Robinson vs. Ewing

[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/column...had&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/column...had&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/vau...9218/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.