Where do you have Steph ranked all time?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by smith&wesson

Injuries are part of the game. If you’re going to discredit that ship then you would have to discredit a bunch of teams who have won historically.

Did you watch the 76ers series or the Bucks in that ship run? Kawhi was in beast mode.

Also remember when ZaZa intentionally injured Kawhi when the Spurs were handling the Warriors? Golden State wasn’t getting passed the Spurs that year if Kawhi wasn’t taken out.

I’m just saying that argument can be made for so many teams in so many different ways.

---

The Spurs having any chance In that series before or after Leonard went down is a myth. That was only game 1 lol

I was bummed Leonard went down because I knew this would just be another reason for people to tarnish the Warriors and Steph Curry. Since the warriors were clearly the superior team that year.

The Warriors went 2-1 against the Spurs during the regular season that year and both wins were a blowout greater than 20. The one time the Spurs won was by a margin 5. The game was tight all night and the Warriors had just come off an emotional, high scoring 2 point loss against the Mavs.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by COOLbeans

The Spurs having any chance In that series before or after Leonard went down is a myth. That was only game 1 lol

I was bummed Leonard went down because I knew this would just be another reason for people to tarnish the Warriors and Steph Curry. Since the warriors were clearly the superior team that year.

The Warriors went 2-1 against the Spurs during the regular season that year and both wins were a blowout greater than 20. The one time the Spurs won was by a margin 5. The game was tight all night and the Warriors had just come off an emotional, high scoring 2 point loss against the Mavs.

---

I viewed the Warriors as a dynasty regardless. And Curry is the greatest shooter of all time. I’m not taking anything away from them, they would still have a bunch of ships etc.

But we all know ZaZa is dirty lol

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by smith&wesson

ok but you have to put up some strong seasons as a defender to gain that rep. where as guys like Curry and Nash have the exact opposite rep. Nash was like the door man in your hotel lobby greeting you as you walked passed him. He was atrocious on that end of the floor.

---

True.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by VCaintdead17

Agreed on this front. Along with MJ and Kobe I'd throw Payton's name in there as well. Especially after like 96. West is interesting because by all accounts and reports he defended at an All NBA level. For how long who's to say. But I generally operate with an assumed positive impact on defense when evaluating West, as he's always looked really good on that end when watching film.

---

I know its unreliable for its time and sample size but theres some primitive +/- stuff that puts him at about average, granted it was way later in his career but Im pretty sure it came during some of those "all defensive selections". Ill see if I can scrummage it up.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by smith&wesson

Don't get me wrong Im not questioning your logic Im simply trying to understand. I agreed with you with respect to how these awards sometimes mean very little. But I was pointing out the fact that a player who makes an all defensive team, weather it be based on the individuals performance for that year or based on reputation gained from having strong seasons as a defender prior, is still going to far out weigh someone who doesn't play defense at all. Like Steve Nash. And while we glorify his impact, what prevented him from winning a title then is my question. It certainly wasn't the lack of talent around him because he had a very talented and deep squad.

Also the reason I ask why compare these guys to Kobe is because its a hard comparison to make. Were talking about a floor general who was pass first compared to a gun slinging sg. That PHX team was lost with out Nash, so his importance was vital as a play maker. And yes you're right Amare missed that season, but the Suns still had a potent team with Marion, Bell, Diaw, Barbosa etc. Look at Kobe's team in that year to compare. He literally only had Odom. The rest of his team was straight garbage. Bynum was a rookie, and beyond that you'd have a hard time even naming another player on his team worth mentioning. Kobe carried that team to 45 wins and had 13 roster spots that could have been replaced with you or I, unless Smush Parker is a lot better than you, I dunno lol.

When Kobe had a good team around him he was leading them to ships. Even after Shaq left he won two more when he was given a good team to run with. We can say that he played selfishly, or that his defense was over rated in certain seasons but I don't think we can doubt the impact he had on his teams. Nash fell short and it wasn't because he didn't have the talent around him so when we talk impact we do have to consider that as well.

---

1. I still just fundamentally disagree that a player getting an All Defense Award gives them the benefit of the doubt. But regardless, you still never specified what steps you've personally taken to evaluate Kobe's defensive impact over the course of his career. If you haven't done this just say so and we can move past it.

2. You're speaking purely anecdotally, "He had a great team", "He had a deep squad", without pulling any actual numbers to reflect this. The Suns were totally reliant on Nash, and were unable to function without him. You name guys like Marion and Barbosa, but these are guys who Nash elevated on offense. Hell, Barbosa owes Nash his sixth man of the year award. Look at Barbosa's drop in efficiency with Nash off the court during his 6MOY winning season:

https://www.pbpstats.com/on-off/nba/...6&PlayerId=959


He drops SEVEN points in TS efficiency. That's massive. It's no coincidence that Marion's offense totally fell off after leaving Phoenix either.

3. I answered this question in my previous post. The thing that prevented Phoenix from winning a title? Their defense. Every postseason their offense IMPROVED. It was their defense that let them down, and that's hardly because of Nash.

4. Speaking of Nash's defense, let's actually really dive into it, because you're totally exaggerating on this end. The reality is that Nash's quick feet in vision bumped him up to nearly a league average guard defender.

His soccer footwork actually allowed him to defend screens decently well. Here's a good example of this from an 05 playoff game:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FHn0S2lEeLk

He was always great at drawing charges

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7yQT...ture=emb_title

and was regularly near the top of the league in charges drawn:

http://www.82games.com/charge0607.htm


Most importantly however, is that Phoenix did what the Lakers did with Kobe - hid him off ball on the opposing team's weakest offensive player. As a result of this scheme, Nash's vision allowed him to make good reads off ball and as a result was above average in forcing turnovers

https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_c...ture=emb_title


Ok so we have film, what does ultimately mean though? Well here's where we can cross reference it with team level data to try and get a better idea of the big picture.

https://www.pbpstats.com/wowy-combos...&PlayerIds=959

Over a large, 3 year sample, we can see that Nash on the court made Phoenix's defense only slightly worse, which aligns with most analysts inference that guard defense can ultimately be hidden effectively, (for example: the 2016 Celtics had the 4th best defense in the league with little Isaiah thomas playing 32 mpg).

So essentially, the Suns defense was just mediocre, regardless of Nash being on or off the court. With this in mind, I think it's reasonable to assume that his lack of a strong defensive presence ultimately does not have a large bearing on his overall net impact.


"Nash fell short and it wasn't because he didn't have the talent around him so when we talk impact we do have to consider that as well"

You say this, but what are you saying, exactly? Are you putting the burden of their losses on Nash? Why do you think they failed? And what lead you to this conclusion? Elaborate with numbers + film plz.

Oh also, just because it's funny, those lousy Laker teams actually had a better defense with Kobe OFF the court in the same 3 year sample I used for Nash lmao.

https://www.pbpstats.com/wowy-combos...&PlayerIds=977



So with all this being said, is it really a stretch to say that Nash and Kobe more or less have a similar net impact for their prime? (Kobe with greater longevity obviously)

Glad to see someone sticking up for Nash. He’s was without question the best offensive engine in the league and was become very very underrated

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by VCaintdead17

1. I still just fundamentally disagree that a player getting an All Defense Award gives them the benefit of the doubt. But regardless, you still never specified what steps you've personally taken to evaluate Kobe's defensive impact over the course of his career. If you haven't done this just say so and we can move past it.

2. You're speaking purely anecdotally, "He had a great team", "He had a deep squad", without pulling any actual numbers to reflect this. The Suns were totally reliant on Nash, and were unable to function without him. You name guys like Marion and Barbosa, but these are guys who Nash elevated on offense. Hell, Barbosa owes Nash his sixth man of the year award. Look at Barbosa's drop in efficiency with Nash off the court during his 6MOY winning season:

https://www.pbpstats.com/on-off/nba/...6&PlayerId=959


He drops SEVEN points in TS efficiency. That's massive. It's no coincidence that Marion's offense totally fell off after leaving Phoenix either.

3. I answered this question in my previous post. The thing that prevented Phoenix from winning a title? Their defense. Every postseason their offense IMPROVED. It was their defense that let them down, and that's hardly because of Nash.

4. Speaking of Nash's defense, let's actually really dive into it, because you're totally exaggerating on this end. The reality is that Nash's quick feet in vision bumped him up to nearly a league average guard defender.

His soccer footwork actually allowed him to defend screens decently well. Here's a good example of this from an 05 playoff game:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FHn0S2lEeLk

He was always great at drawing charges

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7yQT...ture=emb_title

and was regularly near the top of the league in charges drawn:

http://www.82games.com/charge0607.htm


Most importantly however, is that Phoenix did what the Lakers did with Kobe - hid him off ball on the opposing team's weakest offensive player. As a result of this scheme, Nash's vision allowed him to make good reads off ball and as a result was above average in forcing turnovers

https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_c...ture=emb_title


Ok so we have film, what does ultimately mean though? Well here's where we can cross reference it with team level data to try and get a better idea of the big picture.

https://www.pbpstats.com/wowy-combos...&PlayerIds=959

Over a large, 3 year sample, we can see that Nash on the court made Phoenix's defense only slightly worse, which aligns with most analysts inference that guard defense can ultimately be hidden effectively, (for example: the 2016 Celtics had the 4th best defense in the league with little Isaiah thomas playing 32 mpg).

So essentially, the Suns defense was just mediocre, regardless of Nash being on or off the court. With this in mind, I think it's reasonable to assume that his lack of a strong defensive presence ultimately does not have a large bearing on his overall net impact.


"Nash fell short and it wasn't because he didn't have the talent around him so when we talk impact we do have to consider that as well"

You say this, but what are you saying, exactly? Are you putting the burden of their losses on Nash? Why do you think they failed? And what lead you to this conclusion? Elaborate with numbers + film plz.

Oh also, just because it's funny, those lousy Laker teams actually had a better defense with Kobe OFF the court in the same 3 year sample I used for Nash lmao.

https://www.pbpstats.com/wowy-combos...&PlayerIds=977



So with all this being said, is it really a stretch to say that Nash and Kobe more or less have a similar net impact for their prime? (Kobe with greater longevity obviously)

---

I don’t need to take a single step to know Kobe was a far superior defender to Nash. I mean it’s common knowledge. But that doesn’t take away from your point. I get that Nash’s net impact would be more in his peak while Kobe had the more longevity. I touched that briefly when saying you take Nash off that roster and the Suns don’t nearly look the same as they were completely reliant on him. He was the engine no doubt. It’s all valid. I’m not arguing that Kobe declined as a defender either because he clearly did. But I just remember Nash as someone who couldn’t defend his shadow. Also where’s Timmy D on your list

Have Duncan around 8th all time, could potentially have him ahead of Magic but I think I lean slightly towards Magic at this point. To bring this full circle, this was more about tiers than anything else. I have Kobe ahead of Nash all time, but I have them on the same tier because I don't think Kobe is that far ahead of Nash.

My tiers were:

Tier 1:
MJ/LeBron/Kareem/Russell

Tier 2:
Shaq/Hakeem/Magic/Duncan/Bird/Wilt/KG

Tier 3:
West/Oscar/D Rob/Steph (after this season)

Tier 4:
Kobe/Nash/Dirk/Wade/CP3/Barkley/K. Malone/KD/Moses/Erving

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by VCaintdead17

Have Duncan around 8th all time, could potentially have him ahead of Magic but I think I lean slightly towards Magic at this point. To bring this full circle, this was more about tiers than anything else. I have Kobe ahead of Nash all time, but I have them on the same tier because I don't think Kobe is that far ahead of Nash.

My tiers were:

Tier 1:
MJ/LeBron/Kareem/Russell

Tier 2:
Shaq/Hakeem/Magic/Duncan/Bird/Wilt/KG

Tier 3:
West/Oscar/D Rob/Steph (after this season)

Tier 4:
Kobe/Nash/Dirk/Wade/CP3/Barkley/K. Malone/KD/Moses/Erving

---

If the awards mean little how do you justify having Malone and Barkley above me? Especially that defensive door mat Barkley?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ewing

If the awards mean little how do you justify having Malone and Barkley above me? Especially that defensive door mat Barkley?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

---

Yeah that's a fair question. I'm admittedly a little lower on Ewing than most. Barkley's offensive peak was actually insanely good in two different forms - during his Philly days as a 1 dribble power finisher and his Suns era where he basically played point forward and was taking step back threes. I lean Barkley moreso for his Philly days, where he'd play more small forward and was at least a passable dender. Like, '89 Barkley to me is far and away the best individual season among any of the seasons these 3 guys played.

Malone is weird to evaluate. Because he was just so great for so long. Was he ever at any point playing at an all time great level? Probably not, but still playing at the level he did for so long can't be ignored. Ewing probably has a slightly better single season or two season peak, but i can't go purely on peak because then guys like Bill Walton would be in like tier 2 lol.

Ewing is basically my cutoff guy, along with Rick Barry

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by VCaintdead17

Yeah that's a fair question. I'm admittedly a little lower on Ewing than most. Barkley's offensive peak was actually insanely good in two different forms - during his Philly days as a 1 dribble power finisher and his Suns era where he basically played point forward and was taking step back threes. I lean Barkley moreso for his Philly days, where he'd play more small forward and was at least a passable dender. Like, '89 Barkley to me is far and away the best individual season among any of the seasons these 3 guys played.

Malone is weird to evaluate. Because he was just so great for so long. Was he ever at any point playing at an all time great level? Probably not, but still playing at the level he did for so long can't be ignored. Ewing probably has a slightly better single season or two season peak, but i can't go purely on peak because then guys like Bill Walton would be in like tier 2 lol.

Ewing is basically my cutoff guy, along with Rick Barry

---

Bill Walton had a 2 year peak. I was a dominate 2 way force over a decade and Barkey never played defense anywhere. Chuck in Philly reminds me of Alex English in Denver. Both guys had stats but there teams scared no body.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ewing

Bill Walton had a 2 year peak. I was a dominate 2 way force over a decade and Barkey never played defense anywhere. Chuck in Philly reminds me of Alex English in Denver. Both guys had stats but there teams scared no body.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

---

ehh i just disagree on pretty much all points. Those Philly defenses weren't bad in most of those seasons. They had the 4th best defense in '90 with Barkley leading the team in minutes. Clearly he was capable of buying in to a team defense at the time and wasn't a huge liability. He also consistently had great playoffs where he maintained his volume and efficiency scoring wise, and was also capable of creating for others.

I think Philly's issue is that they didn't really have a great team around him, outside of Hawkins and a post prime Mo Cheeks. Barkley himself rarely ever failed to elevate his game against tougher competition.

And saying Ewing was 2 way force for over a decade is a bit of an exaggeration. I think he had 2 MVP level years, and then like 5 or 6 All NBA years. Also outside of one or two playoff runs, Ewing was predictable enough/easy enough to scheme for that teams basically turned him a chucker.

It's no coincidence that every postseason his efficiency heavily regressed to the point that he was either scoring on volume at league average efficiency, or in many instances, well below league average efficiency. His volume kept up because he didn't really have a playmaking skill set to weaponize in these instances, so he just kept shooting. This is partly why the Ewing era Knicks postseason offenses was so weak, outside of that killer run in 1990.

Defense of course is another story, although, while I think Ewing was a great defender, I think he falls short of the impact guys like KG, Robinson, Duncan, Hakeem, Ben Wallace, Draymond, Mutombo, etc. had. Those Knick defenses just had an insanely defensive slanted supporting cast.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by VCaintdead17

ehh i just disagree on pretty much all points. Those Philly defenses weren't bad in most of those seasons. They had the 4th best defense in '90 with Barkley leading the team in minutes. Clearly he was capable of buying in to a team defense at the time and wasn't a huge liability. He also consistently had great playoffs where he maintained his volume and efficiency scoring wise, and was also capable of creating for others.

I think Philly's issue is that they didn't really have a great team around him, outside of Hawkins and a post prime Mo Cheeks. Barkley himself rarely ever failed to elevate his game against tougher competition.

And saying Ewing was 2 way force for over a decade is a bit of an exaggeration. I think he had 2 MVP level years, and then like 5 or 6 All NBA years. Also outside of one or two playoff runs, Ewing was predictable enough/easy enough to scheme for that teams basically turned him a chucker.

It's no coincidence that every postseason his efficiency heavily regressed to the point that he was either scoring on volume at league average efficiency, or in many instances, well below league average efficiency. His volume kept up because he didn't really have a playmaking skill set to weaponize in these instances, so he just kept shooting. This is partly why the Ewing era Knicks postseason offenses was so weak, outside of that killer run in 1990.

Defense of course is another story, although, while I think Ewing was a great defender, I think he falls short of the impact guys like KG, Robinson, Duncan, Hakeem, Ben Wallace, Draymond, Mutombo, etc. had. Those Knick defenses just had an insanely defensive slanted supporting cast.

---

According to basketball reference here is how his Philly teams ranked on Defense every year b/t 87-92 and how they faired in the playoffs

87-88 19th, no playoffs
88-89 24th, First round- swept by NY
89-90 16th, Second round lost to the Bulls in 5
90-91 16th, Second round lost to the Bulls in 5
91-92 22nd No playoffs

Barkley didn't play defense, the Sixers didn't play defense, and they were an easy out for good teams in the playoffs.

Comparing his supporting cast to mine is almost equally as bad an argument. Mo Cheeks and Hersey Hawking were as good or better players than anyone that played with me during my prime. Guys like Tony, Uncle Cliffy, Jonhhy Dawkins, Rick Mahorn, The G Man. This should have been enough not to get his butt kicked every year if we're going to call him a top 20 player ever.

As for my peak between 89 and 97 I averaged between 29 and 22 a game on the slowest-paced team in the NBA, while bringing in over 10 rebounds and 2 blocks every game. I also had 4 other seasons where I averaged over 20 a night. That's not Bill Walton or Grant Hill. No offense to those great but I had a full career. During my prime, the Knicks had the top-rated defense 3 straight years (92-93, 93-94, 94-95), came in 2nd two times, and had a couple of other top 5 ratings.

You knock my post-season efficiency but ignore my post-season success. With less talent and a harder road (I lost to MJ 5 times), my teams had more success than these other greats. I think it would also behoove you to look that the point totals and general efficiency by and against the Knicks in the playoffs before passing judgment. We played games in the 80s and 90s with both teams shooting a low percentage.

Finally, you give credit to my supporting cast but hold up guys like KG as superior defenders. That tweener ***** was a good cog but couldn't anchor ****. Look at his team's defensive performances without being surrounded by truly great defenders. The only time KG was on a really good defensive team was in Boston and he had Tony Allen, James Posey, prime Rondo, Perk.... I guess it was my supporting cast that got me to 3 NCAA finals and made Georgetown the most feared defensive team of a generation too. a lot of things must of fell into place for me to me the best defensive player and anchor of the best defense in College basketball during the 80s and then for it happen again in the 90s at the pro level

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ewing

According to basketball reference here is how his Philly teams ranked on Defense every year b/t 87-92 and how they faired in the playoffs

87-88 19th, no playoffs
88-89 24th, First round- swept by NY
89-90 16th, Second round lost to the Bulls in 5
90-91 16th, Second round lost to the Bulls in 5
91-92 22nd No playoffs

Barkley didn't play defense, the Sixers didn't play defense, and they were an easy out for good teams in the playoffs.

Comparing his supporting cast to mine is almost equally as bad an argument. Mo Cheeks and Hersey Hawking were better players than anyone that played for the Knicks in my prime. Guys like Tony, Uncle Cliffy, Jonhhy Dawkins, Rick Mahorn, The G Man. This should have been enough not to get his butt kicked every year if we're going to call him a top 20 player ever.

As for my peak between 89 and 97 I averaged between 29 and 22 a game on the slowest-paced team in the NBA, while bringing in over 10 rebounds and 2 blocks every game. I also had 4 other seasons where I averaged over 20 a night. That's not Bill Walton or Grant Hill. No offense to those great but I had a full career. During my prime, the Knicks had the top-rated defense in the 3 times (92-93, 93-94, 94-95), first twice 2 times and had a couple of other top 5 ratings.

You knock my post-season efficiency but ignore my post-season success. With less talent and a harder road (I lost to MJ 5 times), my teams had more success than these other greats. I think it would also behoove you to look that the point totals and general efficiency by and against the Knicks in the playoffs before passing judgment. We played games in the 80s and 90s with both teams shooting a low percentage.

Finally, you give credit to my supporting cast but hold up guys like KG as superior defenders. That tweener ***** was a good cogs but couldn't anchor ****. Look at his team's defensive performances without being surrounded by truly great defenders. The only time KG was on a really good defense team was in Boston and he had Tony Allen, James Posey, prime Rondo, Perk. I guess it was my supporting cast that made got me to 3 NCAA finals and made Georgetown the most feared defensive team of a generation too.

---

You're off base on a lot of things still I think. Also the first person bit is a little weird at this point.

You also sound kind of upset? Idk I thought we were just talking. I already said I'm a bit lower on Ewing, but it's not crazy to have him in the tier previously mentioned.

Nonetheless, I'll break down each of your points:

For starters, using a playoff wins and losses as your dichotomy for individual player evaluation is just a time tested, inherently flawed approach, and likely reflects your inability to actually speak to how each player impacts their team on an individual level. Maybe you'll surprise me and bring some key data or insight to the table, but at this stage I doubt it.

First let's contextualize the teams Barkley was on in the late 80s. Late 80s Philly was essentially a period of rebuilding that got accelerated due to Barkley's massive, massive, offensive footprint. They never acquired a true rim protector (this wasn't Mahorn's bag) to play next to Barkley when he was at small forward, which is likely why their defenses were always middling. (my mistake on the 1990 defense, thought it was much better but it was in fact 16th in Drtg that year). I do agree that Barkley caps a team's defensive potential, but not to a crippling extent.

Mahorn and Gminski were good role players, but nothing more. Certainly not players you can have out there for 30+ mpg and expect to contend for a title.

Johnny Dawkins dealt with a ton of injuries during some of Barkley's best Philly seasons, and missed a ton of games. Same with Andrew Toney, who, after his series of injuries in '86 (in which he played 6 games), was basically a shell of his former self, and would go on to barely play his final 2 years in Philly with Barkley. The peak Barkley Philly years and prime Toney years have literally no overlap.

This is also the same for Cliff Robinson (who is a different Cliff Robinson then you're remembering). Philly Cliff Robinson wasn't really a good defender, and like some of the others mentioned had barely any overlap with Barkley's best Philly seasons.

On your point about in era efficiency being low, I'm not looking at raw TS%, I'm looking at TS% relative to era. So essentially, I'm looking at Ewing's efficiency vs league average efficiency at that time, which again, his relative TS% mostly hovers around 0 (league average) or is in the negative (below league average).


But if I really wanted to indulge your framing of playoff wins and losses - does Ewing look much better?

88: Lost round 1 to the Celtics
89: Lost Round 2 to the Bulls
90: Lost Round 2 to the Pistons
91: Swept Round 1 by the Bulls

Both players would end up making the finals later on in their career, difference being Barkley was the engine of some all time great playoff offenses, while Ewing was past his peak after '91 which saw the Knicks orient around a strong team defensive scheme instead of relying on Ewing to be some sort of Hakeem presence (which he wasn't really close to). Bringing in Riley in '92 saw the Knicks improve 3 points on defense, coinciding with the front office prioritizing getting defensively slanted players like McDaniel, Mason, and Starks. Not to mention the carry over of guys like Smith and Oakley, who were both strong mega impactful defenders.

And then late 90s shouldn't even be mentioned. 99 Knicks are one of the weakest finals teams in NBA history, coinciding with shortened season shenanigans. We have further evidence of the Knicks being a well oiled defensive machine when Ewing missed over 30 games in '98, and which during those games the Knicks actually IMPROVED on defense, going from 5.9 efficiency points on D to 7.8 points ahead of the league.

Do I actually think the Knicks were a better defense without Ewing? Of course not, there's likely some noise with that figure. But what it does accurately hint at in my opinion is that Ewing was not as vital as you're making him out to be on defense. Would a similar effect happen from 92-95? I imagine in this period the Knicks defense would be a bit worse without him, but still near the top of the league. (I can break down the data supporting this theory more if you'd like)

You're point about raw ppg and rebounds or whatever...I just don't care. That's not how player analysis is done. Those numbers don't even begin to describe how a player affects their team success.

Also don't care about college lol. And you're nuts if you think Ewing's defense was anywhere near KG's. KG has a stake for being a top 5 defender ever. Knicks were a defensively slanted team headed by a defensive mastermind in Pat Riley. Wolves were....the Wolves.

Basically my perspective is that Ewing really wasn't very good on offense when it mattered, and that, while he was for sure a great defender, those Knicks defenses as a whole were brilliant, so I'd hardly call it a carry by any means.

I will say, in an effort to question my own methodology and bias's, I think if Ewing had another season on par with 1990, a season where he's both at his defensive apex and actually had a really good postseason offensively, I'd bump him up to that tier. Unfortunately he never really reached those heights again on offense, which makes me think 1990 can be attributed to variance/hot shooting than anything else.

For me Ewing is right there, just doesn't quite make it on to that tier.

Wow that was a lot of BS. From Ewing’s prime ending in 91, to Charles having similar post season success, to G-Man and Mahorn not being guys that could play key roles, to 98 Ewing getting injuried and having Marcus Camby is in anyway comparable to what would happen if prime Ewing got hurt. Impressive.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ewing

Wow that was a lot of BS. From Ewing’s prime ending in 91, to Charles having similar post season success, to G-Man and Mahorn not being guys that could play key roles, to 98 Ewing getting injuried and having Marcus Camby is in anyway comparable to what would happen if prime Ewing got hurt. Impressive.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

---

I said Ewing's peak, not his prime - HUGE difference. But at this point if you're going to straw man me then we don't need to continue lol. You haven't brought a shred of insight and were literally naming guys that barely played with prime Barkley. It's pretty clear you have nothing of actual substance to add, which is why you keep circling your wagon around ambiguities and anecdotes.

It's also clear that you're weirdly emotionally tethered to Ewing, and are incapable of acknowledging when I make valid points. You've been posting in here for 16 years so I imagine you gotta at least be in your 30s by now. My recommendation is to stop weirdly cosplaying a retired NBA player and actually do some homework on NBA history. Or just act like a normal adult and stop talking in first person. Genuine weirdo manbaby behavior.

I was fine to agree to disagree as I think there's plenty of room for interpretation, but it's clear you don't give a **** about nuance and are incapable of carrying an actual conversation.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by VCaintdead17

I said Ewing's peak, not his prime - HUGE difference. But at this point if you're going to straw man me then we don't need to continue lol. You haven't brought a shred of insight and were literally naming guys that barely played with prime Barkley. It's pretty clear you have nothing of actual substance to add, which is why you keep circling your wagon around ambiguities and anecdotes.

It's also clear that you're weirdly emotionally tethered to Ewing, and are incapable of acknowledging when I make valid points. You've been posting in here for 16 years so I imagine you gotta at least be in your 30s by now. My recommendation is to stop weirdly cosplaying a retired NBA player and actually do some homework on NBA history. Or just act like a normal adult and stop talking in first person. Genuine weirdo manbaby behavior.

I was fine to agree to disagree as I think there's plenty of room for interpretation, but it's clear you don't give a **** about nuance and are incapable of carrying an actual conversation.

---

I'm emotional? Wow


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalkr

I'm not really interested in ranking players of all time because the game has changed so much. In today's game he's top 5. 96 3s in one month when you consider the only other player to make more than 300 in a whole season is Harden at much lower efficiency is just stunning. He's the only person in history who has shot at that high a volume with such insane efficiency. If you are building an all-time team his shooting is a requirement.