlier in the playoffs instead of the conference finals. Plus, it wasn't a direct match up since Hakeem and Robinson were two Cs and had been division rivals for 5 years.


I don't really disagree here. I'm just saying I wouldn't rule out a possible clash between him and the team. That's why I said earlier I would actually be interested to watch just to see how it would play out because of the vast contrast between the best player and the teammates personalities.


I disagree here.

For example, compare him to a former division rival in Hakeem when he had some bad talent in the late 80s when Sampson got injured, Wiggins and Lloyd were suspended to drug issues and was playing next to guys like Joe Barely Cares. He got swarmed a lot too and all the defensive focus was on him but he went out with some monster playoff performances. I'm mainly looking at the 1987 and 1988 playoffs here. I remember watching one of those games vs the Mavs and Don Nelson/Pete Van Wieren called the game and nearly half the game, all they did was talk about how well Hakeem had played and the lack of help he received from the guards. I don't hold these losses against Hakeem because he did everything he could. To me, the manner in which you lose in is just as important as the manner which you win in.

The manner in which David Robinson lost in was often questionable and just not impressive at all. Jordan lost putting up some monster perfromances vs Pistons in the late 80s and he was having the defense centered around him too. Shaq had the defense centered around him often and got no help from the perimeter but that didn't stop him from having a great series vs the 1995 Rockets with their game plan of double teaming him since Anderson and Scott weren't hitting anything.

As for his numbers vs the Bulls, I disagree. With more time to game plan and the Bulls raising their defensive intensity like they always did in the playoffs (it's evident in their pressure defense and trapping vs the Cavs and Knicks in 1992 and 1993), I wouldn't really base much on the season numbers.

I agree that the Knicks in the mid 90s were a little better than Robinson's cast mainly because of how good they were defensively but I don't think they really help him much offensively because of the spacing on the floor which was terrible and there's still no #2 guy to pick up the scoring load. Starks was a good player but not #2. He'd still see a lot of defensive attention so I don't see much of an effect offensively although I do see him having more impact defensively with better defensive teammates.
I'd agree on the body related stuff.

Robinson did have some poor series, but as I said before his playoff PER is significantly superior PER to Ewing dispite a larger proportion of his minutes coming outside of his prime. Until that is explained to be I have to believe Robinson was better. I also have a problem with just using his elimination series especially when his beasting of Golden State in '91 has been so casually dismissed (over his last two games in that series he got 59 points off just 22 field goal attempts).

I don't disagree hugely on the Bulls issue. My point was he was effective against Bulls. I can't disagree that the Bulls stopped some very impressive teams and that Robinson (at least with the Spurs) was vunerable to planned and focused defense. I still think that that would be less the case (generally) with a better supporting cast, and that Robinson would have had good title chances with a Knicks like cast (especially/specifically during the no MJ window).

He didn't have the playoff success (even ignoring team level success) of Olajuwon. But that is rather moving the goalposts. Olajuwon one of those rare breeds that did BETTER in the playoffs (even statistically, where numbers should go down against superior competition). Ewing did not have this and as long as the comparison is between Robinson and Ewing, I take Robinson every day of the week.

I would (and have) said there was more than a little gap their supporting casts. I would agree that New York didn't have a clear 2nd option offensively although in the right system I think Mason was capable of that. Key ways NY would help Robinson would be easier fast break points off that D and rebounding, being more able to focus effort on offense and more credible and willing 3 point shooters (definitely at the point, and also Hubert Davis who has one of the all time greatest 3pt %, and later Alan Houston) to space the floor.

[redhonda76]

I don't disagree hugely on the Bulls issue. My point was he was effective against Bulls. I can't disagree that the Bulls stopped some very impressive teams and that Robinson (at least with the Spurs) was vunerable to planned and focused defense. I still think that that would be less the case (generally) with a better supporting cast, and that Robinson would have had good title chances with a Knicks like cast (especially/specifically during the no MJ window).

He didn't have the playoff success (even ignoring team level success) of Olajuwon. But that is rather moving the goalposts. Olajuwon one of those rare breeds that did BETTER in the playoffs (even statistically, where numbers should go down against superior competition). Ewing did not have this and as long as the comparison is between Robinson and Ewing, I take Robinson every day of the week.

I would (and have) said there was more than a little gap their supporting casts. I would agree that New York didn't have a clear 2nd option offensively although in the right system I think Mason was capable of that. Key ways NY would help Robinson would be easier fast break points off that D and rebounding, being more able to focus effort on offense and more credible and willing 3 point shooters (definitely at the point, and also Hubert Davis who has one of the all time greatest 3pt %, and later Alan Houston) to space the floor.

Robinson played well in the regular season against the Bulls, but that doesn't mean he'll play well if they met in the playoffs. There were many times a player or a team played well in the regular season but got swept in the playoffs. This is no different. The Robinson only played twice against the Bulls whereas Ewing played four times a season. Mason by no means can be a second scoring option to Ewing. He was efficient around within paint but he was undersized, limited range and a horrible shooting stroke. Check out his free throw and you'll know what I mean. No one in the Starks can create their own shots other than Ewing and Harper who was already past his prime. By the time Spree and Houston came, Ewing was already past his prime and was hampered by injuries. Robinson could never can control that Knick team. The Knick team was built from the Ewing's identity and they were out for blood.

[JellyBean]

I pick D-Rob. David could defend a guard on the perimeter, handle post duty, pass, and shoot. Pat had a hard time moving his feet and trying to deal with wing players. David could handle them all.

[Owl]

Robinson played well in the regular season against the Bulls, but that doesn't mean he'll play well if they met in the playoffs. There were many times a player or a team played well in the regular season but got swept in the playoffs. This is no different. The Robinson only played twice against the Bulls whereas Ewing played four times a season. Mason by no means can be a second scoring option to Ewing. He was efficient around within paint but he was undersized, limited range and a horrible shooting stroke. Check out his free throw and you'll know what I mean. No one in the Starks can create their own shots other than Ewing and Harper who was already past his prime. By the time Spree and Houston came, Ewing was already past his prime and was hampered by injuries. Robinson could never can control that Knick team. The Knick team was built from the Ewing's identity and they were out for blood.

If the Ewing was the key to the identity then why weren't Pitino's Knicks or Stu Jackson's Knicks playing or percieved in the same way Riley's Knicks were. Because they, if anyone's, they were Riley's Knicks, as he proved by exporting the model to Miami with a different set of players (whilst the Knicks lasted only one year then changed identies somewhat again). I think the identity came from the entire team but if any one person I say Riley and as I have argued in previous posts it is by no means a given that Robinson's personality harms that team (and that it is equally plausible that it helps it).

Mason wasn't an ideal 2nd option on a post scorers team. A couple of caveats
1) Robinson and Ewing were both good jump shooters for centers
2) Mason improved his shooting and after '93 for a power player his ft% though fluctuating isn't that bad.
I take your point though.

[NugzHeat3]

I'd agree on the body related stuff.

Robinson did have some poor series, but as I said before his playoff PER is significantly superior PER to Ewing dispite a larger proportion of his minutes coming outside of his prime. Until that is explained to be I have to believe Robinson was better. I also have a problem with just using his elimination series especially when his beasting of Golden State in '91 has been so casually dismissed (over his last two games in that series he got 59 points off just 22 field goal attempts).

I don't disagree hugely on the Bulls issue. My point was he was effective against Bulls. I can't disagree that the Bulls stopped some very impressive teams and that Robinson (at least with the Spurs) was vunerable to planned and focused defense. I still think that that would be less the case (generally) with a better supporting cast, and that Robinson would have had good title chances with a Knicks like cast (especially/specifically during the no MJ window).

He didn't have the playoff success (even ignoring team level success) of Olajuwon. But that is rather moving the goalposts. Olajuwon one of those rare breeds that did BETTER in the playoffs (even statistically, where numbers should go down against superior competition). Ewing did not have this and as long as the comparison is between Robinson and Ewing, I take Robinson every day of the week.

I would (and have) said there was more than a little gap their supporting casts. I would agree that New York didn't have a clear 2nd option offensively although in the right system I think Mason was capable of that. Key ways NY would help Robinson would be easier fast break points off that D and rebounding, being more able to focus effort on offense and more credible and willing 3 point shooters (definitely at the point, and also Hubert Davis who has one of the all time greatest 3pt %, and later Alan Houston) to space the floor.
Hmm, you make lot of good points.

As for the GSW series, I don't think the stats are reflective of his impact. Like ShaqAttack mentioned earlier, Golden State was a poor defensive team, relied a whole lot on uptempo basketball and played offense at the expense of defense. They basically used unconventional line ups with undersized Cs to maximize their offense.

IIRC, Don Nelson used one of his Cs (either Tolbert or Peterson) and brought him up high near the top of the key so Robinson was forced to guard him above the foul line due to the illegal defense rule which reduced his impact a lot. I know Robinson had a lot of blks in that series but they did a great job minimizing his ability to roam around the paint.

Here's an article for reference on their strategy: http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=Y5wzAAAAIBAJ&sjid=0TIHAAAAIBAJ&pg=5465,8328044&dq=david+robinson+illegal+defense&hl=en

His offensive numbers are great but given the tempo, limitations and lack of defensive personnel, they should also be put in context. It's no surprise guys like Charles Barkley (1994) and Shawn Kemp (1992) put up huge numbers against them in the playoffs relative to their season performances.

As for the Olajuwon thing, I wasn't really shifting goalposts but just using him as an example that individual performance in the playoffs matters a lot and that poor teammates can't excuse a bad showing by a star player when there are countless examples of stars (regardless of position) playing extremely well despite a lack of help. In Ewing's case, you're right that he has a lot of bad showings as well which is why (as I alluded) earlier that it's hard to pick one when judging them overall.

We can agree to disagree in the last paragraph. I still don't see him being any more successful in the half-court set with the overloaded frontline they had which meant for some bad spacing. Charles/Smith/Oakley/Mason/Ewing got a bit redundant and made for a bad fit so I see the same issue with David replacing Ewing. Their guards can shoot well spotting up like you mentioned but I'm not sure if it would have much of an effect overall. Mase is good especially in a ball handling/point forward role but he's not someone I'd expect to provide second option numbers or carry a scoring load. I remember that awkward shooting form of his. Teams weren't afraid to sag off of him to double team Ewing.

[magnax1]

I'm really not found of Ewing as a player. He was an inefficient scorer who didn't really know how to pass, and he didn't really put up an extremely impressive volume of scoring either. I don't think he was a better defender or rebounder then Robinson either, though I wouldn't say he's far off.
Maybe you could make a case Ewing in 90 was as good as Robinson was, but I don't see it for his whole prime.

[Owl]

Hmm, you make lot of good points.

As for the GSW series, I don't think the stats are reflective of his impact. Like ShaqAttack mentioned earlier, Golden State was a poor defensive team, relied a whole lot on uptempo basketball and played offense at the expense of defense. They basically used unconventional line ups with undersized Cs to maximize their offense.

IIRC, Don Nelson used one of his Cs (either Tolbert or Peterson) and brought him up high near the top of the key so Robinson was forced to guard him above the foul line due to the illegal defense rule which reduced his impact a lot. I know Robinson had a lot of blks in that series but they did a great job minimizing his ability to roam around the paint.

Here's an article for reference on their strategy: http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=Y5wzAAAAIBAJ&sjid=0TIHAAAAIBAJ&pg=5465,8328044&dq=david+robinson+illegal+defense&hl=en

His offensive numbers are great but given the tempo, limitations and lack of defensive personnel, they should also be put in context. It's no surprise guys like Charles Barkley (1994) and Shawn Kemp (1992) put up huge numbers against them in the playoffs relative to their season performances.

As for the Olajuwon thing, I wasn't really shifting goalposts but just using him as an example that individual performance in the playoffs matters a lot and that poor teammates can't excuse a bad showing by a star player when there are countless examples of stars (regardless of position) playing extremely well despite a lack of help. In Ewing's case, you're right that he has a lot of bad showings as well which is why (as I alluded) earlier that it's hard to pick one when judging them overall.

We can agree to disagree in the last paragraph. I still don't see him being any more successful in the half-court set with the overloaded frontline they had which meant for some bad spacing. Charles/Smith/Oakley/Mason/Ewing got a bit redundant and made for a bad fit so I see the same issue with David replacing Ewing. Their guards can shoot well spotting up like you mentioned but I'm not sure if it would have much of an effect overall. Mase is good especially in a ball handling/point forward role but he's not someone I'd expect to provide second option numbers or carry a scoring load. I remember that awkward shooting form of his. Teams weren't afraid to sag off of him to double team Ewing.
Good post.

I understand Nellie using classic mismatches and believe that's why he had Bol shooting threes back in the day (to drag centers out of the paint). I agree Robinson would be expected to get numbers to a degree against GSW. But looking at the boxscores I can't see how he could do much more than he did. GSW had 3 all star calibre players (and Sarunas), Robinson was just overmatched, GSW had more talent.

Fair enough on the Olajuwon thing, just thought that setting playoffs Olajuwon as the bar is setting a bar very few centers will match.

I'm in semi-agreement on offensive spacing, their talent was concentrated in the frontcourt. I've made my points on with regard to fast break points, easier to focus on O etc. I would say they were better spaced than the Spurs. Partially because Rodman's man was free to wander with impunity unless he was concerned with boxing out in advance, but also because the stats back it up. The Knicks took 1446 threes (6th most), the Spurs only 1158 (19th in a 27 team league).

The one other things is by discussing Robinson on the Knicks we're essentially pitting 92/93-95/96 Robinson (peak) versus 92/93-95/96 Ewing (prime perhaps but not peak). Given that I think the talent gap between their peaks is fairly substantial anyway, and adding this time difference too, I think we can see where the differing opinions come from.

[Kblaze8855]

I'm really not found of Ewing as a player. He was an inefficient scorer

In his prime(Im gonna say after his heavily injured first couple years and before 96 when Don Nelson started making him play at 20 feet and shoot 3s...

20 a game on 56% shooting in 31 minutes a game
23 on 57% in 36 minutes
29 on 55% in 39
27 on 51%
24 on 52%
24 on 50
25 on 50
24 on 50

He shot between 72 and 77% from the line. Perfectly fine for a bigman. Thats what we are calling inefficient?

Has it really come to that?

What about Duncan?

He was doing pretty much the same scoring numbers as Ewing but shooting worse. And he only scored 23 a game 3 seasons of his career. And he shot 49 and 51% twice in those seasons

That a problem?

[redhonda76]

If the Ewing was the key to the identity then why weren't Pitino's Knicks or Stu Jackson's Knicks playing or percieved in the same way Riley's Knicks were. Because they, if anyone's, they were Riley's Knicks, as he proved by exporting the model to Miami with a different set of players (whilst the Knicks lasted only one year then changed identies somewhat again). I think the identity came from the entire team but if any one person I say Riley and as I have argued in previous posts it is by no means a given that Robinson's personality harms that team (and that it is equally plausible that it helps it).

Mason wasn't an ideal 2nd option on a post scorers team. A couple of caveats
1) Robinson and Ewing were both good jump shooters for centers
2) Mason improved his shooting and after '93 for a power player his ft% though fluctuating isn't that bad.
I take your point though.

Yes you are correct that Riley change the image of that team. But Robinson wasn't that type of leader that can enforce that type of bad boy mentality to his troops. It's just not him.

[Whoah10115]

The back to the basket game thing is meaningless. It's not as tho Robinson didn't play well in playoffs and put up numbers there. People just like to generalize what they think a 7foot center should be. Robinson's game was what it was and he was absolutely elite. He's the best playmaking center ever, I believe. He's one of the best passing centers ever. Defensively, he's probably one of the 5 best players ever. He was a great rebounder and the best shot-blocker of the modern era.



Patrick has been criticized for not being clutch (no lol, just me slapping those people in the face), has actually had his defense questioned (??), has been under-appreciated and over-criticized. He's one of the best players ever.



Robinson was better, tho Ewing may have the better career as a player. Robinson had 7 prime years and then Duncan's first year he wasn't necessarily to far from that player. The rest, he was clearly behind Duncan as an option and even his defense wasn't as good as it once was. But at his best, he's the better overall player.



How Robinson would fit with those Knick teams or Ewing with those Spurs teams...I don't see how that matters. Not if what we're talking about is personalities clashing.

[veilside23]

really hard for me but although people say that drob is better defensively i tend to disagree.. yes he can guard multiple positions but he is not that great at it. He got torched by Charles Barkley in drob's prime.



Id take ewing if i were to start a franchise ... Guy was a monster even with injuries. It only got ugly when he started taking jumpers but he was still quite good.

[L.Kizzle]

I pick D-Rob. David could defend a guard on the perimeter, handle post duty, pass, and shoot. Pat had a hard time moving his feet and trying to deal with wing players. David could handle them all.
So could Derek McKey.

[k0kakw0rld]

Mr 71 Points

[ShaqAttack3234]

I don't think he was. I think he did okay on the fast break Spurs but is a guy who is badly exposed by advanced metrics

Well, you're talking to the wrong guy when it comes to "advanced metrics" and PER. I've never bought into that stuff. But I've seen Elliott play, and he was a threat to me.

As far as numbers, well, 20 ppg on 47% shooting while making over 2 threes per game as he did in '96 is an efficient scoring season, as is 18 ppg on 13 shots per game, which he had done the previous season.


Robinson's peak came in a slower era (90 vs 94, 95 or 96) and one with lower fg% (I suspect). Robinson's advantages aren't really shown in the conventional big man stats they are in lower turnovers and fouls, they are in the assist and steals gap, and in Robinson's ability to get to the line. The combination of pace, and these small advantages cumulatively mean that Ewing's peak PER comes out at 25.8, Robinson's at 30.7.

I'd also argue that Robinson playing in a division with Dikembe Mutombo and Hakeem Olajuwon (playing them 5 and 6 times respectively probably didn't help his numbers.

Yes, I've always considered peak to be single season, while prime covers multiple seasons.

Fair point about Hakeem and Mutombo, and you are right about the league getting slower and defenses continuing to get better.

Regardless, Ewing was more efficient in his '90 season vs Robinson's '94 season so that balances out to some degree with a FG% of 55% to 51% and TS% of 60% to Robinson's 58% making up for the change in the league.

Not to take away from his great regular season, but the 71 point game wasn't the only instance of John Lucas encouraging Robinson to pad his numbers and acting like a cheerleader while he did it. A comical instance that comes to mind is his 50 point game vs Minnesota earlier in the season when Lucas left Robinson in and was cheering for him to shoot a 3 to give him 50 and jumping up and down when he did it.


That Ewing "sustained it" that year only proves that his regular season peak and playoff peak coincided. Robinsons career playoff PER is superior (23 vs 19.6) AND is so despite playing a higher proportion of his career playoff minutes past his prime.

Remember that Ewing faced much better defenses in the playoffs such as the Bulls, Bad Boy Pistons, Riley/Zo's Heat, Larry Brown's Pacers, Hakeem's Rockets(and the '94 team was much better defensively than the '95 team) and Fratello's Cavs.

Robinson faced a good deal of run and gun teams which were more common in the West such as the '90 Nuggets, the Blazers in '90 and '93, Run TMC in '91 and Barkley's Suns in '93 and '96.

Watching Ewing in '90 when he was a clear step quicker, that baseline fadeaway was just unguardable, and his running moves in the lane were that much more effective with the added quickness.

I've just never seen Robinson operate in the post like Ewing at his peak. And I think that skill set was just more equipped for playoff basketball. I've seen other players offensive numbers decrease a lot in the playoffs due to skill set not translating as well such as pre'09 Lebron when his shooting was erratic, '10 Durant when he really relied on foul calls, Karl Malone over the course of his career ect.

I've never seen Robinson show anything similar to what Ewing did during the '90 playoffs alone, and that wasn't the extent of Ewing's memorable playoff performances.

3 straight elimination games vs a Boston team withHCA and a much more talented team.

33/19
44/13/5/7 on 18/24 FG
31/8/10/4

He averaged 32/12/4/2/2 on 57 FG% for the series.

The Bad Boys did a much better job, though the Knicks were completely overmatched, and Detroit was the best defensive team in the league. Ewing still had a dominant 45/16/6/3 game 3 including 16 points in the 4th and after being limited to a scoreless first half in game 4 due to foul trouble, he exploded for 30 points in the second half.


I possibly did oversell the Knicks pgs a little. But Sticks per 36 numbers in NYC were pretty sick. The point was he played with strong passers and legitimately good pgs. I think Strickland outplaying him was maybe what messed up Jackson.

Well per 36 numbers another thing I'm not huge on. Strickland was only playing 17 mpg and 20 mpg with the Knicks in '89 and '90, respectively so Ewing obviously wasn't benefiting from his talent much.

Had Strickland showed that much with the Knicks, he wouldn't have been traded for a 33 year old point guard(who in all fairness did do a good job). He did play very well with the Spurs, though. Rod was a very creative scorer and great passer, but he wasn't a key part of the Knicks.


I'll just agree to disagree on the supporting casts. The Knicks were one of the best defensive teams ever and multiple shot creators. The Spurs had an elite rebounder (who sagged off Horry to chase rebounds) and a headcase, Sean Elliott (dealt with in the previous post), a very much below average backcourt, and an aging Chuck Person. That year wasn't Robinson's best in the playoffs but he wasn't helped by Rodman getting himself suspended and taken out of games

I think these are fair points, and the Knicks did have good teams, I grew up with them, so i won't revise history. I think it's fair to say that they were better all around than Robinson's Spurs, but they also won more.


I also have a problem with just using his elimination series especially when his beasting of Golden State in '91 has been so casually dismissed (over his last two games in that series he got 59 points off just 22 field goal attempts).

He was hardly the Spurs main problem, but his points really were quiet and having their centers often playing on the perimeter forced Robinson out of the paint and really limited his defensive impact so I definitely wouldn't say he beasted.

The 55 win Spurs were upset by the 44 win Warriors and Nelson's Warriors typically gave up big series statistically. Nelson's Warriors also upset the Jazz in '89, and John Stockton averaged 27/3/14 on 51%. He never approached those numbers in any other series, yet they were swept. Granted, I haven't seen this series so I can't completely compare it to Robinson in '91.

But I can compare to the '94 Suns/Warriors series. Barkley was starting to break down with injuries after a great start to the '94 season, and you could see in the Houston series that he already didn't look like the player he once was. Yet in the first round vs Golden State, he averaged 37/13/6/3 on 61 FG%, and that's with his teammate KJ averaging 27/3/9 on 49% and 3rd option Dan Majerle added 20 ppg.

'92 is another example. Shawn Kemp averaged 22/16 on 54% shooting, Ricky Pierce averaged 21 ppg on 48% shooting, Eddie Johnson averaged 19 ppg on 53% shooting in just 27 mpg and Derrick McKey averaged 18/6/3 on 59% shooting.

Kemp averaged just 16/10 on 50% for the season, Eddie Johnson played more mpg at 29, but averaged just 17 ppg on 46% shooting and Derrick McKey averaged 15/5 on 47% shooting.



That Ewing had it in him to play as an equal vs probably any center ever in a single game.

But he started to operate less on the low block and in transition and more spotting up and facing up from 15-20 feet. He was never the same. Still great. But not the physical beast he used to be.

It's an odd case where a player just has a season where he plays much better than any other year.

He hit some 18-20 footers that year, but he didn't rely on it. He just dominated the post.

This is some of the stuff that was said about Ewing that year.


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

''If he doesn't win it, he'll be right there,'' said Magic Johnson, who has won the award twice. ''And if he continues putting up the numbers he's putting up, it's going to be hard for any of us to beat him out.


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


"People are starting to see what a force he can be," Bulls superstar Michael Jordan said. "With the numbers he's putting up and the way he's carrying that team, there's no question he's a top MVP candidate. I don't see anyone better than him right now."


"I've never seen him do better," Bol said. Asked who is the league's best center , he replied: "I would say before Akeem but now Ewing, sure the way he played tonight. His game is different than years His game is different than years ago. He's shooting the outside jump shot and the jump hook."

Cotton Fitzsimmons who coached the Suns at the time said "Patrick Ewing is the best center in the NBA, in my opinion." and Bill Musselman who at the time said "He's as good as any center in the game of basketball, there's no question about that."

[westsideozzie]

Looks like Robinson got to the free throw line alot more than Ewing. Looks like Robinson was the better rebounder. Wow, if you look at the composite of all their stats, it's Robinson by a mile. I thought it was closer, but it is not.

[Round Mound]

Robinson was better. Hate to say it, i liked Ewing more

[Big#50]

Ewing played worse against Hakeem than DROB did. Everybody gives Robinson shit, but Ewing played worse. He also had more help defensively against The Dream.

[magnax1]

In his prime(Im gonna say after his heavily injured first couple years and before 96 when Don Nelson started making him play at 20 feet and shoot 3s...

20 a game on 56% shooting in 31 minutes a game
23 on 57% in 36 minutes
29 on 55% in 39
27 on 51%
24 on 52%
24 on 50
25 on 50
24 on 50

He shot between 72 and 77% from the line. Perfectly fine for a bigman. Thats what we are calling inefficient?

Has it really come to that?

What about Duncan?

He was doing pretty much the same scoring numbers as Ewing but shooting worse. And he only scored 23 a game 3 seasons of his career. And he shot 49 and 51% twice in those seasons

That a problem?
From 90-94 in the playoffs he shot a putrid 52% TS% over 65 games. It's worse if you exclude his only real good shooting year of 90.
It honestly wouldn't bug me much if he was anywhere near the passer that Robinson was. Just the way Ewing played created offenses with little or no ball movement. He was mechanical in the post, and was often forced to the perimeter, where he really didn't really apply any sort of pressure to opposing defenses. As an offensive player, I just don't think Ewing was impressive, or at least impressive on the level of people he's compared too and as he aged, I felt like his team was sometimes being handicapped by how he approached the game.
He was quite lucky to play with the defenses he did, which I think you could easily argue were the best ever in 93 and 94. He does deserve a ton of credit for those defenses though. I'm not fond of his offensive game, but I think he's under rated defensively. While Hakeem and Robinson often are listed as two of the best defenders ever, Ewing, who I think was very close to both of them as a team defender (especially at his best) is rarely mentioned.

[eliteballer]

Robinson was clearly, flat out better...but to be fair to Ewing, his knees deteriorated early in his career and hampered his mobility .

[Kblaze8855]

From 90-94 in the playoffs he shot a putrid 52% TS% over 65 games.

So your claim that he is inefficient was not in reference to his 8 prime seasons of great scoring on good to outstanding shooting....I see.


It's worse if you exclude his only real good shooting year of 90.


Im sure its better if you exclude his only really bad one as well. And in that really bad one he was leading a team that fell a single jumper short of winning the title. He shot poorly in a 3 game playoff run that really wasnt as bad as it seems(often the case when you make averages out of just 3 games). That aside he shot 49, 49, 52, 46, 51, the 94 season ill mention shortly and 51, 47, and 53% before another short series poor performance a good bit past his prime. Hardly anything noteworthy in anegative way.

And not like hewas even playing poorly in 94. He had 27/14/5 blocks and 36/14/5 to close out the first series, He had one game you could complain about vs the Bulls and he had 18/17/6 in that and shot 7-17 and they won so its not like he shot them out of the game. He shot poorly in 2 of 7 games vs the Pacers and only took 10 shots in each of them one of them being an overall shitty day for their offense. He had 24/22/7/5 to get them to the finals.

He shot poorly in the finals and got generally outplayed by Hakeem. But there wasnt anyone acting like Ewing had a bad playoff run. It was the most praise he ever got. But nearly 20 years later somehow it becomes unimpressive due to true shooting percentages?


It honestly wouldn't bug me much if he was anywhere near the passer that Robinson was.

Did Robinson actually get more done with that advantage?

And I dont even mean winning. Its not like Drob was leading juggernaut offenses playing a mile above their heads due to his passing. Its an advantage he had. But if he were on the Knicks they would miss Ewings traits as much as they would gain from Drobs or more.


Just the way Ewing played created offenses with little or no ball movement.

Depends on the year and the coach. The Knicks with Mark Jackson and Rod Strickland had beautiful ball movement and were one of the best and most exciting teams ever in transition and he was a big part of that. Passing is often called contagious. When your point is a passer the team passes more. When its John Starks or Harper/Anthony who at that point was there for defense and shooting.....maybe not.


He was mechanical in the post

Youtube some clips of him dropping like 50 on the Celtics almost all out of the post. Mechanical perhaps...but it went in the basket.


and was often forced to the perimeter, where he really didn't really apply any sort of pressure to opposing defenses.

Not in his prime. Not forced I mean. He wasnt being really held out of his spots till deep into the 90s.



As an offensive player, I just don't think Ewing was impressive, or at least impressive on the level of people he's compared too and as he aged, I felt like his team was sometimes being handicapped by how he approached the game.

The way he approached the game made them one of the best teams of the 90s and got them Hakeems pinky on a title winning jumper from a ring....


He was quite lucky to play with the defenses he did, which I think you could easily argue were the best ever in 93 and 94. He does deserve a ton of credit for those defenses though. I'm not fond of his offensive game, but I think he's under rated defensively. While Hakeem and Robinson often are listed as two of the best defenders ever, Ewing, who I think was very close to both of them as a team defender (especially at his best) is rarely mentioned.

I dont know if I like the idea of a teams most important defender being called lucky to play on his defense. Isnt the defense more lucky to have him?

[NugzHeat3]

Good post.

I understand Nellie using classic mismatches and believe that's why he had Bol shooting threes back in the day (to drag centers out of the paint). I agree Robinson would be expected to get numbers to a degree against GSW. But looking at the boxscores I can't see how he could do much more than he did. GSW had 3 all star calibre players (and Sarunas), Robinson was just overmatched, GSW had more talent.

Fair enough on the Olajuwon thing, just thought that setting playoffs Olajuwon as the bar is setting a bar very few centers will match.

I'm in semi-agreement on offensive spacing, their talent was concentrated in the frontcourt. I've made my points on with regard to fast break points, easier to focus on O etc. I would say they were better spaced than the Spurs. Partially because Rodman's man was free to wander with impunity unless he was concerned with boxing out in advance, but also because the stats back it up. The Knicks took 1446 threes (6th most), the Spurs only 1158 (19th in a 27 team league).

The one other things is by discussing Robinson on the Knicks we're essentially pitting 92/93-95/96 Robinson (peak) versus 92/93-95/96 Ewing (prime perhaps but not peak). Given that I think the talent gap between their peaks is fairly substantial anyway, and adding this time difference too, I think we can see where the differing opinions come from.

As for spacing, I'm also considering that the Western conference had more of an open game at the time while the East tended to be slower paced and more defensive-oriented. While there are no stats to prove it, I also think Patrick created more opportunities (not referring to assists) during his peak years since he played with his back to basket more which naturally makes it easier to spot shooters and cutters. That also tends to see the ball swing more often and create a hockey assist. He's definitely not a good passer by any means. I wouldn't call him average either, not with those small hands he had and a bit slow to recognize double teams but he saw a good amount of defensive attention since he was the only major threat on NYK and with his back to basket game (peak year), I think he was able to create more. Their ball movement wasn't as bad in 1990 as the latter years mostly because of his teammates.

Robinson was a great passer from the high post, elbow area especially when they made him point center in 1994 but in his natural position while facing up, he can't see the floor the same way back to basket centers can and it's harder for him to break down double teams as it's evident in the series vs Houston. I'm comparing him more to peak Ewing here since Ewing was a bit physically limited and wasn't really a true back to basket center in his latter years. I wouldn't call Ewing a better passer at all but in terms of created opportunities, I think he may have been equal. No

As for comparing the years you mentioned, I'd agree that Robinson better in all outside of 1993.

He probably does give them a better chance to win in 1994 and a deeper run in 1995. In San Antonio, he didn't have much help on Hakeem but playing for New York, they'd be able to rotate Mase and Oakley on him allowing him to focus more on running the floor, help defense and rebounding. He also did much better offensively than Ewing did since he was at least able to pressure Hakeem and draw fouls. Ewing was bothered by Hakeem's swipe, settled for too many jumpshots and often, he was just off. He missed a good bit of wide open jumpers in that series. In 1995, they definitely get to the ECF vs Orlando but I wouldn't favor them over Orlando.

I don't see them beating the Bulls though.


The back to the basket game thing is meaningless. It's not as tho Robinson didn't play well in playoffs and put up numbers there. People just like to generalize what they think a 7foot center should be. Robinson's game was what it was and he was absolutely elite. He's the best playmaking center ever, I believe. He's one of the best passing centers ever. Defensively, he's probably one of the 5 best players ever. He was a great rebounder and the best shot-blocker of the modern era.

Am I supposed to be impresed when he does 20 ppg on 41.1% shooting, 19 ppg on 47.5% shooting, 18.8 ppg on 39.5% shooting? All poor numbers relative to what he put up in the season and what was expected of him.

I couldn't care less if had a back to basket game or not as long as he was effective in the playoffs and he wasn't. At least, not in the way I expect him to be.

He's also not a better passer than Sabonis, Shaq after like 1994 or peak Hakeem. And I only speak for guys from 90s-present. I'm sure people would say Walton, Kareem and others were better too.

He's great and better than those gus I mentioned at passing off the dribble from the high post, elbow area but that's it. That's how he put up 5 assists a game because they gave him a ball handling role and made him a point center but that stuff didn't work too well in the playoffs where he got thrashed around and looked like the biggest laughing stock of the league. He doesn't handle double teams as well as them and I'd much rather run the offense through them in the halfcourt.

[StateOfMind12]

I would consider taking '90 Ewing over '95 Robinson but the problem is that one absolute season does not make you better or above another player in the all-time list.

Both Ewing and Robinson were practically chokers when it came to the post-season though but I don't think Robinson was necessarily a choker. I think Robinson's game was just always exposed in the post-season due to the fact that he never had a reliable post game to create his own shot consistently.

There is a difference between you were never good enough to do such a thing in the first place and you should have done something but you failed to do it because the pressure got to you and such.

I remember Ewing missed a game winning wide open layup that could have easily been a dunk in Game 7 vs. Pacers. I would consider that choking.

I think this debate would be closer if Robinson never played with Duncan but I still believe the majority would roll with Robinson mainly due to stats.

I personally believe a twin towers combination of Ewing and Duncan would not be as effective as Robinson and Duncan were. Robinson was just much a better fit at being a 2nd option player than Ewing was. Robinson was the better passer, rebounder, and a much defender than Ewing was which was what ultimately was Robinson's job was when he played with Duncan. Robinson sacrificed his game to become a 2nd option to win a title. I'm not even sure if Ewing is willing to do that.

I hear JVG talk all the time how Ewing really wanted touches and how he complained all the time but he did keep it a secret and he hid it quite well. I'm not sure if Ewing would be able to consistently do it on a night to night basis like Robinson did. To add more, you also have keep in mind that JVG coached an old and declining Ewing on the Knicks, not a young, prime Ewing either. Even old and declining Ewing wanted a lot of touches despite the fact that he wasn't as reliable as he once was.

[PTB Fan]

While he wasn't as talented nor or physically gifted as Robinson (in terms of speed, mobility), Ewing was IMO a better player due to the fact he was a better scorer, better shooter, presence on the glass, more tougher player and better performer on the highest stage.

[Whoah10115]

Am I supposed to be impresed when he does 20 ppg on 41.1% shooting, 19 ppg on 47.5% shooting, 18.8 ppg on 39.5% shooting? All poor numbers relative to what he put up in the season and what was expected of him.

I couldn't care less if had a back to basket game or not as long as he was effective in the playoffs and he wasn't. At least, not in the way I expect him to be.

He's also not a better passer than Sabonis, Shaq after like 1994 or peak Hakeem. And I only speak for guys from 90s-present. I'm sure people would say Walton, Kareem and others were better too.

He's great and better than those gus I mentioned at passing off the dribble from the high post, elbow area but that's it. That's how he put up 5 assists a game because they gave him a ball handling role and made him a point center but that stuff didn't work too well in the playoffs where he got thrashed around and looked like the biggest laughing stock of the league. He doesn't handle double teams as well as them and I'd much rather run the offense through them in the halfcourt.



Let me clarify my comment about a back to the basket game. I don't think it's relevant as far as judging who is or who isn't better. And that's just a comment I made to everyone.




Robinson is a better passer than Shaq. At any point. But I don't necessarily think he's a better passer than Hakeem. That's up for debate. Kareem was a very good passer. Walton and Sabonis are probably the best ever. So I do have Robinson as one of the best, but certainly not the best and probably not top 5. But I do think his playmaking ability is probably the best ever for a center.





I always differentiate between being a good passer and running the offense thru someone. That's what I always say about Shaq. One of the better big man passers ever, but I don't run my offense thru him because he is a black hole. He's my #1 option, but he doesn't facilitate offense. It obviously helps when he converts such a high volume at such a ridiculous percentage.



But I think Robinson is a little different. You may not want to run your offense thru him, but then again he can kind of set it up. It's a lot like KG. Less to do with something being built around him and more to do with him making things happen, if that makes sense (this is much easier to explain when talking about soccer).

[NugzHeat3]

Let me clarify my comment about a back to the basket game. I don't think it's relevant as far as judging who is or who isn't better. And that's just a comment I made to everyone.




Robinson is a better passer than Shaq. At any point. But I don't necessarily think he's a better passer than Hakeem. That's up for debate. Kareem was a very good passer. Walton and Sabonis are probably the best ever. So I do have Robinson as one of the best, but certainly not the best and probably not top 5. But I do think his playmaking ability is probably the best ever for a center.





I always differentiate between being a good passer and running the offense thru someone. That's what I always say about Shaq. One of the better big man passers ever, but I don't run my offense thru him because he is a black hole. He's my #1 option, but he doesn't facilitate offense. It obviously helps when he converts such a high volume at such a ridiculous percentage.



But I think Robinson is a little different. You may not want to run your offense thru him, but then again he can kind of set it up. It's a lot like KG. Less to do with something being built around him and more to do with him making things happen, if that makes sense (this is much easier to explain when talking about soccer).
Well, the point about his B2B game should be relevant in my opinion. He noticeably struggled with his face up game and at times, he was reduced to being a non-factor in the halfcourt. That's where a B2B game would've greatly benefited him.

Also, how is Shaq a blackhole?

I've never seen him hog, take low percentage shots, bad shots over double teams, freeze his teammates or any of that. He's always been a willing passer and worked extremely well in the triangle when Phil made it a point to emphasize more ball movement and take higher percentage shots. For example, he'd kickout if he didn't have a good look or deep position, then they'd re-post when he'd have better position ect. He's made the right passes when double teamed. He's not the type of guy who forced shots. Maybe he took som bad shots in his rookie year but that's because his passing was pretty poor at the time.

I'd take him over any other center I've seen to run an offense through. Dominant one on one scorer + draws a lot of defensive attention + great passer out of double teams + great on the offensive glass. His teammates have always spoken highly of his presence and his ability to open up the game for them. Here's Wade for example:



"Everyone is focused on him," Wade said. "I've never seen anyone get the attention he does. When Shaq's on the floor, thing open up for me. It's been a little easier for me to pick and choose my spots. The attention that he draws makes things a lot easier when he's on the floor."
http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/columns/story?columnist=ford_chad&id=1915767

Why would you not want to run an offense through him?

I agree with the last paragraph though. Robinson would be (and was) a great passer in the situation you're describing.

[Whoah10115]

Well, the point about his B2B game should be relevant in my opinion. He noticeably struggled with his face up game and at times, he was reduced to being a non-factor in the halfcourt. That's where a B2B game would've greatly benefited him.

Also, how is Shaq a blackhole?

I've never seen him hog, take low percentage shots, bad shots over double teams, freeze his teammates or any of that. He's always been a willing passer and worked extremely well in the triangle when Phil made it a point to emphasize more ball movement and take higher percentage shots. For example, he'd kickout if he didn't have a good look or deep position, then they'd re-post when he'd have better position ect. He's made the right passes when double teamed. He's not the type of guy who forced shots. Maybe he took som bad shots in his rookie year but that's because his passing was pretty poor at the time.

I'd take him over any other center I've seen to run an offense through. Dominant one on one scorer + draws a lot of defensive attention + great passer out of double teams + great on the offensive glass. His teammates have always spoken highly of his presence and his ability to open up the game for them. Here's Wade for example:


http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/columns/story?columnist=ford_chad&id=1915767

Why would you not want to run an offense through him?

I agree with the last paragraph though. Robinson would be (and was) a great passer in the situation you're describing.




3peat Shaq is definitely much different and, for all the dislike I have for him, I do think that guy was amazing and should have won 2 MVP's. A lot of my issues with him are because of how much he could get away with, but I do think he was a great passer.



But running thru him...He certainly benefited from Phil. Everyone does, but his actual game improved. The triangle was meant for him and I think it really impedes selfish play (tho Kobe tries to prove otherwise). But the triangle hardly ran thru anybody. It was a system everyone was a part of.



Maybe black hole is too strong. But I certainly wouldn't choose him to run an offense thru. I'd take Patrick way before Shaq. But that's another argument.

[Big#50]

3peat Shaq is definitely much different and, for all the dislike I have for him, I do think that guy was amazing and should have won 2 MVP's. A lot of my issues with him are because of how much he could get away with, but I do think he was a great passer.



But running thru him...He certainly benefited from Phil. Everyone does, but his actual game improved. The triangle was meant for him and I think it really impedes selfish play (tho Kobe tries to prove otherwise). But the triangle hardly ran thru anybody. It was a system everyone was a part of.



Maybe black hole is too strong. But I certainly wouldn't choose him to run an offense thru. I'd take Patrick way before Shaq. But that's another argument.
Ewing over Shaq? Yikes. Shaq was one of the best passers out of the double once he mastered it. Not one player in NBA history got as much attention defensively. You run the offense through the mosy dominant player ever.

[Whoah10115]

Ewing over Shaq? Yikes. Shaq was one of the best passers out of the double once he mastered it. Not one player in NBA history got as much attention defensively. You run the offense through the mosy dominant player ever.



I don't. I'd give him the ball to score, but I wouldn't build an offense around or thru him. I'd just let him be my 1st option, if that makes sense. What would Shaq do with those Knick teams? Starks had his moments but obviously was far from consistent. I'm not saying Shaq wouldn't be great without Penny, Kobe, or Wade. I am saying that my point would be a lot more clear.


Also, I would not pick Shaq of Ewing. I'm not going to depend on Shaq and the insane amount of garbage he got away with. It's kinda sickening. People used to talk about how Ewing got away with travels and that was fair. But that isn't something he couldn't adjust to. Shaq made a living out of getting away with stuff and I can't handle that.



He had plenty of talent tho. So it's not like I'm saying he's just a product of being big.

[NugzHeat3]

3peat Shaq is definitely much different and, for all the dislike I have for him, I do think that guy was amazing and should have won 2 MVP's. A lot of my issues with him are because of how much he could get away with, but I do think he was a great passer.



But running thru him...He certainly benefited from Phil. Everyone does, but his actual game improved. The triangle was meant for him and I think it really impedes selfish play (tho Kobe tries to prove otherwise). But the triangle hardly ran thru anybody. It was a system everyone was a part of.



Maybe black hole is too strong. But I certainly wouldn't choose him to run an offense thru. I'd take Patrick way before Shaq. But that's another argument.

You can ignore the Phil years too. It's no doubt the triangle had a positive influence on his game but he got praise in his Orlando + Miami years too.

He really improved his passing in 1995 and he was the go to guy in the halfcourt. They were great in transition mainly because of Penny but Shaq was the go to guy in the halfcourt and got the shooters great looks. No surprise they were a great offensive team.

Even in the Miami years, he had a similar impact by drawing a lot of attention (you can see the Wade quote + Chuck Daly commented on it as well) albeit not to the same extent since certain parts of his game had slowed down.

As for how much he got away with, it's always been a controversial debate and I can see why you think that. One side will argue he got away with too many offensive fouls by lowering his shoulder while the other side will argue he should've drawn more fouls than he actually did just because of how much contact he draw. Personally, I've never really thought he got away with that much because it always ended up balancing out since he got a lot of 3 second violations and offensive fouls called on him as well. And at times, the refs would allow defenders to be overly physical to negate the athleticism + size Shaq had.

[ShaqAttack3234]

From 90-94 in the playoffs he shot a putrid 52% TS% over 65 games. It's worse if you exclude his only real good shooting year of 90.

Here's Ewing from '90-'93 in the playoffs and Robinson from '93-'96

Ewing- 25 ppg, 10.8 rpg, 2.5 apg, 2.5 TO, 2.2 bpg, 1 spg, 49.2 FG%, 53.4 TS%, 40 games
Robinson- 23.8 ppg, 11.5 rpg, 3.2 apg, 2.9 TO, 2.8 bpg, 1.3 spg, 46.3 FG%, 53.6 TS%, 39 games

A fair stretch to compare, around the same amount of games, and a 4 year stretch.

Both of their true primes(before Ewing's athleticism really left him) and '93 was when I noticed Robinson's passing and jumper improving, I only started watching around '93, but I've seen quite a few Ewing and Robinson games from before then.

Ewing ended up with more points on an equal TS% and much better FG% which I consider more efficient overall.

Robinson's slight edge in rebounding is also canceled out by the fact that Ewing played all 40 of those games with Oakley, while Robinson played just 17 of them with Rodman.

Even the all around numbers where Robinson has an edge, aren't that lopsided. More assists and a slightly better assist/turnover ratio, 0.6 more bpg and 0.3 more spg.

And even with that eliminating most of those run and gun series from the early 90's. Ewing still faced better defenses on average.



I hear JVG talk all the time how Ewing really wanted touches and how he complained all the time but he did keep it a secret and he hid it quite well. I'm not sure if Ewing would be able to consistently do it on a night to night basis like Robinson did. To add more, you also have keep in mind that JVG coached an old and declining Ewing on the Knicks, not a young, prime Ewing either. Even old and declining Ewing wanted a lot of touches despite the fact that he wasn't as reliable as he once was.

This is true, and a poorly kept secret, if it was supposed to be one. When Don Nelson was here, one of the big problems between him and Ewing was that he wanted him to become a better and more willing passer. While Nelson was the wrong coach for the team, and had his share of boneheaded ideas, this in particular was a reasonable request.

As Ewing got older, his flaws were exposed more, but he remained an impact player and good scorer/rebounder throughout his Knicks career.

There was some debate over if he made them worse in '99 and '00 when they won a few games without Indiana without him as well as the '98 Heat(though I think Zo or someone else was injured for part of that series). In reality, that was an overreaction, they just happened to match up better with Indiana who was a perimeter shooting team without Ewing since they were quicker.

What happened with Ewing as he got older is that he lost a lot of mobility making him more predictable and his reactions slower in the late 90's/2000. He was also much slower with his rotations, but they desperately needed him vs most big teams. No way do they upset the '99 Heat without him, and I guarantee the '99 finals are at least closer with Ewing because it was painful watching Robinson and Duncan just shoot over LJ when he was matched up since Camby was always in foul trouble. The only player who did a credible job on Duncan was Chris Dudley and his offense made it impossible to play him big minutes.

But the 2000 Knicks were only 11-9 without him and 39-23 with him, plus Sprewell and Houston mentioned how much his presence was missed in 201 when they lost in the first round to a less talented Raptor team than the one they swept the previous year.



Robinson is a better passer than Shaq. At any point. But I don't necessarily think he's a better passer than Hakeem.

Honestly, as passers, I'd go Shaq>Hakeem>Robinson.

Hakeem was probably at least Shaq's equal as a playmaker, but Shaq's passes seemed more crisp and accurate.


I always differentiate between being a good passer and running the offense thru someone. That's what I always say about Shaq. One of the better big man passers ever, but I don't run my offense thru him because he is a black hole. He's my #1 option, but he doesn't facilitate offense. It obviously helps when he converts such a high volume at such a ridiculous percentage.

I've literally never heard Shaq called a black hole and I've followed his career closely. After about '95, he was a very good passer and showing potential by '94. He was such a good passer that Phil toyed around with the idea of putting him as a "point center".

Some were calling him the best passing big man during the 3peat, I disagree with that considering Sabonis and Vlade were around, and Webber if we're including PF, but he was still an excellent passer.




But running thru him...He certainly benefited from Phil. Everyone does, but his actual game improved. The triangle was meant for him and I think it really impedes selfish play (tho Kobe tries to prove otherwise). But the triangle hardly ran thru anybody. It was a system everyone was a part of.

I agree that the triangle and Phil brought the best out of him(though Rudy T did the same or Hakeem).

But the offense still definitely ran through Shaq in the triangle. He's stated many times that the first option was to go inside to Shaq for a quick power move, or for him to pass out quick if he was doubled and re-post or swing the ball.

But I've always found it impressive that Shaq put up numbers as good/better as the other greats playing far more within a structured offense and he adjusted remarkably quick to the triangle. While Hakeem for an example had the entire offense revolve around him when Rudy T was there with 4 other guys out of the paint to space the floor, which of course brought the best out of Hakeem and the team, though it gave them more trouble on the offensive glass.

As far as Penny, Wade and Kobe. Well, Shaq was going to play his game regardless. The 3peat Lakers were 25-6 with Shaq and without Kobe, and that was with a very limited amount of talent around Shaq in the games Kobe missed.

There was a much publicized game in 2001 when the Lakers played the Spurs and Shaq had a ton of assists and hockey assists, iirc which led to 7 players in double figures. I've seen numerous other players mention how much better Shaq made everyone. To follow up NugzHeat's quote from Wade, here's one from Penny Hardaway in 2000.


" Shaq takes so much pressure off you. He opens things up for Kobe."


"I've wondered what would have happened if he hadn't left," he says, referring to O'Neal's departure as a free agent in 1996. "That's when things started going downhill for everyone, including me."

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/vault/article/magazine/MAG1019218/index.htm

Remember 2007, when Wade went down and everyone thought Miami had little to no chance at the playoffs, but a well past his prime Shaq led Miami to a 16-7 record without Wade.


Maybe black hole is too strong. But I certainly wouldn't choose him to run an offense thru. I'd take Patrick way before Shaq. But that's another argument.

As much as I like Ewing, this really puzzles me because Ewing wasn't a particularly willing passer, in fact among great centers, Moses is the one guy I'd call a bigger black hole. But Ewing was also considerably less dominant than Shaq as a scorer as well as being a much less skilled and less willing passer.

[NugzHeat3]

Ewing- 25 ppg, 10.8 rpg, 2.5 apg, 2.5 TO, 2.2 bpg, 1 spg, 49.2 FG%, 53.4 TS%, 40 games
Robinson- 23.8 ppg, 11.5 rpg, 3.2 apg, 2.9 TO, 2.8 bpg, 1.3 spg, 46.3 FG%, 53.6 TS%, 39 games
Wow, these numbers are pretty damn close. Not a noticeable difference at all.

Didn't know about Nelson/Ewing either. Thanks for that.