PDA

View Full Version : Did playing in NY enhance or devalue Ewing's career?



Chronz
03-24-2015, 04:47 PM
The pros of playing in a big market tend to outweigh the cons, you get financial support from management, free agent/coaching destination and a big shiny spot light. But sometimes that spotlight can burn harshly and the critics, overwhelmingly negative. Your failures are magnified and success becomes more and more of a burden.



For Ewing, it seems like hes consistently underrated by not only the masses (outside of NY) but sportswriters/analysts alike. Take Charley Rosen's description of him:
Had he played out of the spotlight in someplace like Orlando or Salt Lake City, Ewing would be remembered as a jump-shooting center who worked hard. Period. With the adulatory New York fans and media filtering their perceptions through the lens of their need to have heroes to celebrate, Ewing was celebrated as being far better than he really was. In truth, he couldn't handle, pass, move laterally, and do anything worthwhile when an important game was on the line. Moreover, his dim apprehension of what the game was all about precluded any thoughts of being unselfish.


Or his ranking in different publications;

Bill Simmons BOB ranked Ewing 39th overall (Behind D-Rob, Cowens, McHale and Reed).
Simmons mentions that some of his NY friends rooted against Ewing for the simple fact that he was in the middle of the Hoya-St.Johns Collegiate rivalry.


"Whos better, whos best" Ranks Ewing 38 and this was back in 2003 or so.

Author polls experts on the Ewing, Dream, D-Rob debate;
Del Harris: "I rank them this way, Hakeem, David, Patrick.
Bill Walton: "Robinson was better. Ewing benefited greatly by playing in NY.... everything he did was magnified, good and bad"
Pat Riley: "You cant separate them at all" "There wasn't anybody that ever dominated Patrick and he got his numbers against all of them"
Mike Fratello: "I believe that if you took Ewing and plugged him into those Rockets or Spurs championship teams, then Ewing would have won"


Elliot Kalb makes the case that fans didn't appreciate Ewing because during his stay with NY, fans got to see several championships in different sports but had to endure Ewing's empty guarantees. That everything he did, both in personal and public life, was dissected. That he wasn't really appreciated until the Knicks lost him.





In "The Experts Pick the 50 best players of the last 50 years", Ewing was 11th among CENTERS, again behind the likes of Unseld, Cowens, Reed AND D-Rob. This book came out around 1997 and even then some were crowning D-Rob.









I want to know if you think playing in NY was the best situation for Ewing's career. Did the city enhance or diminish his stature? Where do you rank Ewing among Centers?

Hawkeye15
03-24-2015, 04:50 PM
the correct answer is both. Seriously.

ewing
03-24-2015, 04:52 PM
how would people have remember Isiah Thomas if he never won a ring?

Hawkeye15
03-24-2015, 05:18 PM
how would people have remember Isiah Thomas if he never won a ring?

I remember him the exact same way. He is an uber douche, who happens to have 2 rings, and is overrated by the masses as a PG.

KnicksorBust
03-24-2015, 05:37 PM
If I had to pick I would say underrated just because few people take the time to put context around his lack of rings. I believe he only played with one all-star (Oakley in 94?) and still almost won a title. Clearly he was blocked by Jordan and Hakeem and that's why no one ever puts him on their level. However, if he had found a way to play with a legit wing player then I think he wins at least 1, maybe 2.

Tony_Starks
03-24-2015, 06:24 PM
New York completely diminished his career. To this day he doesn't get the respect he deserves from the fans or franchise. He gets all the flack for not getting past MJ or Dream but none of the props for being the head of one of the toughest front courts all time.

As far as centers he's right behind the Dream for me. As skilled as Hakeem was Ewing still gave him all he could handle, as opposed to D Rob and even Shaq who got flat out schooled.

Teufelshunde4
03-24-2015, 06:27 PM
If I had to pick I would say underrated just because few people take the time to put context around his lack of rings. I believe he only played with one all-star (Oakley in 94?) and still almost won a title. Clearly he was blocked by Jordan and Hakeem and that's why no one ever puts him on their level. However, if he had found a way to play with a legit wing player then I think he wins at least 1, maybe 2.

I think that's a very fair assessment of Ewing.. I mean the guy was good enough to be on the Dream Team. The 92-96 Knicks largely played better then the sum of their parts. Superstars didnt team hop then because of the Bird rule..
If Ewing had played with at least one other legit HOF/Superstar he might have snagged a ring.

I mean Stockton and Malone were the only HOF duo to ever challenge the Bulls in Finals in 97 and 98.

KnicksorBust
03-24-2015, 06:38 PM
New York completely diminished his career. To this day he doesn't get the respect he deserves from the fans or franchise. He gets all the flack for not getting past MJ or Dream but none of the props for being the head of one of the toughest front courts all time.

As far as centers he's right behind the Dream for me. As skilled as Hakeem was Ewing still gave him all he could handle, as opposed to D Rob and even Shaq who got flat out schooled.

Dream crushed Ewing... what are you talking about?

Sandman
03-24-2015, 06:46 PM
Patrick Ewing is one of the best centers to ever play, and centers today wish they had that jumpshot. Dwight Howard can't even hit a free throw.

A better question is, did his high profile playing career stop him from getting a head coach job, or did playing in NY give him the assistant coach job in the first place?

xxplayerxx23
03-24-2015, 07:05 PM
Man if only Ewing got to play with another allstar level player he would of def won a couple

jimm120
03-24-2015, 07:31 PM
If anything, it made him more hated.


Look at Melo now. He was a top 10 player for sure with the Nuggets, but the second he was rumored to go to NY, he became someone that "was probably top 20-30"...even though his best two years were with the knicks.

NY brings a lot of hate.

jimm120
03-24-2015, 07:39 PM
For example, Isola is there to soley put out negative knick articles. He'll go all "fox news" on subjects and look through a magnifying glass to one specific aspect of a certain even...just to say that it is a negative.


Media creates an audience that will love their players and hate them for not being the best.

Yes, Ewing wasn't the best (jordan, Hakeem). But he was damn good and good enough to be top 40 in the otp 50 nba players. Same thing with Carmelo now. Good enough to be a top 10 player, but because he's not Lebron/Durant or not winning championships, he gets a lot of hate (people forget we've had Amare as the HIGHEST paid player on our team for the past 5 years...and Amare failed for each playoff series and for 4 out of 5 regular seasons).

D-Leethal
03-24-2015, 08:29 PM
the correct answer is both. Seriously.

I think that's fair. I think Walton came the closest with his assessment.

Non-New Yorkers hate New York (ers), its just a stigma against the city, we're loud, obnoxious, and think we are bigger badder and more important than the rest of the world (because we are).

I think NY players in any sport fall victim to that. Certain guys can transcend it like Derek Jeter but that probably also has to do with Yanks having monster fanbases in all 50 states.

I don't think he gets enough credit for the amount of success his team had for so long with nothing but role playing defenders around him. I think Knick fans might overrate him because of how much of a warrior the guy was, those types of hard nosed gritty players who leave it all on the court resonate with us, even if they are an end of the bench role player let alone a HOF top 50 player. I think non-Knick fans underrate him to slight his fan base.

I do truthfully believe that if Robinson was a Knick and Ewing was a Spur many more fans would say Ewing was better. Maybe not the die hard advanced stat fans, but I do think the consensus among fans and analysts would be that way.

D-Leethal
03-24-2015, 08:31 PM
It also seems people give Malone the "well too bad he ran into MJ" card yet Ewing had to battle him more frequently and put up the biggest fight Jordan ever had in a playoff series (from Jordan and Phil's mouth, not mine). That argument seems to disappear when assessing Ewing but guys like Barkley and Malone get it because it was the Finals where they hit that roadblock (didn't play in the same conference) instead of the semi's or ECF.

NYKalltheway
03-24-2015, 08:44 PM
It subtracted to his name:

1) Played for a NY team. Hence, more bash
2) Played for a rather successful NY team, despite not winning the chip. Hence, even more bash.
3) Played without any real help. Only Hakeem managed to win a championship(1994) without real help in the history of the NBA.
4) Was still one of the main threats of the team at old age and after many injuries, so failing to deliver at that stage would only bring more bad rep.

On the other hand, NY media probably hyped Ewing a bit more than they should have on certain occasions, which is probably the root of this dilemma. Hate to admit, but Patrick Ewing playing for a team in the West back could have given him a championship (the 1994 one in particular).

D-Leethal
03-24-2015, 08:44 PM
I just went into the "best player to never win a ring" thread and completely saw what I figured I would see. "Poor Stockton for having to play MJ". Thats the type of **** I don't get.


john stockton must have been pretty pissed playing in the jordan era

Stockton should be pissed he played in the Jordan era? He was damn near ****ing 40 when he played MJ. The guy who should be the most pissed he played in the Jordan era is Patrick Ewing. Bar none.

Lost to MJ in '89, '91, '92 (only team to take MJ to 7 during his 6 ships), '93 (ECF Charles ****ing Smith), all smack dab in his prime with championship caliber 50-60 win squads. Those 3-4 years in the early 90s that team was primed for a title run or multiple if MJ hadn't existed.

Make it to game 7 of the Finals (a buzzer beater away from winning in 6) the first year MJ left.

But yea, poor Stockton and Malone for avoiding MJ for damn near 20 seasons and losing anyway before running into him at the age of 40.

SLY WILLIAMS
03-24-2015, 08:44 PM
Patrick was already considered a superstar in waiting before he was ever drafted. Playing in NY hurt in that the media beat up on Patrick at times. Some of that is because Patrick was a bit surly towards the media. Some of that is because the NY media can be brutal. There are very few basketball players that are treated well during their careers by the NY media. After they retire they are sometimes treated better.

D-Leethal
03-24-2015, 08:47 PM
I think his hype coming out of college, "The Fix" where Stern switched up the lotto cards at the podium and all that jazz had a lot to do with the negative attention that followed him throughout his career. LeBron is the only guy who lived up to that type of hype, and quite honestly he gets a lot of flack for his various choke jobs, lack of fearlessness and ring-chasing-at-age-26 too probably because of that hype as well.

D-Leethal
03-24-2015, 08:58 PM
One more thing to add: the fact that Ewing guaranteed championships on multiple occasions and didn't deliver definitely didn't bode well for him in the perception department.

nastynice
03-24-2015, 09:00 PM
I don't know if it has to do with him being in ny or what, but imo he's kinda underrated in general

IDunknown
03-24-2015, 10:42 PM
New York completely diminished his career. To this day he doesn't get the respect he deserves from the fans or franchise. He gets all the flack for not getting past MJ or Dream but none of the props for being the head of one of the toughest front courts all time.

As far as centers he's right behind the Dream for me. As skilled as Hakeem was Ewing still gave him all he could handle, as opposed to D Rob and even Shaq who got flat out schooled.


Dream crushed Ewing... what are you talking about?

Knicks went to game 7,they could have beat the Rockets if Starks didn't have a bad shooting game. Shaq got swept on the Magic.

NYKalltheway
03-24-2015, 10:48 PM
Dream crushed Ewing... what are you talking about?

What are you talking about???

Hawkeye15
03-25-2015, 12:25 AM
I think that's fair. I think Walton came the closest with his assessment.

Non-New Yorkers hate New York (ers), its just a stigma against the city, we're loud, obnoxious, and think we are bigger badder and more important than the rest of the world (because we are).

I think NY players in any sport fall victim to that. Certain guys can transcend it like Derek Jeter but that probably also has to do with Yanks having monster fanbases in all 50 states.

I don't think he gets enough credit for the amount of success his team had for so long with nothing but role playing defenders around him. I think Knick fans might overrate him because of how much of a warrior the guy was, those types of hard nosed gritty players who leave it all on the court resonate with us, even if they are an end of the bench role player let alone a HOF top 50 player. I think non-Knick fans underrate him to slight his fan base.

I do truthfully believe that if Robinson was a Knick and Ewing was a Spur many more fans would say Ewing was better. Maybe not the die hard advanced stat fans, but I do think the consensus among fans and analysts would be that way.

not so much, but I get your point.

kidfury
03-25-2015, 01:17 AM
i'm not a fan of the Knicks but playing in NY gave Ewing more tv time/exposure. Honestly, some of the playoff series with the Knicks vs Bulls/Indiana were the most exciting games i can ever remember. I used to watch NY games on the weekend just because of how much grit they played with. Competitive, close, hard fought games that's what i remember seeing with the Ewing era of the Knicks.

JasonJohnHorn
03-25-2015, 08:30 AM
Just remember how dominant Bob Lanier was, and then remember the fact that Moses Malone not only won a championship, but TWO MVP awards, and then consider how much more frequently people bring up Ewing before either of those guys, who were clearly better than Ewing.

If Ewing did what he did in Portland, or Cleveland, or Minny, he would not be mentioned among the great centers. H would be mentioned along the same lines of Larry Nance or Brad Daughtery.

That isn't to say he wasn't great: he was. But people recognize his name because of WHERE he played, not HOW he played.

Same for George Gervin. Had he played in NY or LA instead SA, more people who be talking about how high he ranks among all-time shoot guards.

We see great players in small markets easily forgotten all the time, and because there are more fans for big markets, both in the cities and around the world, those fans remember their own players better. Naturally.

JasonJohnHorn
03-25-2015, 08:36 AM
"Poor Stockton for having to play MJ". Thats the type of **** I don't get.



Stockton should be pissed he played in the Jordan era? He was damn near ****ing 40 when he played MJ. The guy who should be the most pissed he played in the Jordan era is Patrick Ewing. Bar none.

I'm not sure '34' and '35' is 'damn near 40.

Stockon and Jordan were pretty much the same age.


Besides, Stockton played out West, so he has Magic to deal with early in his career, then Drexler.

Let's face it... Ewing got his shot three times and lost to Hakeem, Robinson, and Smits. With a healthy roster.

Ewing was younger than Jordan as well, so his window extended beyond Jordan.

This "My player had it worse than your player" doesn't make sense, because not only did Stockton have to face Jordan in the finals, he had to first get through the teams that Ewing lost two EVERY year: Spurs + Houston, as well as the Blazers and Lakers and Sonics and Suns.... so yeah...

ewing
03-25-2015, 08:36 AM
i think people really overlook Ewing mostly b/c he was the bad guy. you only respect the bad guy if he gets to the top and Ewing didn't. At the time he played his teams were despised and not only by fans but by the media and the league. The NBA changed rules in direct response to the style of basketball the Knicks were playing, ESPN called them the NY Bricks and a bunch of thugs on every broadcast, every NBC commercial was Ewing getting dunked on my Micheal. throw in the fact that he did a pretty ****** job managing his own imagine in the media and you get a guy that is underrated.

ewing
03-25-2015, 08:43 AM
I'm not sure '34' and '35' is 'damn near 40.

Stockon and Jordan were pretty much the same age.


Besides, Stockton played out West, so he has Magic to deal with early in his career, then Drexler.

Let's face it... Ewing got his shot three times and lost to Hakeem, Robinson, and Smits. With a healthy roster.

Ewing was younger than Jordan as well, so his window extended beyond Jordan.

This "My player had it worse than your player" doesn't make sense, because not only did Stockton have to face Jordan in the finals, he had to first get through the teams that Ewing lost two EVERY year: Spurs + Houston, as well as the Blazers and Lakers and Sonics and Suns.... so yeah...


were over 10, I doubt it? Ewing had a healthy roaster in 99 against Spur's Star David Robinson? Ewing didn't play, was an old man, and that was Tim Duncan's team. Sorry your post is just non sense.

D-Leethal
03-25-2015, 08:51 AM
not so much, but I get your point.

Y'all small town folk like to believe your above that type of unwarranted stigma against the big boys, but you're not. Napolean complex in a way. Charles Barkley is the prime example.

valade16
03-25-2015, 09:04 AM
I'm not sure '34' and '35' is 'damn near 40.

Stockon and Jordan were pretty much the same age.

Besides, Stockton played out West, so he has Magic to deal with early in his career, then Drexler.

Let's face it... Ewing got his shot three times and lost to Hakeem, Robinson, and Smits. With a healthy roster.

Ewing was younger than Jordan as well, so his window extended beyond Jordan.

This "My player had it worse than your player" doesn't make sense, because not only did Stockton have to face Jordan in the finals, he had to first get through the teams that Ewing lost two EVERY year: Spurs + Houston, as well as the Blazers and Lakers and Sonics and Suns.... so yeah...

To go back to the other side of the coin, John Stockton played with this guy Karl Malone... maybe you've heard of him. You couldn't take any combination of players that Ewing took to the finals and trade them for Karl Malone and have it be a fair deal.

To put it simply, John Stockton had way more help than Ewing did. It's a testament to Ewing and those Knicks teams they were as consistently good as they were.

D-Leethal
03-25-2015, 09:05 AM
I'm not sure '34' and '35' is 'damn near 40.

Stockon and Jordan were pretty much the same age.


Besides, Stockton played out West, so he has Magic to deal with early in his career, then Drexler.

Let's face it... Ewing got his shot three times and lost to Hakeem, Robinson, and Smits. With a healthy roster.

Ewing was younger than Jordan as well, so his window extended beyond Jordan.

This "My player had it worse than your player" doesn't make sense, because not only did Stockton have to face Jordan in the finals, he had to first get through the teams that Ewing lost two EVERY year: Spurs + Houston, as well as the Blazers and Lakers and Sonics and Suns.... so yeah...

Ewing didn't even play in the '99 Finals and was an old hobbled vet playing Smits. I'm talking about Ewing with his best teams, in his prime, where he went up against MJ 4 out of 5 seasons during MJ's prime years. MJ didn't stop Stockton from winning in his prime or the first 16 years of his career, every other team out West did - teams like the Mavs, Suns, Run TMC, Sonics, Rockets and they only faced Showtime Magic once and that was as a 47 win on-title contending team anyway. We're talking about MJ here, not Drexler. If Ewing lost to Drexler 4x in his prime I wouldn't be sticking up for him like this right now.

Lost to every year? Ewing played out East bro. Your argument is horrible. Nobody had to face MJ in his prime in the playoffs more than Ewing. I have no idea why you are infatuated about guys playoff runs at an age 90% of the NBA is retired by.

SLY WILLIAMS
03-25-2015, 12:07 PM
How many people have Ewings numbers and get bashed so often on PSD? Look at how Ewing almost single handedly beat the great Celtics of Bird, Mchale, Parrish by winning 3 straight playoff games. Ewing did not need NY to be a big name anymore than Drob needed to play in a big city to become a big name. Many Knicks fans hated Ewing in college. The guy was so menacing to many NY fans who were also ST. Johns fan. Some of the biggest college games for 4 years involved Ewing. Ewing vs Jordan, Ewing vs Sampson, Ewing vs Hakeem, as well as 4 years of Ewing vs Chris Mullin. I believe if Ewing played with a good team outside of NYC he would get much more respect than he does today.

Hawkeye15
03-25-2015, 01:46 PM
Y'all small town folk like to believe your above that type of unwarranted stigma against the big boys, but you're not. Napolean complex in a way. Charles Barkley is the prime example.

I don't believe anyone is above anyone. Being born in a certain city, or choosing to live there doesn't mean you are any better than anyone else, whether that is NYC, or Biloxi, MS.

Chronz
03-25-2015, 02:05 PM
I don't believe anyone is above anyone. Being born in a certain city, or choosing to live there doesn't mean you are any better than anyone else, whether that is NYC, or Biloxi, MS.
Obviously we're all equal, I dont think thats what hes saying. Hes talking about a cultural stigma that I believe exists. I've spent some time across different regions, primarily lived in LA for most of my life. I hate to say it, but ya'll hate us cuz you aint us. Spent a summer in OKC during my youth, EVERYONE talked about wanting to move to LA. When Im in Arizona, I see free way signs pointing towards LA as if its a downtown destination.

Chronz
03-25-2015, 02:07 PM
How many people have Ewings numbers and get bashed so often on PSD? Look at how Ewing almost single handedly beat the great Celtics of Bird, Mchale, Parrish by winning 3 straight playoff games. Ewing did not need NY to be a big name anymore than Drob needed to play in a big city to become a big name. Many Knicks fans hated Ewing in college. The guy was so menacing to many NY fans who were also ST. Johns fan. Some of the biggest college games for 4 years involved Ewing. Ewing vs Jordan, Ewing vs Sampson, Ewing vs Hakeem, as well as 4 years of Ewing vs Chris Mullin. I believe if Ewing played with a good team outside of NYC he would get much more respect than he does today.

You (among others) have brought up some good points. Would love to elaborate here but its given me an idea for another thread. Will merge when applicable

ewing
03-25-2015, 02:10 PM
I don't believe anyone is above anyone. Being born in a certain city, or choosing to live there doesn't mean you are any better than anyone else, whether that is NYC, or Biloxi, MS.

only in NY

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=auzHVjPb8Tg

we're the best

D-Leethal
03-25-2015, 02:48 PM
Obviously we're all equal, I dont think thats what hes saying. Hes talking about a cultural stigma that I believe exists. I've spent some time across different regions, primarily lived in LA for most of my life. I hate to say it, but ya'll hate us cuz you aint us. Spent a summer in OKC during my youth, EVERYONE talked about wanting to move to LA. When Im in Arizona, I see free way signs pointing towards LA as if its a downtown destination.

Bingo, I was making a statement about a stigma towards "the big city" and using my facetious NY attitude to compound my point. I don't truthfully believe New Yorkers are better than anyone else, but I do think on an aggregate level, small town folk hold some sort of resentment (probably not the best word) towards big city folk livin' the high life, and I think that carries over to our sports teams and stars and the way outsiders view us. We are the big bad city, there is no denying that. LA is the only place that can hold a candle to NYC in this country, if we're talking bright lights, fast cars, superstars, top salaries, diverse culture, international allure. Sorry but its a fact.

You can go to any country in the world and there are people dying to go to NYC, being from NY gives you instant credo to those folk, where inside this country its usually instant resentment.

D-Leethal
03-25-2015, 02:49 PM
And Hawk while I don't disagree with you, that statement is a such a typical small town folk statement. Each person might be equal and I agree with you there, but the stature of each place sure as hell ain't.

Chronz
03-25-2015, 02:59 PM
Bingo, I was making a statement about a stigma towards "the big city" and using my facetious NY attitude to compound my point. I don't truthfully believe New Yorkers are better than anyone else, but I do think on an aggregate level, small town folk hold some sort of resentment (probably not the best word) towards big city folk livin' the high life, and I think that carries over to our sports teams and stars and the way outsiders view us. We are the big bad city, there is no denying that. LA is the only place that can hold a candle to NYC in this country, if we're talking bright lights, fast cars, superstars, big $$$, diverse culture, international allure. Sorry but its a fact.

You can go to any country in the world and there are people dying to go to NYC, being from NY gives you instant credo to those folk, where inside this country its usually instant resentment.

It gets worse when you're good enough to win at a high level, just not the ultimate level.

CP3 has been flopping his whole life, tell me he hasn't gotten more **** since playing in LA (where hes flopped less).

Blake was lovable when we were losing, once we got on everyones radar however, he became persona non gratta. Tho in his case, he actually seemed changed(grow?) as a person.

Chronz
03-25-2015, 03:02 PM
You can go to any country in the world and there are people dying to go to NYC, being from NY gives you instant credo to those folk, where inside this country its usually instant resentment.

I forget where but some friends of mine traveled abroad, and they told me theres an entirely different vibe if you tell people you're from America vs if you tell them you're from California.

D-Leethal
03-25-2015, 03:04 PM
It gets worse when you're good enough to win at a high level, just not the ultimate level.

CP3 has been flopping his whole life, tell me he hasn't gotten more **** since playing in LA (where hes flopped less).

Blake was lovable when we were losing, once we got on everyones radar however, he became persona non gratta. Tho in his case, he actually seemed changed(grow?) as a person.

I agree, although I will counter that maybe it has more to do with success and hype than big city? Example: James Harden. Houston does not get that big city stigma but since the Dwight trade they have been a big talking point in the NBA and hated now more than ever (who hated Harden on OKC? Answer: nobody).

Big city adds to the hype, but the hype itself may be where the stigma lies. Miami can be treated in a similar fashion. Teams like the Knicks and Lakers have hype no matter what - whether they suck or are great they are plastered all over the airwaves and media. Little guys like Atlanta can't even get on National TV yet Lakers and Knicks are all over it when both are fighting for last place. That type of hype drives the stigma, and being part of the big city adds to the hype.

D-Leethal
03-25-2015, 03:08 PM
I forget where but some friends of mine traveled abroad, and they told me theres an entirely different vibe if you tell people you're from America vs if you tell them you're from California.

I will back your friend up based on my experience abroad. I studied in New Zealand for a few months and everyone wanted to know all about NYC. I think for the four months I was there they had one freakin' concert (****ing Green Day and this was 2009) that anyone would have heard of. In NYC you have something epic to see on every night of the week every night of the year. One of the chicks I hung out with there was a big artsy type and spent 4 months in NYC last year and got it tattooed on her because of how epic the experience was for her.

It's not for everyone, but if you like the hype, the bright lights, the spotlight, and endless opportunity there is no better place. Cali is similar just with an entirely different vibe (great in its own right, I surf so I love it out there although its crowded as balls). We do pay out the *** for access to all of its benefits though, that's for sure.

ewing
03-25-2015, 03:09 PM
I forget where but some friends of mine traveled abroad, and they told me theres an entirely different vibe if you tell people you're from America vs if you tell them you're from California.


if you want to get laid in Ireland tell them you are from NY- its impressive, they don't even know what NJ is

NYKalltheway
03-25-2015, 03:11 PM
If Ewing did what he did in Portland, or Cleveland, or Minny, he would not be mentioned among the great centers. H would be mentioned along the same lines of Larry Nance or Brad Daughtery.

Ewing is remember for two reasons:
a) his era (MJ dominated, first real international marketing push of the NBA)
b) his relative success with the Knicks

NYKalltheway
03-25-2015, 03:15 PM
Let's face it... Ewing got his shot three times and lost to Hakeem, Robinson, and Smits. With a healthy roster.

He wasn't healthy in either of them, plus the team roster wasn't really healthy in 99. Ewing was out, Sprewell was out a lot in the RS... Knicks barely got in the playoffs that year.

flea
03-25-2015, 04:02 PM
Bingo, I was making a statement about a stigma towards "the big city" and using my facetious NY attitude to compound my point. I don't truthfully believe New Yorkers are better than anyone else, but I do think on an aggregate level, small town folk hold some sort of resentment (probably not the best word) towards big city folk livin' the high life, and I think that carries over to our sports teams and stars and the way outsiders view us. We are the big bad city, there is no denying that. LA is the only place that can hold a candle to NYC in this country, if we're talking bright lights, fast cars, superstars, top salaries, diverse culture, international allure. Sorry but its a fact.

You can go to any country in the world and there are people dying to go to NYC, being from NY gives you instant credo to those folk, where inside this country its usually instant resentment.

Lol I've never lived in a rural area and the modern style of capitalism is basically destroying it but to say that those people envy urban life is a hilariously narrow-minded New York style of thought. It may seem like like people worship celebrities, professional athletes, and $50 a drink nightlife from watching reality TV but I assure you that for people over the age of 25 all that loses its luster.

A lot of people (myself included) go to NYC and feel like this Elliott Smith quote describing heaven: "George Jones would be singing all the time. It would be like New York in reverse: people would be nice to each other for no reason at all, and it would smell good." Just joking, it's a good time but it's way too much concrete and steel for my taste.

Chronz
03-25-2015, 04:07 PM
Lol I've never lived in a rural area and the modern style of capitalism is basically destroying it but to say that those people envy urban life is a hilariously narrow-minded New York style of thought. It may seem like like people worship celebrities, professional athletes, and $50 a drink nightlife from watching reality TV but I assure you that for people over the age of 25 all that loses its luster.

A lot of people (myself included) go to NYC and feel like this Elliott Smith quote describing heaven: "George Jones would be singing all the time. It would be like New York in reverse: people would be nice to each other for no reason at all, and it would smell good." Just joking, it's a good time but it's way too much concrete and steel for my taste.

I like to think we're all creatures of migration. Nobody likes to stay in 1 place forever, how long you stay away may vary but we all want to move around. I could see myself staying put in Denver for awhile, maybe Seattle. All attractive cities. Definitely loved SD and SF. But I dont doubt for a minute that some people loathe big city sport teams for being just that. They also attract bandwagon fans across the globe tho, I wonder what its all based on. Lakers are an international team, they have fans all over. To a degree, so do the Knicks but I feel like NY attracts more haters nationally.

Hawkeye15
03-25-2015, 04:44 PM
Obviously we're all equal, I dont think thats what hes saying. Hes talking about a cultural stigma that I believe exists. I've spent some time across different regions, primarily lived in LA for most of my life. I hate to say it, but ya'll hate us cuz you aint us. Spent a summer in OKC during my youth, EVERYONE talked about wanting to move to LA. When Im in Arizona, I see free way signs pointing towards LA as if its a downtown destination.

That could be true for many, but I have never felt a stigma for wanting to live in LA or NY. Or anywhere for that matter, it's not important to me. I don't even like LA. NY is fun. To visit. No thanks.

Hawkeye15
03-25-2015, 04:45 PM
And Hawk while I don't disagree with you, that statement is a such a typical small town folk statement. Each person might be equal and I agree with you there, but the stature of each place sure as hell ain't.

I have never lived in a small town.

JasonJohnHorn
03-25-2015, 07:18 PM
Ewing didn't even play in the '99 Finals and was an old hobbled vet playing Smits. I'm talking about Ewing with his best teams, in his prime, where he went up against MJ 4 out of 5 seasons during MJ's prime years. MJ didn't stop Stockton from winning in his prime or the first 16 years of his career, every other team out West did - teams like the Mavs, Suns, Run TMC, Sonics, Rockets and they only faced Showtime Magic once and that was as a 47 win on-title contending team anyway. We're talking about MJ here, not Drexler. If Ewing lost to Drexler 4x in his prime I wouldn't be sticking up for him like this right now.

Lost to every year? Ewing played out East bro. Your argument is horrible. Nobody had to face MJ in his prime in the playoffs more than Ewing. I have no idea why you are infatuated about guys playoff runs at an age 90% of the NBA is retired by.

Right.. and the Jazz had to play teams like Houston and the Spurs, who beat the Knicks.

Jordan ended two of Utah's runs. He ended 5 of Ewings, but they played more often because they were in the same conference. It took Ewing four years to get into the playoffs. And yeah... they lost to the Bull five times, but it's not like the Bulls were even the best team in the East those years... in 89 the Bulls went onto lose to the Pistons, and in 92, they weren't even the best team in their division. 93 was the first year they were a contender and the lost to the Bulls, but the next year Jordan wasn't even around. Whose fault was that that Ewing got outplayed by Hakeem? And in 96 they only won a single game against the Bulls.

You say they lost 5 times like they would have won the conference if the Bulls were in there, but they were really only in contention in 93 and 94, one of which was a year Jordan wasn't even playing.


Ewing was in contention twice. Once he lost to Jordan, once he lost to Hakeem.

Stockton and Malone had to title runs, both of which were ended by the Bulls.

JasonJohnHorn
03-25-2015, 07:22 PM
were over 10, I doubt it? Ewing had a healthy roaster in 99 against Spur's Star David Robinson? Ewing didn't play, was an old man, and that was Tim Duncan's team. Sorry your post is just non sense.


Ewing was only on a contender two year, and one of them he didn't lose to Jordan; he lost to Hakeem.

Stockton and Malone were contenders twice, and both times lost to Jordan.

What is the point? I don't even know... some knicks fan whinging that they had it worst because when they weren't contenders they didn't get a chance to lose to the Pistons because they lost to the Bulls first...

so what... Ewing had a chance in 94, he got out played by Hakeem. Who the Jazz had to go up against, as well as the Spurs, and Barkley's Suns, and Magic's Lakers... AND they had to got against Jordan in the finals twice.
What does this matter... I dunno... some Knicks fan wants to think they had it worse than the Jazz...

ewing
03-25-2015, 07:24 PM
Right.. and the Jazz had to play teams like Houston and the Spurs, who beat the Knicks.

Jordan ended two of Utah's runs. He ended 5 of Ewings, but they played more often because they were in the same conference. It took Ewing four years to get into the playoffs. And yeah... they lost to the Bull five times, but it's not like the Bulls were even the best team in the East those years... in 89 the Bulls went onto lose to the Pistons, and in 92, they weren't even the best team in their division. 93 was the first year they were a contender and the lost to the Bulls, but the next year Jordan wasn't even around. Whose fault was that that Ewing got outplayed by Hakeem? And in 96 they only won a single game against the Bulls.

You say they lost 5 times like they would have won the conference if the Bulls were in there, but they were really only in contention in 93 and 94, one of which was a year Jordan wasn't even playing.


Ewing was in contention twice. Once he lost to Jordan, once he lost to Hakeem.


Stockton and Malone had to title runs, both of which were ended by the Bulls.



you cant even get **** right when you look it up. the 92 knicks are the only team to take Jordan's Bulls 7 during their championship rein- they weren't contenders?

ewing
03-25-2015, 07:26 PM
Ewing was only on a contender two year, and one of them he didn't lose to Jordan; he lost to Hakeem.

Stockton and Malone were contenders twice, and both times lost to Jordan.

What is the point? I don't even know... some knicks fan whinging that they had it worst because when they weren't contenders they didn't get a chance to lose to the Pistons because they lost to the Bulls first...

so what... Ewing had a chance in 94, he got out played by Hakeem. Who the Jazz had to go up against, as well as the Spurs, and Barkley's Suns, and Magic's Lakers... AND they had to got against Jordan in the finals twice.
What does this matter... I dunno... some Knicks fan wants to think they had it worse than the Jazz...


your the one getting mad and you don't even know what you talking about

JasonJohnHorn
03-25-2015, 08:37 PM
you cant even get **** right when you look it up. the 92 knicks are the only team to take Jordan's Bulls 7 during their championship rein- they weren't contenders?

They weren't even first in their division.

The Celtics won the division, and the Cavs had a better record, so yeah... with three teams ahead of them, I wouldn't call them contenders. They had a good series.

There were SIX teams with a better record than the Knicks that year. SIX. And the Celtics finished ahead of them with the same record. So SEVEN teams finished ahead of them. They wouldn't have even had home court in the West!

They only people who thought they were contenders were Knicks fans.

They had a good series.... but YOU still haven't spoken to my points, so why should I bother responding to your.

You want to say Ewing had it tougher? He didn't have it any tougher than Stockton and Malone. The West was tough back then, with the Lakers and Blazers, then Suns and Sonics, and Houston and Spurs.

But whatever... Ewing had it so tough compared to Stockon and Malone. Sure sure.

JasonJohnHorn
03-25-2015, 08:39 PM
your the one getting mad and you don't even know what you talking about

"you don't even know what you talking about".

That's a great argument. Full of content. You going to pull out the "Knicks were contenders in 92" argument when they wouldn't have even had home court advantage in the first round in the West and had three teams ranks ahead of them in the east too? I'm dying to hear that one.

ewing
03-25-2015, 10:26 PM
They weren't even first in their division.

The Celtics won the division, and the Cavs had a better record, so yeah... with three teams ahead of them, I wouldn't call them contenders. They had a good series.

There were SIX teams with a better record than the Knicks that year. SIX. And the Celtics finished ahead of them with the same record. So SEVEN teams finished ahead of them. They wouldn't have even had home court in the West!

They only people who thought they were contenders were Knicks fans.

They had a good series.... but YOU still haven't spoken to my points, so why should I bother responding to your.

You want to say Ewing had it tougher? He didn't have it any tougher than Stockton and Malone. The West was tough back then, with the Lakers and Blazers, then Suns and Sonics, and Houston and Spurs.

But whatever... Ewing had it so tough compared to Stockon and Malone. Sure sure.


just let the adults talk dude

ewing
03-25-2015, 10:37 PM
"you don't even know what you talking about".

That's a great argument. Full of content. You going to pull out the "Knicks were contenders in 92" argument when they wouldn't have even had home court advantage in the first round in the West and had three teams ranks ahead of them in the east too? I'm dying to hear that one.

Ok it was Pat Riley first year with the team. They finished with over 50 wins and by the time the season was over they clearly had the best defensive team in the league. 50 win teams tha tare clearly better on the defensive side then everyone else and have a prime star are contenders. That D plus a prime Ewing = contender. They took the took out the pistons in round one and then went 7 with the Bulls in round two. The next year they won 62 games! Was it lateral moves like Mark Jackson for Doc Rivers- arguablely backward moves- that put them over the hump. If you do not think that was a damn good team at the end of the season and that they lucked into a 7 game series with the Bulls you are wrong. The 92 knicks were was probably the best defensive roaster the knicks ever floored. They were good before Riley, and added Pat riley, Anthony Mason, X-Man, and Greg Anthony that off season. after 92 they were constantly trying to plug in guys like Tony Campbell or an aging Ro blackmen to try and add some pop.

JasonJohnHorn
03-25-2015, 10:42 PM
just let the adults talk dude

A comment devoid of reason, critical thought, or any actual commentary.


Thanks. That was helpful. Why don't you just got back to your "teams that are rank 8th in the league are contenders" argument and pretend like NY was a contender every year Ewing was around, instead of the only three season where they actually made deep playoff runs and ignore the fact that Jordan did play for two years during the Riley/Ewing years and they failed to win.



Look.. Ewing was a great player, but let's not pretend they were contenders for a long period of time. 92 was their coming out party. Not a year of contention. It showed they had what it took to put together a winner. The next two seasons is when they played like champs, and that was a short window, and is wasn't until the lock-out shortened season that they had a shot at doing anything, and even that season they were a cinderella story as the 8th seed. You want to ignore history and the just make a dismissive comment because you have not evidence, that's fine, but don't pretend like you are the one being an 'adult' when you are relying an ad hominem arguments and have no case yourself.

ewing
03-25-2015, 10:50 PM
A comment devoid of reason, critical thought, or any actual commentary.


Thanks. That was helpful. Why don't you just got back to your "teams that are rank 8th in the league are contenders" argument and pretend like NY was a contender every year Ewing was around, instead of the only three season where they actually made deep playoff runs and ignore the fact that Jordan did play for two years during the Riley/Ewing years and they failed to win.



Look.. Ewing was a great player, but let's not pretend they were contenders for a long period of time. 92 was their coming out party. Not a year of contention. It showed they had what it took to put together a winner. The next two seasons is when they played like champs, and that was a short window, and is wasn't until the lock-out shortened season that they had a shot at doing anything, and even that season they were a cinderella story as the 8th seed. You want to ignore history and the just make a dismissive comment because you have not evidence, that's fine, but don't pretend like you are the one being an 'adult' when you are relying an ad hominem arguments and have no case yourself.


no i just think you were 10 at best when these games happened and thats why your argument is whatever can find to copy and paste that fits your narrative. Thats why you think the 99 finals was Ewing vs Robinson and don't think the 92 knicks were a legit team. you had no idea, that was Riles first year or that they took the bulls 7 when you starting posting your non sense. I'll admit i have pro Ewing bias but at least i saw just about every game of his prime at a time when i already understood the game.

ewing
03-25-2015, 11:21 PM
They weren't even first in their division.

The Celtics won the division, and the Cavs had a better record, so yeah... with three teams ahead of them, I wouldn't call them contenders. They had a good series.

There were SIX teams with a better record than the Knicks that year. SIX. And the Celtics finished ahead of them with the same record. So SEVEN teams finished ahead of them. They wouldn't have even had home court in the West!

They only people who thought they were contenders were Knicks fans.

They had a good series.... but YOU still haven't spoken to my points, so why should I bother responding to your.

You want to say Ewing had it tougher? He didn't have it any tougher than Stockton and Malone. The West was tough back then, with the Lakers and Blazers, then Suns and Sonics, and Houston and Spurs.

But whatever... Ewing had it so tough compared to Stockon and Malone. Sure sure.


they weren't in contention when they lost a game 7 at the horn in the ECF? (not Ewing finest moment but....) how about when they won 57 games, smoked the Hornets in round 1, and then were about to knock out the Heat when the league suspended everyone on the knicks team for game 6 and 7 for walking on the floor. I'll relive some more loses tomorrow if you want.

valade16
03-26-2015, 08:59 AM
Right.. and the Jazz had to play teams like Houston and the Spurs, who beat the Knicks.

Jordan ended two of Utah's runs. He ended 5 of Ewings, but they played more often because they were in the same conference. It took Ewing four years to get into the playoffs. And yeah... they lost to the Bull five times, but it's not like the Bulls were even the best team in the East those years... in 89 the Bulls went onto lose to the Pistons, and in 92, they weren't even the best team in their division. 93 was the first year they were a contender and the lost to the Bulls, but the next year Jordan wasn't even around. Whose fault was that that Ewing got outplayed by Hakeem? And in 96 they only won a single game against the Bulls.

You say they lost 5 times like they would have won the conference if the Bulls were in there, but they were really only in contention in 93 and 94, one of which was a year Jordan wasn't even playing.


Ewing was in contention twice. Once he lost to Jordan, once he lost to Hakeem.

Stockton and Malone had two title runs, both of which were ended by the Bulls.

Ewing and the Knicks had 2 title runs even with all the times they lost to the Bulls in the playoffs.

So if we're just reducing it down to who had the most Finals appearances isn't it pretty impressive that Ewing had as many as a Malone/Stockton tandem?

SLY WILLIAMS
03-26-2015, 11:50 AM
they weren't in contention when they lost a game 7 at the horn in the ECF? (not Ewing finest moment but....) how about when they won 57 games, smoked the Hornets in round 1, and then were about to knock out the Heat when the league suspended everyone on the knicks team for game 6 and 7 for walking on the floor. I'll relive some more loses tomorrow if you want.

That lost to the Heat was ridiculous. It felt like the league gave the Heat the series.

In my mind the Knicks with Patrick were usually a contender for the 1990's decade. We usually lost to the eventual champion.

90 lost to Champion Pistons
91 lost to Champion Bulls
92 lost to Champion Bulls
93 lost to Champion Bulls
94 lost to Champion Rockets
95 lost to Pacers (7 game series)
96 lost to Champion Bulls
97 lost to Miami Heat in 7 games after NBA suspended half the team
98 lost to Pacers
99 lost to Champion Spurs

ewing
03-26-2015, 12:12 PM
That lost to the Heat was ridiculous. It felt like the league gave the Heat the series.

In my mind the Knicks with Patrick were usually a contender for the 1990's decade. We usually lost to the eventual champion.

90 lost to Champion Pistons
91 lost to Champion Bulls
92 lost to Champion Bulls
93 lost to Champion Bulls
94 lost to Champion Rockets
95 lost to Pacers (7 game series)
96 lost to Champion Bulls
97 lost to Miami Heat in 7 games after NBA suspended half the team
98 lost to Pacers
99 lost to Champion Spurs

they were a very good team from 91 to 97 imo and they made the finals in 99. I think the 99 appearance was a bit more flukey then you do but regardless it was a good run.

Hawkeye15
03-26-2015, 12:32 PM
That lost to the Heat was ridiculous. It felt like the league gave the Heat the series.

In my mind the Knicks with Patrick were usually a contender for the 1990's decade. We usually lost to the eventual champion.

90 lost to Champion Pistons
91 lost to Champion Bulls
92 lost to Champion Bulls
93 lost to Champion Bulls
94 lost to Champion Rockets
95 lost to Pacers (7 game series)
96 lost to Champion Bulls
97 lost to Miami Heat in 7 games after NBA suspended half the team
98 lost to Pacers
99 lost to Champion Spurs

as a fan of neither team at the time (indifferent), I found that one of the most boring finals ever haha.

JasonJohnHorn
03-26-2015, 12:55 PM
Ewing and the Knicks had 2 title runs even with all the times they lost to the Bulls in the playoffs.

So if we're just reducing it down to who had the most Finals appearances isn't it pretty impressive that Ewing had as many as a Malone/Stockton tandem?

You have to look at the talent they each went up against. Given that Ewing was so prone to get shown up by Hakeem and D-Rob, had he played in the West like Stockton and Malone, he may have never made it to the finals. Especially when you throw in Magic' Lakers, Drexler's Trailblazers, the Kemp/Payton Sonics and Barkley's Suns.

JasonJohnHorn
03-26-2015, 01:00 PM
as a fan of neither team at the time (indifferent), I found that one of the most boring finals ever haha.

Losing to a champion doesn't make you a contender, it makes you a loser.

The fact of the matter is the really only went into the playoffs with a legit shot at the finals twice (93 and 94) and the other time they made it, they were the Cinderella story of the lock-out season

They lost to the Pacers who lost to the Bulls. They lost the the Heat, who lost to the bulls.... that isn't 'contenting', that is being fodder for the team that is fodder for the champions.

The played great in 92... had a legit shot in 93 and 94, and got lucky in 99. Every other year, there were multiple teams with better records.

If you aren't in the top four record wise going into the playoffs, you generally aren't considered a 'contender'. If you can't even win a division title.... I mean...

vghxvgh
03-26-2015, 01:05 PM
the correct answer is both. Seriously.http://ehealthwoman.com/apple/images/49.gif http://ehealthwoman.com/apple/images/112.gif

JasonJohnHorn
03-26-2015, 01:15 PM
no i just think you were 10 at best when these games happened and thats why your argument is whatever can find to copy and paste that fits your narrative. Thats why you think the 99 finals was Ewing vs Robinson and don't think the 92 knicks were a legit team. you had no idea, that was Riles first year or that they took the bulls 7 when you starting posting your non sense. I'll admit i have pro Ewing bias but at least i saw just about every game of his prime at a time when i already understood the game.

Well... shows what you know... I watched pretty much EVERY Knicks playoff game during the 90's. Just because I'm not a Knicks homer like you who thought a team with only the 8th best record was a contender, doesn't mean I don't know what I'm talking about.

you go ahead and tell me which seasons the Knicks finished with one of the 4 best record. Go ahead and do that.

And just because a team makes it to the conference finals, doesn't mean they are a contender. The Bucks made it to the conference finals and weren't contenders, and the Grizzlies did the same.

1990: TEN TEAMS WITH A BETTER RECORD!!!
1991: FIFTEEN TEAMS WITH A BETTER RECORD!!!
1992: SEVEN TEAMS FINISHED AHEAD OF THEM IN THE STANDINGS!!!
1993: Second best record in the league: CONTENDER!!!!
1994: Tied for third best record: CONTENDER!!!
1995: FIVE TEAMS with a better record, one of them IN THEIR OWN DIVISION!! And they lost to the Pacers, who lost to the Magic, who lost to the Rockets: NOT CONTENDERS!!!
1996: NINE TEAMS FINISHED AHEAD IN THE RANKINGS!!
1997: Three-way tie for fourth in league, FAILED TO WIN THEIR DIVISION!! Lost to the Heat, who lost to the Bulls. NOT CONTENDERS.
1998: THIRTEEN TEAMS AHEAD OF THE KNICKS!!!! Lost to the Pacers, who lost to the Bulls. Not contenders.
1999: Jordan retires; lock-out season; Great playoff run; outclassed in the finals, which they lost 4-1.


I count three seasons in which they had a shot at winning, two of which they lost to a team other than the Bulls.

Look... stop deluding yourself. Just because you are a Knicks fan and you remember those days fondly, doesn't mean they were contenders every year. They were a great team with a great coach, but they didn't not win because of Jordan, they failed to win because they weren't that great. And just because you lose to the eventual champs in the second round those other seasons doesn't mean you were a contender, it means you weren't good enough to get the seeding where you met the Bulls in the conference finals instead of the semis.


And I wasn't '10' at the time. I'm 40 now. So do the math.

ewing
03-26-2015, 01:18 PM
Well... shows what you know... I watched pretty much EVERY Knicks playoff game during the 90's. Just because I'm not a Knicks homer like you who thought a team with only the 8th best record was a contender, doesn't mean I don't know what I'm talking about.

you go ahead and tell me which seasons the Knicks finished with one of the 4 best record. Go ahead and do that.

And just because a team makes it to the conference finals, doesn't mean they are a contender. The Bucks made it to the conference finals and weren't contenders, and the Grizzlies did the same.

1990: TEN TEAMS WITH A BETTER RECORD!!!
1991: FIFTEEN TEAMS WITH A BETTER RECORD!!!
1992: SEVEN TEAMS FINISHED AHEAD OF THEM IN THE STANDINGS!!!
1993: Second best record in the league: CONTENDER!!!!
1994: Tied for third best record: CONTENDER!!!
1995: FIVE TEAMS with a better record, one of them IN THEIR OWN DIVISION!! And they lost to the Pacers, who lost to the Magic, who lost to the Rockets: NOT CONTENDERS!!!
1996: NINE TEAMS FINISHED AHEAD IN THE RANKINGS!!
1997: Three-way tie for fourth in league, FAILED TO WIN THEIR DIVISION!! Lost to the Heat, who lost to the Bulls. NOT CONTENDERS.
1998: THIRTEEN TEAMS AHEAD OF THE KNICKS!!!! Lost to the Pacers, who lost to the Bulls. Not contenders.
1999: Jordan retires; lock-out season; Great playoff run; outclassed in the finals, which they lost 4-1.


I count three seasons in which they had a shot at winning, two of which they lost to a team other than the Bulls.

Look... stop deluding yourself. Just because you are a Knicks fan and you remember those days fondly, doesn't mean they were contenders every year. They were a great team with a great coach, but they didn't not win because of Jordan, they failed to win because they weren't that great. And just because you lose to the eventual champs in the second round those other seasons doesn't mean you were a contender, it means you weren't good enough to get the seeding where you met the Bulls in the conference finals instead of the semis.


And I wasn't '10' at the time. I'm 40 now. So do the math.


OK, so your not a kid your just someone that thought Patrick Ewing played in the 99 finals and then expects me to take you seriously. you have no credibility, why would i get in a copy and paste war from basketball reference with you?

SLY WILLIAMS
03-26-2015, 01:34 PM
as a fan of neither team at the time (indifferent), I found that one of the most boring finals ever haha.

It was really boring in some games. I think Jordan retiring made it almost seem like a phony championship. It was a lot of defense and some bad shooters. The NY Rangers were also in the Finals that year so NY fans were happy. One game was interrupted by the OJ Bronco chase. I do not know if many people minded. I think a lot of fans forget or are too young to remember that the Knicks were up 3-2 and going home to MSG for game 6. They lost game 6 at home by 2 points. LOL a lousy 2 points is probably what makes a lot of this discussion possible. :D

JasonJohnHorn
03-26-2015, 01:51 PM
OK, so your not a kid your just someone that thought Patrick Ewing played in the 99 finals and then expects me to take you seriously. you have no credibility, why would i get in a copy and paste war from basketball reference with you?

All you got is ad hominems attacks and a homer's selective memory.

You have again failed to put forth an argument where the Knicks were ever contenders and lost to the Bulls more than once.

You do that, and then we can have a conversation. My point was that every time the Knicks were contenders, they lost to team OTHER than the Bulls with the exception of 1993.

If you have an argument, make it. If not, you petty insults only make you look more and more like a homer.


And my apologies for basing my argument on facts whereas you base it on opinion. If you looked at facts yourself, you'd find that the Knicks weren't contenders nearly as often as you seem to think they were.

And if you don't take somebody seriously because they forgot which game a guy got injured in 16 years ago, then you're just being an @$$. My forgetting which series Ewing got injured in 1999 doesn't change the fact that they WEREN'T contenders in 96, or 97, or 98.

you got something to say to that? Or just more personal insults and homerisms?

ewing
03-26-2015, 01:55 PM
well h e double sticks i guess I'm just an @$$

valade16
03-26-2015, 02:17 PM
You have to look at the talent they each went up against. Given that Ewing was so prone to get shown up by Hakeem and D-Rob, had he played in the West like Stockton and Malone, he may have never made it to the finals. Especially when you throw in Magic' Lakers, Drexler's Trailblazers, the Kemp/Payton Sonics and Barkley's Suns.

On the reverse side of the coin, the Jazz likely lose every time they run up against MJ's Bulls so it feels like a wash to me. Here is their respective records and who they lost to in the playoffs by year (beginning when both got 50+ wins in 1989):

1989:
Jazz 51-31 Lost to GSW in 1st Rd
Knicks 52-30 Lost to Chicago in 2nd Rd

1990:
Jazz 55-27 Lost to Suns in 1st Rd
Knicks 47-37 Lost to Pistons in 2nd Rd

1991:
Jazz 54-28 Lost to Blazers in 2nd Rd
Knicks 39-43 Lost to Chicago in 1st Rd

1992:
Jazz 55-27 Lost to Blazers in WCF
Knicks 51-31 Lost to Chicago in 2nd Rd

1993:
Jazz 47-35 Lost to Sonics in 1st Rd
Knicks 62-20 Lost to Chicago in ECF

1994:
Jazz 53-29 Lost to Houston in WCF (1-4)
Knicks 57-25 Lost to Houston in Finals (3-4)

1995:
Jazz 60-22 Lost to Houston in 1st Rd
Knicks 55-27 Lost to Pacers in 2nd Rd

1996:
Jazz 55-27 Lost to Sonics in WCF
Knicks 45-37 Lost to Chicago in 2nd Rd

1997:
Jazz 64-18 Lost to Chicago in Finals
Knicks 55-27 Lost to Miami in 2nd Rd

1998:
Jazz 62-20 Lost to Chicago in Finals
Knicks 43-39 Lost to Pacers in 2nd Rd

1999:
Jazz 37-13 Lost to Blazers in 2nd Rd
Knicks 27-23 Lost to Spurs in Finals

Doesn't seem like there is a glaring advantage either way. It is worth noting that in 1994 when the Knicks and Jazz played the Rockets the Knicks fared far better against them than the Jazz did.

I guess I just don't see how someone can say that the team that faced what is considered among (if not the) greatest team of all-time 6 out of 8 playoffs from 1989 to 1996 had the easier road in the playoffs.

Realistically, there is no way the Jazz were getting past the Bulls during their dynasty so 91-93 and 96 are already out. So the only 2 years in contention are 94/95. In 94 both the Jazz and Knicks lost to the Rockets (and the Knicks did way better against them) and in 95 the Knicks lost to the Pacers. That's really the only one you could say the Knicks failed or drastically underachieved.

JasonJohnHorn
03-26-2015, 02:22 PM
On the reverse side of the coin, the Jazz likely lose every time they run up against MJ's Bulls so it feels like a wash to me. Here is their respective records and who they lost to in the playoffs by year (beginning when both got 50+ wins in 1989):

1989:
Jazz 51-31 Lost to GSW in 1st Rd
Knicks 52-30 Lost to Chicago in 2nd Rd

1990:
Jazz 55-27 Lost to Suns in 1st Rd
Knicks 47-37 Lost to Pistons in 2nd Rd

1991:
Jazz 54-28 Lost to Blazers in 2nd Rd
Knicks 39-43 Lost to Chicago in 1st Rd

1992:
Jazz 55-27 Lost to Blazers in WCF
Knicks 51-31 Lost to Chicago in 2nd Rd

1993:
Jazz 47-35 Lost to Sonics in 1st Rd
Knicks 62-20 Lost to Chicago in ECF

1994:
Jazz 53-29 Lost to Houston in WCF (1-4)
Knicks 57-25 Lost to Houston in Finals (3-4)

1995:
Jazz 60-22 Lost to Houston in 1st Rd
Knicks 55-27 Lost to Pacers in 2nd Rd

1996:
Jazz 55-27 Lost to Sonics in WCF
Knicks 45-37 Lost to Chicago in 2nd Rd

1997:
Jazz 64-18 Lost to Chicago in Finals
Knicks 55-27 Lost to Miami in 2nd Rd

1998:
Jazz 62-20 Lost to Chicago in Finals
Knicks 43-39 Lost to Pacers in 2nd Rd

1999:
Jazz 37-13 Lost to Blazers in 2nd Rd
Knicks 27-23 Lost to Spurs in Finals

Doesn't seem like there is a glaring advantage either way. It is worth noting that in 1994 when the Knicks and Jazz played the Rockets the Knicks fared far better against them than the Jazz did.

I guess I just don't see how someone can say that the team that faced what is considered among (if not the) greatest team of all-time 6 out of 8 playoffs from 1989 to 1996 had the easier road in the playoffs.

Realistically, there is no way the Jazz were getting past the Bulls during their dynasty so 91-93 and 96 are already out. So the only 2 years in contention are 94/95. In 94 both the Jazz and Knicks lost to the Rockets (and the Knicks did way better against them) and in 95 the Knicks lost to the Pacers. That's really the only one you could say the Knicks failed or drastically underachieved.

I wouldn't argue with that at all.

The Jazz only had two title runs, both of which ended at Jordan's hands.

The whole point of what I was saying is that somebody complained that the Knicks had it worse than Stockton and Malone because Jordan always ended their championships runs. The Knicks really only had one year of contention where they lost against Jordan. The Jazz had two, not to mention all the season they had to play against Hakeem, and D-Rob, the Blazers and Sonics, and to their credit, they beat a lot of those teams.

But when they are in a conference where GWS's Run-TMC isn't even good enough to make it to the conference finals... well... that is some stiff competition.

Hawkeye15
03-26-2015, 02:29 PM
It was really boring in some games. I think Jordan retiring made it almost seem like a phony championship. It was a lot of defense and some bad shooters. The NY Rangers were also in the Finals that year so NY fans were happy. One game was interrupted by the OJ Bronco chase. I do not know if many people minded. I think a lot of fans forget or are too young to remember that the Knicks were up 3-2 and going home to MSG for game 6. They lost game 6 at home by 2 points. LOL a lousy 2 points is probably what makes a lot of this discussion possible. :D

I remember. I loved Dream, and Anthony Mason, and I went to Trent Tucker's basketball camp in the early 90's, so I met Ewing a few times, which is the biggest reason I was watching. They were just slow games for the most part.

flea
03-26-2015, 02:31 PM
I think a good discussion is who the 2nd best team of the 90s was? IMO, Lakers and Pistons didn't extend far enough into the decade to really qualify. You'd like to say the Rockets considering they're the only team to win multiple championships in the decade besides the Bulls, but they didn't really do enough outside of the 94/95 seasons and had a lot of moving parts. Same for the Spurs, except they didn't achieve nearly as much until Duncan arrived late in the decade. Suns were strong for a few seasons early but petered out before Barkley got traded.

IMO it's between the Blazers, Jazz, and Knicks. And honestly, the Knicks probably have the best case - though if I were pressed I'd probably pick the Jazz as the better team.

ewing
03-26-2015, 02:34 PM
So if the season ended today the 4 contenders would be GS, Alt, Memp, and Houston but Houston would count b/c they are not first in there division. you're premise just doesn't make sense. I've been assuming you are a Jazz fan maybe i am wrong there too. The Jazz and Knicks both had good runs in the 90s. Both were contending for a title more then twice. The Jazz for example certainly were when they lost to the Sonic in 7.

ewing
03-26-2015, 02:35 PM
I think a good discussion is who the 2nd best team of the 90s was? IMO, Lakers and Pistons didn't extend far enough into the decade to really qualify. You'd like to say the Rockets considering they're the only team to win multiple championships in the decade besides the Bulls, but they didn't really do enough outside of the 94/95 seasons and had a lot of moving parts. Same for the Spurs, except they didn't achieve nearly as much until Duncan arrived late in the decade. Suns were strong for a few seasons early but petered out before Barkley got traded.

IMO it's between the Blazers, Jazz, and Knicks. And honestly, the Knicks probably have the best case - though if I were pressed I'd probably pick the Jazz as the better team.

I'd pick the Knicks but i honestly don't understand how someone can say either team only contended for a title twice.

ewing
03-26-2015, 03:18 PM
here the teams that did not finish first in their division and won and NBA title since 2000

Mav 11
Spurs 07
Piston 04
Lakers 02

The Heat get an honorable mention for winning the SE in 05 but only winning 52 game in the regular season

JasonJohnHorn
03-26-2015, 06:34 PM
I'd pick the Knicks but i honestly don't understand how someone can say either team only contended for a title twice.

For the same reason that one wouldn't argue that Dallas never really contended for a title more than three times in the last 15 years. Just because they were in the playoffs pretty much every year, and just because they often had home court advantage, doesn't mean they were 'contenders'.


When you get the 4th seed, you aren't a contender; you were usually one loss away from not having home court in the first round.


The Mavs were good enough to win in 03, 05, 06, 07 and 11. Those are the years they were in a position to win. They weren't even contenders on either side of their championship year.

Just because a team is good enough to get in the playoffs, doesn't mean they were good enough to contend for a title.

JasonJohnHorn
03-26-2015, 06:41 PM
here the teams that did not finish first in their division and won and NBA title since 2000.


The Heat get an honorable mention for winning the SE in 05 but only winning 52 game in the regular season

Mav 11: Had a record as good or better than 4 division winners
Spurs 07: Had a better record that 4 or six division title winners.
Piston 04: Add an all-star at the trade deadline/second best record in conference
Lakers 02: Defending champs/ record as good or better than 3/4 division champs.


The argument isn't that one has to win the division title to be a contender. It's that they have to be good enough to win the championship. So a team that loses to a team that loses to a team that loses to a champion, is not a contender any more than a team who is 8th overall in the league and barely manages to get home court int he first round, unless a defending champion is dealing with an injury and has a healthy roster going into the playoffs.

Chronz
03-26-2015, 07:02 PM
you're both right and wrong. Ill lay down the law later tonight. Not many games to watch so Ill be giving you my opinion based on how well the street game treats me today.

Tony_Starks
03-26-2015, 08:09 PM
I just went into the "best player to never win a ring" thread and completely saw what I figured I would see. "Poor Stockton for having to play MJ". Thats the type of **** I don't get.


john stockton must have been pretty pissed playing in the jordan era

Stockton should be pissed he played in the Jordan era? He was damn near ****ing 40 when he played MJ. The guy who should be the most pissed he played in the Jordan era is Patrick Ewing. Bar none.

Lost to MJ in '89, '91, '92 (only team to take MJ to 7 during his 6 ships), '93 (ECF Charles ****ing Smith), all smack dab in his prime with championship caliber 50-60 win squads. Those 3-4 years in the early 90s that team was primed for a title run or multiple if MJ hadn't existed.

Make it to game 7 of the Finals (a buzzer beater away from winning in 6) the first year MJ left.

But yea, poor Stockton and Malone for avoiding MJ for damn near 20 seasons and losing anyway before running into him at the age of 40.

I remember watching those Bulls/ Knicks battles as a kid and always thinking OK this is the year they finally beat them. Then getting all pissed in the fourth quarter when the refs put their Bulls jerseys on......but that's probably a story for another day.....

ewing
03-26-2015, 08:11 PM
[QUOTE=Chronz;29768168]you're both right and wrong. Ill lay down the law later tonight. Not many games to watch so Ill be giving you my opinion based on how well the street game treats me today.[/QUOTE


nah, i'm right :)