# Patrick Ewing The Best Knick? Some Critics Don't Think So



## USSKittyHawk (Jul 22, 2005)

> Considering how poorly the Knicks are playing, the good times seem like a long, long time ago. It's been forever since the Knicks have been good - and even longer since they've won a title (1973).
> 
> While watching this current group play over the weekend, I felt compelled to think back to better days. Maybe it was my frustration with the current bunch. More likely, though, it was the constant promos by the MSG Network for the "50 Greatest Moments at Madison Square Garden."
> 
> ...


http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/basketball/story/468558p-394306c.html

What do you guys think? Was Ewing the best Knick ever? I would love to hear from the "old timers" ::Cough cough:: Dog


----------



## alphaorange (Jul 2, 2006)

*Eat me......just kiddin'*

Ewing was great no doubt, but he didn't have as complete a game as some of the great ones. Clyde not only scored and dished, he was also a great defender, got tons of steals, and was the original Mr. Clutch. Reed was injured so much his numbers actually suffer for it. I think because he had so few really healthy years he belongs with King. Both coulda, and prolly woulda been the greatest. One thing about Clydes scoring: he was on arguably the most balanced offensive team ever. Ew was primary...always. You would expect his scoring to be more. Had he had a Tonto to go with his Lone Ranger, he may have won a title or two. My vote......#10.


----------



## Tragedy (Dec 9, 2002)

*Re: Eat me......just kiddin'*

Ewing was not the best or most talented knick, but without a doubt he is the GREATEST.

He exemplified what it was to be a Knick, was drafted one, came in with great fanfare and (almost) delivered. 

Those Knick teams that won the championship had some GREAT players, while Ewing played alongside former grocery baggers and guys who definitely aren't heading to the HOF.

I gotta give it to Ewing. I was at the retirement ceremony in 03 too, and all those past Knicks agree that the GOAT knick is Ewing.


----------



## Tragedy (Dec 9, 2002)

*Re: Eat me......just kiddin'*

Oh yea, 57 victories in 94 with John Starks as his no. 2.


----------



## EwingStarksOakley94 (May 13, 2003)

*Re: Eat me......just kiddin'*



Tragedy said:


> Ewing was not the best or most talented knick, but without a doubt he is the GREATEST.
> 
> He exemplified what it was to be a Knick, was drafted one, came in with great fanfare and (almost) delivered.
> 
> ...


I couldn't agree more. There are alot of great Knicks to mention, and certainly it's hard to argue with the championships won by Clyde and Willis. But Patrick consistently kept us 2nd to Jordan's Bulls. And he never had a Scottie to share the rock with.


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

Pat Ewing to me is easily #1 

no offense to clyde and willis but really now , how good would those teams have been without the stacked talent and they had to rely on themselves with helper talents , but no stars at all.

jerry lucas , earl monroe, bill bradley and dave debusschere , thats 4 hall of famers .

and thats besides willis and clyde .

did pat even play with 1?

you give ewing that much talent and he wins at least 2 titles , possibly a dynasty and we are talking about him and not MJ in the 90's


----------



## alphaorange (Jul 2, 2006)

*Please.....*

They beat the lakers when they had West, Goodrich, Hairston, and WILT. You guys are just too young. Title game.....Walt with 43 and 19? Beat 'em again with Jerry Lucas at center. Ewing had talented guys, too. Just no shooter to complement him. Oakley, Mason, Starks, Harper. The Ewing Knicks were built to win in a grab, push, anything goes defensive era (which, by the way, almost killed the NBA). They would have been decimated in any other time period because no one would have been around at the end of the games. They were great because of team play both sides of the court, but make no mistake, Walt was the original "straw that stirs the drink".


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

*Re: Please.....*



alphaorange said:


> They beat the lakers when they had West, Goodrich, Hairston, and WILT. You guys are just too young. Title game.....Walt with 43 and 19? Beat 'em again with Jerry Lucas at center. Ewing had talented guys, too. Just no shooter to complement him. Oakley, Mason, Starks, Harper. The Ewing Knicks were built to win in a grab, push, anything goes defensive era (which, by the way, almost killed the NBA). They would have been decimated in any other time period because no one would have been around at the end of the games. They were great because of team play both sides of the court, but make no mistake, Walt was the original "straw that stirs the drink".


lets see whats easier beating wilt with jerry lucas for 7 games and willis for 5 games .

or trying to win against MJ with gerald wilkins as your starting 2 ?

i think i'll take my chances with the 2 HOF's, wilt despite all his ability was taken out of his game by willis by simply showing up and playing.

can you picture gerald wilkins doing the same to michael jordan?

i bet you cant.

its just common sense the knicks of the early 70's were a stacked team , the 73 team started a HOF at all 5 starting spots and lucas off the bench 

ewing had not 1 teammate as good as any of the knicks top 6 then, the knicks had some talent but its really not close ...

ewing accomplished alot with what he had , there is no doubt he would have done great things with a similar supporting cast, especially one that worked as seemlessly to every1's talents as those early 70's teams


----------



## Tragedy (Dec 9, 2002)

*Re: Please.....*



Da Grinch said:


> lets see whats easier beating wilt with jerry lucas for 7 games and willis for 5 games .
> 
> or trying to win against MJ with gerald wilkins as your starting 2 ?
> 
> ...


 If Ewing had just ONE HOF player he would have at MINIMUM one ring, and maybe as many as three or even four.

But even without that, there's a reason the Knicks are essentially broken up into four main categories. The championship TEAMS (of 70 and 73), the pre EWING era, the EWING era, and the post EWING era.

Damn, he should have retired a Knick.


----------



## Hakeem (Aug 12, 2004)

*Re: Eat me......just kiddin'*



alphaorange said:


> Ewing was great no doubt, but he didn't have as complete a game as some of the great ones. Clyde not only scored and dished, he was also a great defender


I never saw those old guys play, but it's almost impossible for a guard to have as much defensive impact as a great defensive big man like Ewing. A prime Ewing is equivalent to a healthy Duncan, on both ends of the floor (ie he'd be the best player in the league today). I can only name five players from the past two decades who were better than him.


----------



## alphaorange (Jul 2, 2006)

*You guys are too young...*

I saw both eras clearly. I can tell you that there were lots of players more talented than some of the other knicks, but few teams played together as well. Being on the Knicks MADE Dave D and Bradley. On most other teams they are just good players. They are recognized because they played in NY and they won a couple of titles. You act like Oakley was chopped liver. He was an allstar one year..was he not? This is in an era that is much more balanced..as in team and player parity.

AS far as Ewing being top 5 in the last 20 years........you're nuts. Start with just the centers, first.

Kareem, Hakeem, Robinson, Shaq, 

then theres...Magic, Bird, Wilkins, IT, Worthy, Garnett, Duncan, AI, Barkley, MJ, Pippen, and so forth


Hakeem won without a superstar sidekick....who was ITs superstar partner? Truth of the matter is this (take off the orange and blue goggles, boys and girls)...Ewing was a defensive disappointment from what wa expected of him (terrible man defender and shadow of the blocker he was in college), a dynamic shooter, a pretty poor passer, and a good but not great rebounder (except for a fairly short period when he was tremendous). He was also a warrior who more often than not failed in the clutch. I loved having the guy but scoring was his gig. Ever see a big man get dunked on by so many small guys? Bottom line is this: Lots of guys came close with no superstar partner, and some even won it. What seperates Ewing from the rest? Because he was ours...that's what.


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

*Re: You guys are too young...*



alphaorange said:


> I saw both eras clearly. I can tell you that there were lots of players more talented than some of the other knicks, but few teams played together as well. Being on the Knicks MADE Dave D and Bradley. On most other teams they are just good players. They are recognized because they played in NY and they won a couple of titles. You act like Oakley was chopped liver. He was an allstar one year..was he not? This is in an era that is much more balanced..as in team and player parity.
> 
> AS far as Ewing being top 5 in the last 20 years........you're nuts. Start with just the centers, first.
> 
> ...


you aren't serious right ? 

Oak was a 1 time all star...and out of the top 6 or so players on ewing's team when he had only 1 other player with an all star apprearance (starks 1 time).

in all star appreances clyde or willis played with guys who made a total of 27 all star appreances while ewing in those top year had 2.....thats 27 to 2, the talent disparity is really wide 

dave D was an 8 time all star(2-3 times before his knicks years)

bill bradley was a 1 time allstar

willis reed 7 time all star

earl monroe 4 time all star 

jerry lucas 7 time all star 

walt frazier 7 time all star 

debusschere , lucas and monroe were all stars *before* they were knicks , these guys weren't media creations unless det., cincinati and baltimore are media powers and i'm just not aware of it.

Zeke thomas has a HOF partner in dumars(who also has a finals MVP to his record which makes him a superstar in my book) , plus a possible inductee in rodman

olajuwon had drexler(a legit superstar and HOF) ,with cassell, thorpe as all star talent during his his 2 years as champ.

in my opinion hakeem was better than ewing but that doesn't make him a lesser player than any other knick, because olajuwon was better than all of them too.

you can put down ewing for his failures , but give him any 5 HOF players in the 90's in their late 20's early 30's and tell him to go win and i bet he would have done it at least a couple of times .

and nothing separates ewing from guys of a similar ilk , but he was better that the guys from the 70's , but just like the celts vs. wilt its a #s game and 10 HOF's beat his 1 or 2 anyday, but by no means were any individual celtic better than him .

the same situation here , you are falting Ewing for coming up short when clyde or willis had 5 more guys who were excellent in their own right , where ewing didn't have anything close.


----------



## Hakeem (Aug 12, 2004)

*Re: You guys are too young...*



alphaorange said:


> AS far as Ewing being top 5 in the last 20 years........you're nuts. Start with just the centers, first.
> Kareem, Hakeem, Robinson, Shaq,
> then theres...Magic, Bird, Wilkins, IT, Worthy, Garnett, Duncan, AI, Barkley, MJ, Pippen, and so forth


Jordan, Olajuwon, Shaq, Magic, Bird, Robinson. Those are the only players clearly better than Ewing from the past 20 years. Malone and Duncan are on the same level as Ewing. That's it.

Kareem? 20 years ago Kareem was old and too busy having his skyhook blocked and not rebounding or playing defense.



> who was ITs superstar partner?


Isiah had Dumars, Rodman, Aguirre, Laimbeer, Mahorn and Salley. No superstar, but a bunch of good players. Funny how when Isiah was in his absolute prime a few years earlier, the Pistons didn't win anything because he had a weaker supporting cast.



> Ewing was a defensive disappointment from what wa expected of him (terrible man defender and shadow of the blocker he was in college), a dynamic shooter, a pretty poor passer, and a good but not great rebounder (except for a fairly short period when he was tremendous). He was also a warrior who more often than not failed in the clutch. I loved having the guy but scoring was his gig. Ever see a big man get dunked on by so many small guys? Bottom line is this: Lots of guys came close with no superstar partner, and some even won it. What seperates Ewing from the rest? Because he was ours...that's what.


He was a great defender. The mid-'90s Knicks were the greatest defensive team ever. Ewing's man defense was very good. His team defense was fantastic. Guys dunked on him a lot because he challenged everything. 
He averaged an highly efficient 24-29 ppg. He drew a lot of defensive attention.
He grabbed 10-12 rpg playing alongside Charles Oakley and Anthony Mason, who took a ton of rebounds away from him.

The guys you mentioned, like AI, Nique, Barkley, Worthy, etc, don't compare because they do not have nearly the same defensive impact. Ewing was a force on both ends. You had him in the middle and you were well on the way to being a top defensive side.



> (take off the orange and blue goggles, boys and girls)...


The Knicks aren't even my team.


----------



## alphaorange (Jul 2, 2006)

*Whatever....*

The Knicks ARE my team and I have seen all the players for the last 35 years. Ewing was NOT a good defender. Opposing centers had field days against him. He did NOT challenge everything and was far from being a human eraser. AT GT, he was an amazing shot blocker and intimidator but it didn't translate to the pros. And you guys that think he had nobody playing with him are nuts. He had exactly the team around him he needed to have...except one more perimeter player. Those Knick teams were really NOT as good at defense as you think. A well respected referee once commented that they were hard to officiate because they fouled so much. If they called the game the way they should have, there would be no one left to play the 2nd half. Holding, pushing, and shoving do not equate to good defense. Oak was very good at defense and so wasn't Starks. Ewing? Not so much...it wasn't his NBA game.

All those allstar appearances, Grinch.....How many with the Knicks for Lucas...Earl...et al. Drexler was past his prime by far. And comparing Walt? Irrelevant, since we are comparing Ewing and Walt, their all numbers don't matter. Dumars was not ever a superstar...your book or not. Thats a ridiculous statement at best. Rodmans best years were post Piston. Thorpe better than Oakley? Please. Cassel significantly better than Starks? Again...please. The early knicks were less athletic, smarter, and a better team. The guys were hall of famers...sure, but because of what they did as Knicks. On other teams they would have been solid. Check the numbers. Btw, Lucas played for the Knicks his last 2 years, and fulltime for only one. Are you saying that he was allstar caliber? Sorry, no salt. I watched. He was an important cog that was plugged into Reed's spot, when he was injured. Then they proceded to win without Willis. 

Hakeem, your assertions are laughable. Ewing a defensive force? There goes your credibility. Guys dunked on him because he was unable to stop them. You have it backwards. They challenged him, he didn't challenge them. IT didn't win earlier because they were YOUNG. There wassn't a real star in their prime on that team. Dumars was closest. I'm also willing to bet you never saw the skyhook blocked. It happened 3 times in his career. Know who they were? I do. Lastly Grinch, I don't care how many allstar games the other guys played in other than during the championship years. Thats what we are talking about...winning it. Knicks also lost to the Lakers in '72 in the championship series. 

The fact that this is being debated speaks well for Ewing. He was a great one. Point is, you guys are relying on stats to make your case, when, in fact, you were too young to really know what you are talking about regarding the Frazier Knicks, and you tend to glorify Patrick Ewing. I'll give him his due, and if he faced anyone other than MJ he MIGHT have won a title. He got to the title games twice....once because we got a "very beneficial" call on Hubert Davis' three against a MJless bulls team, and once in the short season when he was injured.

For laughs, look at NYs roster for 1999 and tell me about the lack of talent.


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

*Re: Whatever....*



alphaorange said:


> The Knicks ARE my team and I have seen all the players for the last 35 years. Ewing was NOT a good defender. Opposing centers had field days against him. He did NOT challenge everything and was far from being a human eraser. AT GT, he was an amazing shot blocker and intimidator but it didn't translate to the pros. And you guys that think he had nobody playing with him are nuts. He had exactly the team around him he needed to have...except one more perimeter player. Those Knick teams were really NOT as good at defense as you think. A well respected referee once commented that they were hard to officiate because they fouled so much. If they called the game the way they should have, there would be no one left to play the 2nd half. Holding, pushing, and shoving do not equate to good defense. Oak was very good at defense and so wasn't Starks. Ewing? Not so much...it wasn't his NBA game.
> 
> All those allstar appearances, Grinch.....How many with the Knicks for Lucas...Earl...et al. Drexler was past his prime by far. And comparing Walt? Irrelevant, since we are comparing Ewing and Walt, their all numbers don't matter. Dumars was not ever a superstar...your book or not. Thats a ridiculous statement at best. Rodmans best years were post Piston. Thorpe better than Oakley? Please. Cassel significantly better than Starks? Again...please. The early knicks were less athletic, smarter, and a better team. The guys were hall of famers...sure, but because of what they did as Knicks. On other teams they would have been solid. Check the numbers. Btw, Lucas played for the Knicks his last 2 years, and fulltime for only one. Are you saying that he was allstar caliber? Sorry, no salt. I watched. He was an important cog that was plugged into Reed's spot, when he was injured. Then they proceded to win without Willis.
> 
> ...


you are mad because you know you are wrong , and its sad you have to make up things in your head about whats being posted .

i never said ewing had no talent playing with him, i said the gap between walt playing with 5 guys who have a combined 27 all star apperances and 5 hall of famers vs. ewings 2 and zero hall of famers is wide .

the guys with ewing were good ....the guys with walt were great , and that my friend is a big difference

ewing was a bad defender ?

he was on the defensive 2nd team 3 times , thats far from the defense not translating player you paint ...was he as dominating as in college ? no but few players are almost every pro player was a star in college but turn out to be less than that as a pro. he was definitely a very good defender he just wasn't david robinson or olajuwon in that category, they were dominant defensively.

i hate to break it to you but they did have video tape of games in the 70'sthey sell them and they air them on TV , and the internet I personally have seen each and every game of the 73 playoffs of the lakers and the knicks I have a very good handle of how good theose 70's guys were ...I think its you who are overly nostalgic on that era.

and I dont think i've used a single stat, though you have claimed that was all that was used to make this case(thats what i mean by making up things that are clearly not there)

dumars was a legit superstar in fact there are a few superstars who are not in the HOF a place where dumars is , i mean all he was ....was a great defender , scorer /shooter who could play both guard spots and was clutch ...your book probably has lesser lights in it like alex english a great 1 dimensional scorer ...I suggest a revision.

FYI: earl was a 2 time allstar as a knick and 2 times as a bullet, outside of lucas all the rest mentioned were allstars as knicks.

thats still 4 current guys vs. 2 for ewing and it was just 1 year that starks and Oak were considered to have played at an all star level (93-94 ) and in all honesty it was as much because of their play as their win total and expected place in the league that year ((for instance BJ armstrong was also an all star that season) as well as a void left by stars missing the game for various reasons .

you can go to basketball reference if you are so interested in stats and check who they compare john starks to by measure of his nba accomplishments.


Vernon Maxwell (968)
Damon Stoudamire (906)
Toni Kukoc (891)
Danny Ainge (890)
Nick Anderson (889)
David Wesley (887)
Dan Majerle (886)
Dell Curry (884)
Dana Barros (883)
Chuck Person (879

good players but not a HOF in the bunch

earl monroe in comparison 

Similar Players (Career)
Lou Hudson (937)
Walt Frazier* (910)
Dave Bing* (907)
Gail Goodrich* (906)
Calvin Murphy* (897)
Dick Barnett (896)
Pete Maravich* (893)
Dick Vanarsdale (892)
Jeff Malone (891)
Tom Vanarsdale (890 )


the asterisks denote HOF's.

its a significant difference in caliber of player , the players starks measures up with aren't bad players at all , there are some all stars there but its obvous who is considered the better player

and if you were to go and compare the knicks down the line i'm sure you would see who has the better supporting cast by far 

could you imagine if ewing had a similar bunch or players it would be something like gary payton , mitch richmond ,wally Z, mchale, brad daugherty , now this isn't to find guys just like the 70's knicks just imagine if ewing had 5 star players in their own right to call teammates who were diverse talents but well rounded .

do you honestly think he wouldn't have been more successful?

its just being realistic.


----------



## Hakeem (Aug 12, 2004)

*Re: Whatever....*



alphaorange said:


> Ewing was NOT a good defender. Opposing centers had field days against him.


Hakeem Olajuwon played 43 mpg in the '94 Finals, averaging 27 ppg on 50% from the field and getting to the line 6 times per game. In those minutes, in the regular season he averaged 29 ppg on 53% from the field, getting to the line 7 times per game. This was a guy who routinely increased his production in the postseason. He was unable to do it in the Finals because he was mostly guarded by a very good man defender in Ewing.
If you look at Olajuwon's regular season matchup stats with Ewing, you'll see that Ewing defended him only slightly worse than David Robinson and Dikembe Mutombo did, and those two are two of the greatest defenders ever.
From '93 to '96, Shaq averaged 58% from the field. In about 16 matchups with Ewing, he only managed 51% from the field.

That said, Ewing's real value defensively was in team defense. He averaged 3-4 bpg. He set the record for most blocks in a Finals series. And unlike many top interior defenders, he was not over-aggressive. He didn't often fall for fakes or foul unnecessarily. He could not be beaten by jump shooters because his defense was also effective away from the basket. He was able to guard smaller players when he had to switch. He played the passing lanes well. Just a great all round team defender.



> And you guys that think he had nobody playing with him are nuts. He had exactly the team around him he needed to have...except one more perimeter player.


I can't think of one superstar who reached the Finals with a worse supporting cast on offense. The Knicks' second-best offensive player was John Starks, who was merely above-average and certainly not real second-option material. Ewing faced extremely heavy attention from opposing defenses because his teammates were not threatening on the offensive end.



> Those Knick teams were really NOT as good at defense as you think.


Statistically, the '93 and '94 Knicks are the greatest defensive teams of all time (link -- it's not an ordered list; you need to compare opponent rating with the average league rating for each year). From observation, they were brilliant. And before you casually dismiss the stats, realize that it recognizes other top defensive teams, such as the recent Spurs and Pistons sides, the Jordan-era Bulls and the mid-'90s Sonics.



> Ewing a defensive force? There goes your credibility.


No, there goes _your_ credibility. Ewing is pretty much universally recognized as one of the best defensive centers ever. He was named to multiple All-Defense teams right in the middle of Olajuwon's, Robinson's and Eaton's primes. Many opponents, including Michael Jordan, praised him for his defense.



> I'm also willing to bet you never saw the skyhook blocked. It happened 3 times in his career. Know who they were? I do.


You obviously don't. I saw it blocked twice in the '86 WCF, once by Olajuwon and once by Sampson. Olajuwon is known to have blocked it on one other occassion at least. I've seen footage of Wilt doing it twice and Manute Bol doing it once. Artis Gilmore is also supposed to have done it.


----------



## frank9007 (Jul 4, 2006)

Patrick Ewing > David Robinson

The sad thing is that he never got to play with a legit #2 all star player.

Jordan's Bulls his nemesis always had more talent than Ewings Knicks.

Pat Ewing just made things interesting by himself. But man what would happen if Ewing had an All Star swingman like top 50 player like Pippen.


----------



## alphaorange (Jul 2, 2006)

*Put down the pipe, Grinch*

I saw more than just the finals. I watched nearly every home game plus what was on national TV all those years. I also am more than casually familiar with the ABA, so I have seen far more players play than you can even dream about. When you bring up Lucas, you lose me immediately. Regardless of what these guys did sometime and some other palce doesn't matter. Lucas is like Blackman was at the end of his career......savy and occassionally very good, but not special. DD was much like Oak. A better scorer and better rebounder but......he never had the disadvantage(numberwise) playing consistently with a tough rebounding front line. You can say what you want but what made the Knicks of that time special was the WAY they played the game.....much like the spurs. The whole was more than the sum of the parts.

BTW, Ewing was 2nd team defense because he had a few very good shot blocking years. He got so many blocks because in the NBA lots of players had success going at him. He had a lot of opportunities. His man defense, however, was never good...even in college.


----------



## alphaorange (Jul 2, 2006)

*Hakeem, you're nuts*

Sampson got it once and Elvin Hayes got it twice...no one else....ever. Not Wilt, not Hakeem. If you understood anything about the game you would realize that the KNicks made it a TEAM goal to slow Hakeem...it wasn't just Ewing. Your statements are also completely false or exagerations. 94 finals....

Hakeem.....27pts, 50%
Ewing.......19 pts, 36%

In games 6 and 7 when it really mattered, HO did 27.5 vs. Ewings 18. During the regular season that year it was 33 and 16.5 to Ewings 12 and 9.5. Ewing never cracked 4 blocks per game. He was almost there one year with 3.99 but he was over 3 only 4 times in his career. He does not hold the finals record, he could never guard smaller players, and he went for fakes with regularity. Nearly everything you stated as fact is so far from it that if I didn't know better, I'd swear it was satire. The most Ewing blocked in a game was 8. That was equalled or bettered over 100 times in the regular season and 29 times in the playoffs. Do your homework, son. Same with you, Frank. Even with his back problems Robinson out blocked, and out rebounded Ewing. His scoring average was also right there, and he wasn't even much of an offensive option his last few years. The players the knicks had were the type of players Riley wanted. Tough, physical, players willing to sacrifice to win. I think you under-rate them. 

For all the whining about Ewings lack of allstar teammates, he has had many. H2o(twice), Oakley(once), Starks(once), Mark Jackson(once),Larry Johnson (hornets), Kiki(Nuggets), Blackman(Mavs), and Harper was defensive 2nd team. Can we finally put the lack of talent issue to bed and admit that while the teams he played on were talented, they were unbalanced. It is useless to reason with you, Grinch as you rationalize and twist everything. For example, there was a total of 4 allstars on Walts team(counting walt), But you said only 2 for Ewing. Did you forget to count Ewing? Then you go on to say why Walts had more value than Ewings. How the hell do you know? From the stats that say starks was like Damon? From the few tapes you've seen. I'm done with this one. You guys are narrow-minded. Ewing, Oakley, Ward, Houston, and Larry Johnson was one helluva talented team and starks was 6th man of the year. Hell, I forgot all about Spree, another allstar (4 times). Please...


----------



## frank9007 (Jul 4, 2006)

*Re: Hakeem, you're nuts*



alphaorange said:


> For all the whining about Ewings lack of allstar teammates, he has had many. H2o(twice), Oakley(once), Starks(once), Mark Jackson(once),Larry Johnson (hornets), Kiki(Nuggets), Blackman(Mavs), and Harper was defensive 2nd team. Can we finally put the lack of talent issue to bed and admit that while the teams he played on were talented, they were unbalanced. It is useless to reason with you, Grinch as you rationalize and twist everything. For example, there was a total of 4 allstars on Walts team(counting walt), But you said only 2 for Ewing. Did you forget to count Ewing? Then you go on to say why Walts had more value than Ewings. How the hell do you know? From the stats that say starks was like Damon? From the few tapes you've seen. I'm done with this one. You guys are narrow-minded. Ewing, Oakley, Ward, Houston, and Larry Johnson was one helluva talented team and starks was 6th man of the year. Hell, I forgot all about Spree, another allstar (4 times). Please...


Ewing din't have those guys in his prime.

LJ was past his prime when he was in New York and Oak/Starks/Jackson were good players but they were not Pippen caliber.


----------



## Hakeem (Aug 12, 2004)

*Re: Hakeem, you're nuts*



alphaorange said:


> BTW, Ewing was 2nd team defense because he had a few very good shot blocking years.


Yes, that's mainly why he was a great team defender.



> He got so many blocks because in the NBA lots of players had success going at him. He had a lot of opportunities.


So players had a lot of success going at him, yet he was also a very good shot-blocker? How does that work?



> His man defense, however, was never good


Yet he held Shaq to 8% below his regular season FG%, and kept Olajuwon to below his regular season per-minute numbers.



> Sampson got it once and Elvin Hayes got it twice...no one else....ever. Not Wilt, not Hakeem.


You mean _you've_ never seen anyone else do it. Again, I saw Olajuwon block the sky hook. Ask on the Rockets forum, and you'll probably find a couple of others who saw it too.
Here's a clip that shows Wilt blocking it. 



> If you understood anything about the game you would realize that the KNicks made it a TEAM goal to slow Hakeem...it wasn't just Ewing.


And no other team tried that? _Every_ side made it a team goal to slow Hakeem (just like they did for every other dominant player, including Ewing). That is reflected in Olajuwon's averages. Ewing guarded him for most of the '94 Finals and his numbers were worse than they were in the regular season on a per-minute basis.



> Your statements are also completely false or exagerations. 94 finals....
> 
> Hakeem.....27pts, 50%
> Ewing.......19 pts, 36%
> ...


Yes, Olajuwon was the better player. But Ewing did hold him to 26.3 ppg in their 20-or-so matchups from '89 to '96. That is exactly what Olajuwon averaged against Robinson (on marginally better FG%), and less than what he averaged against Mutombo.



> Ewing never cracked 4 blocks per game. He was almost there one year with 3.99 but he was over 3 only 4 times in his career.


He was also 2.99 one year. Nitpicking.



> He does not hold the finals record


I said he _set_ the Finals record, with 30. Duncan broke it, with 32.



> The most Ewing blocked in a game was 8.


No, he got 9 blocks three times (scroll to the bottom). 



> Do your homework, son.


But you promised we could play baseball!


----------



## Hakeem (Aug 12, 2004)

frank9007 said:


> Patrick Ewing > David Robinson


Robinson was better on both ends of the floor. And he outplayed Ewing nearly every time they met.


----------



## alphaorange (Jul 2, 2006)

*Stand corrected*

On the blocked sky hook....with an asterisk. Chamberlain, yes. The other guys got him at the twilight of his career when he was old, slow, and far less athletic. Good blocks but not like Hayes' and Chamberlain's. Frank, you are correct....none of those guys equal Pippen. However, remove Mj and ewing from the equation and the Knicks were more talented 2-12 as a sum.

Hakeem, being a shot block does not equate to being a good defensive player no more than getting steals does. It is but one aspect. Ewing was good, others have been great. You asked how it works that he could have so many blocks and yet still be a bad shot blocker? Mutombo was a far better shot blocker than Ewing although his numbers will probably show something less than a difference of one per game. Why? Because guys didn't challenge him the way they did Ewing. They KNEW DM would get it. They also knew that Ewing could be had..,.so they took it to him more. Guys just didn't shy away from Ewing like they did the other great blockers. Ewing has had more facials than a 50 year old woman. I am also not nitpicking on numbers. You made a statement. It was an exaggeration. Compare to the other great ones and see for yourself. He was last among his contemporaries in blocks.

A big part of the reason the others didn't have bigger scoring numbers against Ewing is the style NY played. Slow, half-court, use the clock possessions. Ewing was only a small part of that. A good man defender will make his man turn it over....take less shots...or shoot a lower %. It just wasn't the case, as a rule. 

Bottom line is this: Top 3 or 4 OFFENSIVE centers of all time. Good, but not great rebounder. Absolute warrior. Poor passer. Not so clutch (as evidenced by the truckload of missed FTs at the end of games). Good shot blocker. Not his fault that he never won a title. Few centers I would have traded him for.


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

*Re: Put down the pipe, Grinch*



alphaorange said:


> I saw more than just the finals. I watched nearly every home game plus what was on national TV all those years. I also am more than casually familiar with the ABA, so I have seen far more players play than you can even dream about. When you bring up Lucas, you lose me immediately. Regardless of what these guys did sometime and some other palce doesn't matter. Lucas is like Blackman was at the end of his career......savy and occassionally very good, but not special. DD was much like Oak. A better scorer and better rebounder but......he never had the disadvantage(numberwise) playing consistently with a tough rebounding front line. You can say what you want but what made the Knicks of that time special was the WAY they played the game.....much like the spurs. The whole was more than the sum of the parts.
> 
> BTW, Ewing was 2nd team defense because he had a few very good shot blocking years. He got so many blocks because in the NBA lots of players had success going at him. He had a lot of opportunities. His man defense, however, was never good...even in college.


if anyone's on crack its you , you talk about me but you want to equate john starks with earl monroe , dave debusshure with charles oakley and bill bradley with the likes of charles smith . we can go down the line jerry lucas was the knicks back up center whom you seem to want to minimalize ....who was the back up center for the knicks in 93-94 ?

a 35 yr. old herb williams ....you want him on par with a 32 yr. old jerry lucas .

are u insane? for one lucas avg.3 times as many points in his back up role another is basically williams was finished for quite some time, but drew a check with the knicks because ewing wanted him on the team and they wanted to appease him , there was no other center on the roster which is the only reason he got as much time as he did. 

bottom line lucas still a good player ...williams wasn't 

the supporting casts were not close , if they were closer perhaps the knicks would have won in 93-94 because it wouldn't have taken much they lost in game 7 at the end of the game off of a blocked starks shot .


and i dont care about the ABA this is not about the ABA , this is about the NBA, specifically the knicks, if you focused more on the subject instead of other matters maybe you'd understand.

at the end of blackmon's career he was watching the knicks just like me because riley wouldn't put him in the game 

your rationale about ewing getting on the 2nd team because of blocks lacks logic.... for 1 thing he was never top 2 in blocks per game in those years he was on the defensive 2nd team , so that eliminates it as the primary criteria .

the media didn't select him because of a stat , they selected him because he was good at defense ....yet you want to make excuses to build your case no matter how silly it sounds ....the ewing only got defensive team votes because he got blocks is one of those occasions , its something when you are obviously wrong , the media says it with their votes (they dont vote on stats , they vote on effectiveness ) and most importantly the stat you used to make your point says you are wrong.

benoit benjamin avg. more blocks than ewing in 88 but he wasn't on the 1st or 2nd team , instead a guy who was behind both ewing and benjamin(as well as the league leader in eaton) in olajuwon was on the 1st team

in 89 manute bol easily led the league at 4.3 bl. per game but he wasn't either defensive team while eaton and ewing were.

in 91-92 olajuwon avg. 4.3 bl to ewing's 3.0 yet ewing was chosen on the defensive team instead of him.

you are the one who is trying to use stats to make your point but lets face it you are obvoiusly wrong 

and since you seem to be so interested on my viewing habits i'll address that, you dont know what i've seen , you dont know me and buddy if you did you would know i dont dream about watching men so dont worry about what i dream of, but more importantly you are proving quite convincingly you dont know as much as me on this subject.

i am not even trying to use numbers to prove myself(although that too is increasingly becoming apparent i could ) i'm using the eyes of the time to tell you what you say is wrong.

the eyes of the time voted 6 knicks on the 72-73 team into the hall of fame ...and the best knicks squad 93-94 1 knicks made that honor and that was ewing obviously.

that 6 in 72-73 made the all star game 34 times and all but bradley were able to do it outside of that season ...outside of ewing & an aged blackmon no other knick made the all star team outside of that season. the eyes of the time did that not you or me, they saw better players in the orange and blue in the 70's than they did in the 90's if you were watching i find it hard to believe you could disagree with such an overwhelming situation its like saying nate thurmond was better than wilt, while one was really good the other was really great, 

in dave D to oak you are comparing a 7 time all star to a 1 time all star a hall of famer to a guy who is most know in Ohio not for being in the hall of fame but but for owning a car wash in cleveland., yet somehow you cant figure out you are talking about 2 different calibers of player, and Oak and stark were number 2 and 3 on that team after ewing ...how can you compare either to a willis reed?

top 6 in min.

frazier , willis, dave D , lucas , bill bradley and earl monroe

top 6 for the latter knicks
ewing , Oak, charles smith , doc rivers, starks and mason 

you think the 5 who followed ewing are comparable with the ones following frazier?

this is truly ridiculous and the only reason i am continuing this is because i am finding it hard to believe you really believe such folly but i'm gonna help you.

the level of player is better over the course of their career in the 70's knicks case and more importantly more of them are in their prime ...outside of jerry lucas and willis who wasn't in their prime?

frazier was 28 monroe was 27 dave D was 32 and bill bradley was 30 all were in the middle of excellent careers.

now to the knicks of 93-94

ewing in his prime as was starks and Oak but outside of them the harp and smith were not the same one due to age the other knees and mase was still developing.

thats 1 HOF' 2 1 time all stars and 3 guys who had good careers but were not that player at that moment

vs. 4 hall of fame players in their prime and 2 hall of famers at age 30 and 32 each 2 years out of their last all star apperance who are past their prime.

but somehow to you this is comparable....i am just shaking my head.

bottom line ewing > than any 73 knick .

73 knicks as a team > than any knicks team since then.


----------



## Hakeem (Aug 12, 2004)

alphaorange said:


> However, remove Mj and ewing from the equation and the Knicks were more talented 2-12 as a sum.


The Knicks may have been deeper, but the Bulls' big-minute guys were better, and that's really what matters most. Starks was a better player than Cartwright, sure. But Pippen is one of the 50 Greatest, and was ten times the player Charles Smith was. The very underrated Horace Grant was better than Oakley (similar defender, slightly worse rebounder, far better offensive player). And BJ Armstrong was better than Doc Rivers.



> Hakeem, being a shot block does not equate to being a good defensive player no more than getting steals does. It is but one aspect.


Being a very good shot-blocker as a center almost guarantees that you’ll be a good team defender. It would require massive deficiencies in other aspects of team defense to make you anything less than that. I can’t think of one very good shot-blocker who wasn’t a good team defender. Even Shawn Bradley and Gregg Ostertag were good team defenders in their respective primes.



> You asked how it works that he could have so many blocks and yet still be a bad shot blocker? Mutombo was a far better shot blocker than Ewing although his numbers will probably show something less than a difference of one per game. Why? Because guys didn't challenge him the way they did Ewing. They KNEW DM would get it. They also knew that Ewing could be had..,.so they took it to him more. Guys just didn't shy away from Ewing like they did the other great blockers.


This does not make sense. Why would the opposition challenge Ewing so much if he was able to block so many of their shots? Can you name one other player who blocked a lot of shots not because he was good but because he was so bad that the opposition kept challenging him? 
Ewing got dunked on a lot because unlike most other centers, he wasn’t terrified of looking bad. Even if the chance of a block was small, he’d contest it to try and alter the shot. Even if it meant that he might get dunked on. 



> I am also not nitpicking on numbers. You made a statement. It was an exaggeration.


You suggested that I should have said “2.99-3.99 bpg” instead of “3-4 bpg”. That’s nitpicking.



> Compare to the other great ones and see for yourself. He was last among his contemporaries in blocks.


Yup. Olajuwon, Robinson and Mutombo were all better defenders. Doesn’t change the fact that Ewing was a great defender himself.



> A big part of the reason the others didn't have bigger scoring numbers against Ewing is the style NY played. Slow, half-court, use the clock possessions.


Good point. However, Olajuwon’s matchup numbers with Ewing are from ’89 to ’96. Some of those Knicks sides were fast-paced. Especially in ’89, with Rick Pitino’s run-and-gun style, when the Knicks were one of the fastest teams in the league. Also, some of those Rockets sides were slow-paced. So there wasn’t much of a difference most years. 



> Ewing was only a small part of that. A good man defender will make his man turn it over....take less shots...or shoot a lower %. It just wasn't the case, as a rule.


He held Shaq to 51% from the field, while Shaq was 59% against the rest of the league.



> Bottom line is this: Top 3 or 4 OFFENSIVE centers of all time. Good, but not great rebounder. Absolute warrior. Poor passer. Not so clutch (as evidenced by the truckload of missed FTs at the end of games). Good shot blocker. Not his fault that he never won a title. Few centers I would have traded him for.


We can agree on most of that, at least. 
Apart from the “top 3 or 4 offensive centers of all time” bit. Wilt, Kareem, Hakeem, Robinson, Shaq. That’s five better than him right there.
Oh, and I disagree that he was a poor passer. Average, I’d say.


----------



## alphaorange (Jul 2, 2006)

*As I said*

Grinch....You can say what you want but I saw both eras clearly, not with tapes. I KNOW what the abilities of all the players discussed at the time of the titles.....you do not except as you have read or viewed on the rare replay. Whatever.

Hakeem, you are the master spinner. I never said anything, nor did I imply that his numbers should be as you wrote (2.99-3.99). You are talking about 2 years. I was talking career. The fact that you can't wrap your mind around the number of blocks equating to more attempts is a deficit of yours, not mine. To imply Mourning, Robinson, Shaq, Eaton, Yao, and Mutombo et al shied away from attempts so they wouldn't get posterized is an idiotic statement...beyond stupid. Again....whatever. Tell me again how old you guys were when all this was happening...


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

*Re: As I said*



alphaorange said:


> Grinch....You can say what you want but I saw both eras clearly, not with tapes. I KNOW what the abilities of all the players discussed at the time of the titles.....you do not except as you have read or viewed on the rare replay. Whatever.
> 
> Hakeem, you are the master spinner. I never said anything, nor did I imply that his numbers should be as you wrote (2.99-3.99). You are talking about 2 years. I was talking career. The fact that you can't wrap your mind around the number of blocks equating to more attempts is a deficit of yours, not mine. To imply Mourning, Robinson, Shaq, Eaton, Yao, and Mutombo et al shied away from attempts so they wouldn't get posterized is an idiotic statement...beyond stupid. Again....whatever. Tell me again how old you guys were when all this was happening...


is there some special tape that somehow distorts players abilities , like i cant see if they can play defense or shoot with it?

is that what they air on espn classic or sports classic network, fake tapes , 

you also know they do sell these games right ?

you are grasping at straws because you want to believe seeing it then means more than seeing it now.

nothing you say refutes the fact thats they were 4 HOF's in their prime and outside of ewing nothing the 90's knicks had comes close so you want to make it about how i have seen it instead of the players themselves a big clue you know you have nothing.


----------



## alphaorange (Jul 2, 2006)

*OK, Mr expert*

Glad you are SO astute at gleaning info from a handful of tapes. You are truly amazing. Let me leave you with one thought. Walt was either the best or second best guard of his era with Jerry West. You could easily make a case for the best as he was a more complete player. Plus, it was prolly the 80's before anyone challenged his credentials. Ewing was AT BEST the 3rd best center in his (and I exclude Shaq and Kareem). Since there are twice as many guards as centers, I'd say Walt was the more accomplished player. And since this is the original topic, make your counterpoint.


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

*Re: OK, Mr expert*



alphaorange said:


> Glad you are SO astute at gleaning info from a handful of tapes. You are truly amazing. Let me leave you with one thought. Walt was either the best or second best guard of his era with Jerry West. You could easily make a case for the best as he was a more complete player. Plus, it was prolly the 80's before anyone challenged his credentials. Ewing was AT BEST the 3rd best center in his (and I exclude Shaq and Kareem). Since there are twice as many guards as centers, I'd say Walt was the more accomplished player. And since this is the original topic, make your counterpoint.


positions are not equal.

between 57 and 87 there were about 10 different MVP centers but absolutely no guards .

also would frazier have been the 2nd best guard in ewing's era with magic and MJ running around ?

that guard play was comparitively weaker in frazier's time doesn't make him better than ewing.

your point makes no sense its not logical because there is no way he would have attained that goal in ewing's time, but ewing could have been the 2nd best center in the 70's (behind Kareem).


----------



## alphaorange (Jul 2, 2006)

*Spinnaroo..........*

You simply can't plug in a player from one era into another. Is there any question that overall, the players are better today than 40 years ago? That is way too stupid for someone like you, Grinch. You're better than that. Compare them to their contemporaries. The funny part is......if you plug Ewing into the 60's and 70's, he still is no better than 3rd or 4th, behind Wilt and Lew, and maybe our own Willis (when healthy).


----------



## Hakeem (Aug 12, 2004)

*Re: As I said*



alphaorange said:


> Hakeem, you are the master spinner. I never said anything, nor did I imply that his numbers should be as you wrote (2.99-3.99). You are talking about 2 years. I was talking career.


I said Ewing averaged 3-4 bpg. Obviously, those are prime figures. Five years. Not two years. There's no point in talking about what happened when he first entered the league or was declining. When we talk about Gary Payton, do we say he averaged 7.2-24.2 ppg? No, we say he averaged 16-24 ppg, which are his approximate prime numbers.
You replied: "Ewing never cracked 4 blocks per game. He was almost there one year with 3.99 but he was over 3 only 4 times in his career."
Then: "You made a statement. It was an exaggeration."
If that is not implying that I should have said "2.99-3.99" instead, then what is it?



> The fact that you can't wrap your mind around the number of blocks equating to more attempts is a deficit of yours, not mine.


Cop out. Can you answer the question? Can you name one other player who blocked a lot of shots not because he was good but because he was so bad that the opposition kept challenging him? It's a weak argument. If he blocked a lot of shots, he was a good shot-blocker. 



> To imply Mourning, Robinson, Shaq, Eaton, Yao, and Mutombo et al shied away from attempts so they wouldn't get posterized is an idiotic statement...beyond stupid.


Shaq shies away. Everyone knows it. He even admitted it. That's why he has only been dunked on once in his career. The other guys don't/didn't -- and that's why those are the players who have been dunked on a lot. People who criticize centers for getting dunked on are usually the ones who evaluate players by Sportscenter highlights. It's like all the criticism Yao was getting as a rookie because he got dunked on several times. They were too stupid to realize that it meant that he was there challenging everything, altering shots. Hakeem Olajuwon is the best defender I've seen, yet he got dunked on many, many times.


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

*Re: Spinnaroo..........*



alphaorange said:


> You simply can't plug in a player from one era into another. Is there any question that overall, the players are better today than 40 years ago? That is way too stupid for someone like you, Grinch. You're better than that. Compare them to their contemporaries. The funny part is......if you plug Ewing into the 60's and 70's, he still is no better than 3rd or 4th, behind Wilt and Lew, and maybe our own Willis (when healthy).


no judge them on their ability to impact the sport.

right now there are exactly 2 centers who on an average team could significantly improve their chances of being better .

if this were the 10 years ago there would be , times change .

and honestly shaq is fading fast

10 years ago it would be different . the olajuwon, robinson or ewing would easily be the best center game in the game if all you really had was and aged shaq and young yao to call the cream of the crop. you saying frazier was possibly #1 of his era and expecting it to valid is to e a depserate attempt to save face.

and the irony is you are doing the same crime you just accused me of trying to compare eras and comparative rank at a position in that matter .

aren't you better than that? or are you a hypocrite but more on that later

and i think ewing was clearly better than willis , a better defender,athlete and scorer/shooter.

and what is when healthy ewing wasn't a healthy a day in the nba his knees were bad before he ever made an nba appearance I dont see you cutting him any slack so dont worry about willis.

and alpha in case you didn't know this is a basketball discussion board , hypotheticals as well as analysis and opinions of players and teams past present and future is what we do here, if I post about my believed impact of george mikan today , its really not that big a deal, its silly that 3 pages into the thread on who was better that now you want to bring that up when you have been doing that to some degree all along.


----------



## alphaorange (Jul 2, 2006)

*Of course, you are absolutely right.*

Your previous analysis' in other posts on other topics proves that. You are truly a gift.


----------



## da bully (Oct 17, 2006)

im jujst curious, what do you guys think about the 99 knicks team with ewing, spree, houston, johnson, camby and so forth how well do you guys think they would have done with a full season and patrick ewing playing in the championship. if you remember, ewing broke his wrist in the playoffs.


----------

