Did the Knicks Fail Ewing?

[Roundball_Rock]

Did the Knicks fail Ewing? Ewing’s first all-NBA season was 88’ and his last was 97’ so we can use that as a rough approximation of his prime, even if it isn't perfect age wise. During this time, NY won 38, 52, 45, 39, 51, 60, 57, 55, 47, 57 games. Of this, they were contenders from 1992-1997. During this time, John Starks was New York’s primary second option (Xavier McDaniel in 92’, Allan Houston in 97’).

The case for the Knicks failing revolves around the offensive "support" he had.

Knicks’ offensive rank from 1992-1997: 12th, 22nd, 16th, 16th, 21st, 25th (27 teams from 1992-1995, 29 for 1996 and 1997)

Their offensive rank versus playoff teams is even worse:

Knicks’ Offensive Rank among 16 Playoff Teams

1992: 9th of 16
1993: 16th of 16
1994: 15th of 16
1995: 14th of 16
1996: 13th of 16
1997: 16th of 16

Simply horrific. Their average overall finish was 19th; among playoff teams it was 14th (of 16). This is with a superstar center who ranked 5th, 6th, 6th, 6th, 9th, 8th in scoring during these seasons. Ewing was durable during this time so we don’t have much to assess of the team without him. The most games he missed were 6 in 97’ and the Knicks went 1-5 without him (46-30 with him).

A lot of this had to do with poor second options (relative to what other contenders had). McDaniel was 14/6/2 in 92’. Starks was 18/3/5, 19/3/6, 15/3/5, 13/3/4 (you could argue D. Harper for 96’, who went 14/3/4--no substantive difference in production, though). Houston was 15/3/2 in 97’. Starks’ 1993-1996 average line was 16/3/5 during the season and 15/3/5 in the playoffs. This won’t cut it from your second option. To be fair to Starks, McDaniel and 97’ Houston had very similar production.

What did the Knicks do about this? They brought in McDaniel, who previously had put up solid numbers on mediocre teams. On the 55 win Suns, though, in 91’ he became a fourth option behind Johnson, Chambers, and Hornacek. So not exactly bringing in KD. When he left as a free agent they replaced him with Charles Smith, who was 15/6/1 the prior year. So they did manage to find equal production but it was Starks, not Smith, who emerged as the second option.

This showed in the playoffs.

Second Scorer Scoring in Key Series

1992 ECSF: McDaniel 18, Pippen 16
1993 ECF: Pippen 23, Starks 15
1994 ECSF: Grant 17, Starks 15
1994 ECF: Smits 16, Starks 14
1994 Finals: Starks 18, Maxwell 13
1995 ECSF: Smits 23, Starks 17
1996 ECSF: Pippen 16, Starks 14
1997 ECSF: Mourning/Houston 19

The two cases where the Knick outscored the other guy aren’t as good as they look. McDaniel was 18/6/2 versus 16/8/7 for Pippen and in Game 7 McDaniel was 14/7/0 while Pippen went 17/11/11. In Game 7 in the 94’ finals Starks scored 8 points on 11% shooting (2 for 18) while Maxwell scored 21 on 55% shooting. The Rockets won by 6 points.

You can see it in these playoff games. Pippen, Smits, Mourning supply their teams key baskets that the Knicks don't get, which sways outcomes.

The Knicks brought in more offensive firepower (in theory) for 97’, adding Houston, Larry Johnson. In 99’ they added Sprewell. This came too late, though, as Ewing as an all-NBA player overlapped with these additions for only 97’ and the offensive results did not improve (25th in 97’). If Ewing had these type of players earlier in his career the Knicks likely would have won a ring or two.

[Roundball_Rock]

Counterpoint: Defense

While their offenses sucked, their defenses were dominant and at times at an all-time great level.

Knicks’ defensive rank from 1992-1997: 2nd, 1st, 1st, 1st, 4th, 2nd.

Their rDRTG was an impressive 8+ points better than the league in both 93’ and 94’.

The Knicks had Ewing as a defensive anchor and other strong defenders like Oakley, Starks, and Mason.

https://backpicks.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/Knicks-5-yr-team-defense.png

Backpicks on this:


Only Tim Duncan’s Spurs and Kevin Garnett’s Celtics produced better five-year runs in the regular season, and only four post-merger teams have had a better postseason stretch than those Knicks.

https://backpicks.com/2018/01/22/backpicks-goat-27-patrick-ewing/

Conclusion

To me, though, the Knicks deserve blame. Having all-time great defenses doesn’t matter if you consistently have poor offenses. They failed to properly address their offensive woes while Ewing was a superstar. Houston traded Otis Thorpe for Drexler in 95’. Why didn’t the Knicks do the same with Oakley (a Thorpe-like player) or Starks? Miami got Tim Hardaway (and Chris Gatling) for a past prime Kevin Willis and Bimbo Coles in 96’. Where was New York?

What is your take?

[Duncan21formvp]

Counterpoint: Defense

While their offenses sucked, their defenses were dominant and at times at an all-time great level.

Knicks’ defensive rank from 1992-1997: 2nd, 1st, 1st, 1st, 4th, 2nd.

Their rDRTG was an impressive 8+ points better than the league in both 93’ and 94’.

The Knicks had Ewing as a defensive anchor and other strong defenders like Oakley, Starks, and Mason.

https://backpicks.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/Knicks-5-yr-team-defense.png

Backpicks on this:



https://backpicks.com/2018/01/22/backpicks-goat-27-patrick-ewing/

Conclusion

To me, though, the Knicks deserve blame. Having all-time great defenses doesn’t matter if you consistently have poor offenses. They failed to properly address their offensive woes while Ewing was a superstar. Houston traded Otis Thorpe for Drexler in 95’. Why didn’t the Knicks do the same with Oakley (a Thorpe-like player) or Starks? Miami got Tim Hardaway (and Chris Gatling) for a past prime Kevin Willis and Bimbo Coles in 96’. Where was New York?

What is your take?
Would be interesting if they could have gotten a Mitch Richmond or got Drexler in 1995. Thing about that era is superstars generally didn’t move from team to team.

[gonzaldo]

In 1992 Knicks had 20 pick in the draft and looking for a SG they took Hubert Davies who was part of their rotation for 3 years scoring 10ppg and then was moved away. Latrell Sprewell was picked in the same draft as n 24. What if knicks pick sprewel instead of davis? most likely they win the title in 1994 (sprewell was 1st team nba then) and the story of the franchise is entirely different.

[Smoke117]

Mutual failure. He was complete dogshit vs the Rockets in their 94 finals series. Everyone always points out Jon Starks horrible game 7, but Ewing was the star and he had about one good offensive game in the entire series. He averaged 18.9ppg on 22.8 shot attempts.

[Roundball_Rock]

Would be interesting if they could have gotten a Mitch Richmond or got Drexler in 1995. Thing about that era is superstars generally didn’t move from team to team.

Forgot about Richmond in the OP (remembered Mourning, but NY wouldn't trade for him for obvious reasons). The think about Richmond's trade was they traded Billy Owens, who was the #3 pick that year. So it is a terrible trade in hindsight but at the time Golden State thought they were getting value back.

Well, the irony is the few cases we have include Mourning and Tim Hardaway--who Riley traded for in 96'. The same Riley who left the Knicks because they wouldn't give him GM powers. So if they did and Riley pulled a move off what happens? Mourning they traded Rice for. The Knicks didn't have a Rice-type player but the Hardaway trade was doable since Miami got Hardaway for pennies on the dollar. Imagine Ewing, Hardaway with Oakley and Mason still there to provide defense.


In 1992 Knicks had 20 pick in the draft and looking for a SG they took Hubert Davies who was part of their rotation for 3 years scoring 10ppg and then was moved away. Latrell Sprewell was picked in the same draft as n 24. What if knicks pick sprewel instead of davis? most likely they win the title in 1994 (sprewell was 1st team nba then) and the story of the franchise is entirely different.

Great scenario. The Knicks were hampered by low picks but you have to swing for it and hit one of them to win sometimes, like the Bulls' did with Butler or Spurs with Kawhi.


Mutual failure. He was complete dogshit vs the Rockets in their 94 finals series. Everyone always points out Jon Starks horrible game 7, but Ewing was the star and he had about one good offensive game in the entire series. He averaged 18.9ppg on 22.8 shot attempts.

True. Ewing had an all-time bad finals but they still came close. If he had anyone there who could have stepped up they would have won despite his terrible play. Agree with you, though, mutual failure ultimately. The Knicks failed to provide him proper support but the best shot they had at a ring was wasted because, among other things, Ewing didn't show up. He shot 39% TS. If he shot even 41% or 42% the Knicks win.

[tpols]

Mutual failure. He was complete dogshit vs the Rockets in their 94 finals series. Everyone always points out Jon Starks horrible game 7, but Ewing was the star and he had about one good offensive game in the entire series. He averaged 18.9ppg on 22.8 shot attempts.

that's one series out of a ton of them.

what about the time he had 26 ppg on 19 shot attempts in 1993 against the Bulls?

and higher ORTG than MJ.

nice cherry pick.

[RRR3]

that's one series out of a ton of them.

what about the time he had 26 ppg on 19 shot attempts in 1993 against the Bulls?

and higher ORTG than MJ.

nice cherry pick.
He consistently fell off hard in the playoffs. You're the one cherry picking. That series against the Rockets is far from his only bad series offensively. Dude had a career 51.7 TS% in the playoffs.

[Roundball_Rock]

that's one series out of a ton of them.

That isn't a random series, though. That was the most important series of his career. If the Knicks win his legacy is much different as is Hakeem's.


what about the time he had 26 ppg on 19 shot attempts in 1993 against the Bulls?

Where was Starks? Pippen was the MVP of the series per Sports Illustrated and stepped up when MJ's shot was off (most of the series). Where was Starks? That goes back to the OP. The Knicks had a good shot to win the series, Ewing was playing well but he had no support. Starks was out there putting up 15 PPG. We can play Ewing for 94' (along with Starks choking) but 93' was on the Knicks' failing Ewing.

[Smoke117]

that's one series out of a ton of them.

what about the time he had 26 ppg on 19 shot attempts in 1993 against the Bulls?

and higher ORTG than MJ.

nice cherry pick.

That's the biggest series of his entire career. Not really a cherry pick, dipshit. Stop responding to my post. You don't know anything about ball and I've grown tired trying to explain it to you.

[RRR3]

That isn't a random series, though. That was the most important series of his career. If the Knicks win his legacy is much different as is Hakeem's.



Where was Starks? Pippen was the MVP of the series per Sports Illustrated and stepped up when MJ's shot was off (most of the series). Where was Starks? That goes back to the OP. The Knicks had a good shot to win the series, Ewing was playing well but he had no support. Starks was out there putting up 15 PPG. We can play Ewing for 94' (along with Starks choking) but 93' was on the Knicks' failing Ewing.
Ewing was better than Pippen according to tpols but if Pippen had a series like that he'd never stop talking about it. Ewing having a 39 TS% is no big deal though. Better than Pippen doe but Pippen is the worst ever for a series in which he had a 50 TS%. Look at the different standards he holds players he likes to versus players he doesn't like.

[tpols]

Where was Starks?

that's pretty much the whole argument.

Ewing never had anybody to take the pressure off him. Even Hakeem had a good amount of offensive help. Ewing had none.

this clown smoke wants to talk efficiency now and ignore defense when that was always his talking point.

if we talk scottie it'll be flipped lmao.

[Smoke117]

that's pretty much the whole argument.

Ewing never had anybody to take the pressure off him. Even Hakeem had a good amount of offensive help. Ewing had none.

You don't get to whine about no help when you play like garbage. 18.9ppg on 22.8 shots. He averaged four more shots than he did points. Complete dog shit.

[RRR3]

You don't get to whine about no help when you play like garbage. 18.9ppg on 22.8 shots. He averaged four more shots than he did points. Complete dog shit.
He's the same dude who gives LeBron shit for losing with the Cavs from 04-10 :oldlol:

[tpols]

You don't get to whine about no help when you play like garbage. 18.9ppg on 22.8 shots. He averaged four more shots than he did points. Complete dog shit.

How did Ewing's Knicks smoke the 1994 pippen led Bulls then?

Ewing had 23 ppg on 17 FGA.

Pippen? 21 ppg on 19 FGA.

:biggums:

Come get your boy sm0ke.

[Roundball_Rock]

Ewing was better than Pippen according to tpols but if Pippen had a series like that he'd never stop talking about it. Ewing having a 39 TS% is no big deal though. Better than Pippen doe but Pippen is the worst ever for a series in which he had a 50 TS%. Look at the different standards he holds players he likes to versus players he doesn't like.

True. :lol A lot of these "Pippen detractors" don't understand positional differences, that 52% TS from a SF isn't the same as 52% from a C or PF, for example. They all bash Pippen for a small, injury-driven efficiency decline in the playoffs he was consistent from 1990-1995 and in Portland) but will defend Ewing, Robinson, Malone, Stockton. Anyone else--who had larger declines.


that's pretty much the whole argument.

Ewing never had anybody to take the pressure off him. Even Hakeem had a good amount of offensive help. Ewing had none.

For 93' but 94' is on Ewing, Starks and the team. More so the team and Starks. Ewing sucked offensively but he played well defensively at least.


He's the same dude who gives LeBron shit for losing with the Cavs from 04-10

He is all over the place. There doesn't seem to be any rhyme or reason to his positions. As you noted, efficiency is one of his big things but then he defends Ewing having a 39% TS in the defining series of his career.

[Smoke117]

How did Ewing's Knicks smoke the 1994 pippen led Bulls then?

Ewing had 23 ppg on 17 FGA.

Pippen? 21 ppg on 19 FGA.

:biggums:

Come get your boy sm0ke.

Yawn. You are so typical and boring. Get a new shtick. This one's been old since about 2014.

[Roundball_Rock]

Pippen? 21 ppg on 19 FGA.

If Ewing had 21 PPG on 19 FGA, the Knicks win the finals...instead it was 19 on 23 FGA. So 2 less points on 4 more attempts. Not a good equation.

Their prime versus prime playoff efficiency is similar. Pippen 19.2 PPG on 15.8 FGA, Ewing 22.5 FGA on 18.6 FGA. So 1.22 points per shot for Pippen, 1.21 for Ewing. The center should>>>a SF in this metric. Hakeem was 1.34 for his prime, for example.

[RRR3]

If Ewing had 21 PPG on 19 FGA, the Knicks win the finals...instead it was 19 on 23 FGA. So 2 less points on 4 more attempts. Not a good equation.

Their prime versus prime playoff efficiency is similar. Pippen 19.2 PPG on 15.8 FGA, Ewing 22.5 FGA on 18.6 FGA. So 1.22 points per shot for Pippen, 1.21 for Ewing. The center should>>>a SF in this metric.
In game 3, with a chance to go up 2-1, Ewing shot 9-29 and didn't get to the line even once. The Knicks were at home too. Think about that. 18 points on 29 shots. Disgusting. He then followed that up by shooting 8 for 28 and missing both his free throws for 16 points, but somehow the Knicks won that game. He finally had a good game in game 5 after a series of bricking everything (11-21, 25 points) and the Knicks took a 3-2 lead. He then proceeded to go 6-20 for 17 points in a two point loss and 7-17 for 17 points in a six point loss. Truly an all time bad performance for a player of his caliber.

[Roundball_Rock]

In game 3, with a chance to go up 2-1, Ewing shot 9-29 and didn't get to the line even once. The Knicks were at home too. Think about that. 18 points on 29 shots. Disgusting. He then followed that up by shooting 8 for 28 and missing both his free throws for 16 points, but somehow the Knicks won that game. He finally had a good game in game 5 after a series of bricking everything (11-21, 25 points) and the Knicks took a 3-2 lead. He then proceeded to go 6-20 for 17 points in a two point loss and 7-17 for 17 points in a six point loss. Truly an all time bad performance for a player of his caliber.

Yet the playoff efficiency police defend him? :confusedshrug:

[tpols]

Yawn. You are so typical and boring. Get a new shtick. This one's been old since about 2014.

Defense though right?

:lol

Ewing was better on that end than scottie ever was.

[tpols]

If Ewing had 21 PPG on 19 FGA, the knicks win the finals

yea and if he had that against the Bulls, the knicks wouldve been bounced in the 2nd round.

:confusedshrug:

[Whoah10115]

He consistently fell off hard in the playoffs. You're the one cherry picking. That series against the Rockets is far from his only bad series offensively. Dude had a career 51.7 TS% in the playoffs.

Not fair, given how our offenses were. The Knicks are maybe the best defense I've ever seen, but the offense was terrible. And add to that he had no other star around and literally carried us.

Oak was more than a role player and better than Thorpe. And Starks was talented and had a great year before injury, but he was dumb and Riley would let him jack 3s as if he was ever anything better than a good shooter. In this era his % would be a bit better, but not great, and he isn't a great shooter, but he would take a lot. Mason should have been a starter earlier on. His role fluctuated too often. And then we got Harper, who I loved.

But with Starks and Mason being wild and misused, and underutilized and misused, the pressure was all on Pat. We should have been trying to get Chris Mullin. Even a broken down version, with his smarts and toughness, would have been great.

But Smoke is unfortunately right. Starks was awful in Game 7, and Riley did a bad job with offense in the Finals. But Pat's gotta play better than that. He rebounded, still played defense..but his offense was putrid. If he ended his bad series with a great Game 7, we win.

[Roundball_Rock]

So your defense of Ewing having 19 PPG on 23 shots is another player against the #1 defense (Bulls were #6) had 22 PPG on 19 shots? Is this a joke? Do you think Ewing consoles himself by saying "Well, I was more efficient in a random second round series once at least."

Benchmarking against a SF?Get real. Only MJ stans/Pippen haters make that random series a benchmark for Ewing. The ECSF next year was more memorable for him (for the wrong reason) than in 94'. His biggest series were 92' ECSF, 93' ECF, 94' ECSF, 94' ECF, 94' Finals, 95' ECSF, 97' ECSF. The 94' ECSF win ultimately meant nothing since they lost the finals and Ewing is remembered as a "loser" by the ring hugging crowd. Only MJ stans hail him for that series. No one else remembers it. They remember the Finals for him, Starks, Hakeem and the ECF for one big quarter Miller had. As far as benchmarks go, it was then and will always be Hakeem and Robinson, and to a lesser extent Shaq and Mourning, not a perimeter player.

BTW, why is Pippen the only player whose numbers get rounded down on ISH? 21.7 PPG becomes 21; 0.5 percent results in rounding down, not up as is standard. Only player this happens with.

[RRR3]

So your defense of Ewing having 19 PPG on 23 shots is another player against the #1 defense (Bulls were #6) had 22 PPG on 19 shots? Is this a joke? Do you think Ewing consoles himself by saying "Well, I was more efficient in a random second round series once at least." Get real. Only MJ stans/Pippen haters make that random series a benchmark for Ewing. The ECSF next year was more memorable for him (for the wrong reason) than in 94'. His biggest series were 92' ECSF, 93' ECF, 94' ECSF, 94' ECF, 94' Finals, 95' ECSF, 97' ECSF. The 94' ECSF win ultimately meant nothing since they lost the finals and Ewing is remembered as a "loser" by the ring hugging crowd.

BTW, why is Pippen the only player whose numbers get rounded down on ISH? 21.7 PPG becomes 21; 0.5 percent results in rounding down, not up as is standard. Only player this happens with.
He's actually been implying Ewing is > LeBron in the "is there a reasonable way to keep Curry out of the top 10 thread". He's completely unhinged.

[Reggie43]

They had a pretty good team but like what the others have said he never had an all time great by his side to relieve the pressure of carrying a team.

[iamgine]

I wouldn't say they 'failed' Ewing. After all, they contended for many years and went to the finals twice.

[Roundball_Rock]

He's actually been implying Ewing is > LeBron in the "is there a reasonable way to keep Curry out of the top 10 thread". He's completely unhinged.

:lol Will have to check it out. So his big shtick (supposedly) is playoff efficiency but Ewing>Pippen and Ewing>LeBron, who is one of the most efficient playoff performers ever?


I wouldn't say they 'failed' Ewing. After all, they contended for many years and went to the finals twice.

I meant relative to expectation. When they drafted Ewing, the expectation was similar to Houston's when they drafted Hakeem.

[Patrick Chewing]

Mutual failure. He was complete dogshit vs the Rockets in their 94 finals series. Everyone always points out Jon Starks horrible game 7, but Ewing was the star and he had about one good offensive game in the entire series. He averaged 18.9ppg on 22.8 shot attempts.

Sadly, this is true. Olajuwon was just the overall better player on both ends and Ewing couldn't carry that team by himself. However, 19 points a game is still 19 points a game. The other players could have picked up the slack, and that's where Starks just completely choked in Game 7.

[Roundball_Rock]

Sadly, this is true. Olajuwon was just the overall better player on both ends and Ewing couldn't carry that team by himself. However, 19 points a game is still 19 points a game. The other players could have picked up the slack, and that's where Starks just completely choked in Game 7.

Was there any big game or series where Starks stepped up?

[Hey Yo]

Their 1996 draft looked promising with the 18th, 19th and 21st picks

John Wallace (Syracuse) played 7yrs, only 2 with NY and avg. 7ppg
Walter McCarty (Kentucky) played 11yrs, mostly with Boston and avg. 5.2ppg
Dontae' Jones (Miss. St.) never played for the Knicks due to foot injury. Then traded the following season, with McCarty and others to Boston for Chris Mills. Jones was a bust and out of the league after appearing in only 15gms.

[Roundball_Rock]

They did bring in Houston, LJ, Sprewell but the first two came during Ewing's last elite season and Sprewell in 99'.

[Round Mound]

Ewing had a great defensive cast but never a great offenisve cast. When Mark Jackson was playing for the Knicks in the late 80's and early 90's he blended pretty good for the Knicks offense. When they lost him Ewing struggled offenisvely.

[Soundwave]

John Starks shot 2 for 18 in game 7 of the 94 Finals.

Let me say that again.

TWO FOR EIGHTEEN. ELEVEN PERCENT SHOOTING.

If he shoots even 30% ish, the Knicks probably win the championship.

Also Ewing's efficiency would go through the roof if he got to play with Michael Jordan, you wouldn't be able to double him and he'd get a ton of gimme dunks at the hoop from Jordan causing defences to collapse.

[RRR3]

John Starks shot 2 for 18 in game 7 of the 94 Finals.

Let me say that again.

TWO FOR EIGHTEEN. ELEVEN PERCENT SHOOTING.

If he shoots even 30% ish, the Knicks probably win the championship.

Also Ewing's efficiency would go through the roof if he got to play with Michael Jordan, you wouldn't be able to double him and he'd get a ton of gimme dunks at the hoop from Jordan causing defences to collapse.
And if Ewing hadn't shot 9 for 29 in game 3, they would probably have won the series too. Dude was absolutely horrendous in that series (39 TS%, that may be the single worst finals ever from a player of his caliber), it's funny how Starks gets all the blame.

[Roundball_Rock]

Ewing had a great defensive cast but never a great offenisve cast. When Mark Jackson was playing for the Knicks in the late 80's and early 90's he blended pretty good for the Knicks offense. When they lost him Ewing struggled offenisvely.

True. Those were the only good offenses Ewing was on.

[Soundwave]

And if Ewing hadn't shot 9 for 29 in game 3, they would probably have won the series too. Dude was absolutely horrendous in that series (39 TS%, that may be the single worst finals ever from a player of his caliber), it's funny how Starks gets all the blame.

2 for 18 is like historically bad. Like there's a mile of difference between that 11% and even awful shooting like 33%.

The sad part is Starks still took more shots than anyone on the team despite being ice cold.

[RRR3]

2 for 18 is like historically bad. Like there's a mile of difference between that 11% and even awful shooting like 33%.

The sad part is Starks still took more shots than anyone on the team despite being ice cold.
Ewing had a 39 TS% for the entire series. That is historically bad.

[Roundball_Rock]

Ewing had a 39 TS% for the entire series. That is historically bad.

Starks fault, doe. Even though Starks would have been FMVP (maybe Harper but probably Starks) if the Knicks won Game 6 (one shot away.)

[Marchesk]

Also Ewing's efficiency would go through the roof if he got to play with Michael Jordan, you wouldn't be able to double him and he'd get a ton of gimme dunks at the hoop from Jordan causing defences to collapse.

Real question is whether Jordan wins more than six rings with Ewing.

[Roundball_Rock]

Whose efficiency went up playing with MJ again? Thanks in advance.

[Marchesk]

Whose efficiency went up playing with MJ again? Thanks in advance.

Bill Wennington's.

[Roundball_Rock]

Bill Wennington's.

Nope.

[Roundball_Rock]

Any of these guys play with MJ (why does M Jay get brought into every thread)? These are Ewing's peers:

By Playoff TS% (RS TS in parentheses)

Ewing 88’-97’: 52.8% (56.3%)
Robinson 90’-98’: 54.9% (59.0%)
Shaq 94’-05’: 56.7% (58.4%)
Mourning 94’-00’: 54.8% (58.7%)
Hakeem 86’-97’: 57.8% (55.8%)
Smits 94'-99': 55.5% (55.5%)
Daughtery 88'-94': 58.8% (59.2%)

By Soundwaves' own posts, PO efficiency is Paramount but he keeps defending Ewing's. :lol Ewing is 2 percent worse than the second worst and a whopping 6 percent behind the best in class.

[Whoah10115]

Bill Wennington's.

The Bulls.

They won 6 titles.

[Marchesk]

The Bulls.

They won 6 titles.

True, Jordan has a +6 efficiency rating in titles won. Only maybe Bill Russell was better, but that's debatable because of how stacked his teams were.

[Roundball_Rock]

Only maybe Bill Russell was better, but that's debatable because of how stacked his teams were.

The irony. :D

[Marchesk]

The irony. :D

If you can point to where Jordan had 8 HOF teammates ...

[Whoah10115]

True, Jordan has a +6 efficiency rating in titles won. Only maybe Bill Russell was better, but that's debatable because of how stacked his teams were.

I just saw what you responded to so seemed natural.

[Roundball_Rock]

If you can point to where Jordan had 8 HOF teammates ...

Did any other team?

Look at the OP and the teammates Ewing had. By MJ stans' own admission (they hate Pippen so much they let a lot slip when he comes up :lol ) in the Pippen 94' thread, the Bulls without Jordan had an equal supporting cast to the Knicks. The Knicks were the Bulls' strongest challenger in the 90's. So what happens when you add MJ to basically the Knicks? Domination.

Celtics, Bulls, recent Warriors are all in the same class.

[Duncan21formvp]

Truth be told MJ never played with a guy who won league or Finals mvp on his squads in the NBA for the season. Every other top 10-15 legend has.

[Roundball_Rock]

What does MJ win with John Starks as his second option?

[Duncan21formvp]

What does MJ win with John Starks as his second option?

Not like MJ got a star from the get go, he got someone he was able to work with in practice that became a star. Also it wasn't like Starks was the 2nd option from 1989 to 1992, Ewing had much better players then.

[Roundball_Rock]

The Knicks weren't contenders until 1992.

Starks was a former grocery clerk who went undrafted, not a top 5 pick. He played 9 MPG as a rookie in 89' and was out the league the year after going to the CBA (90's version of the G-League) before the Knicks signed him the following season. He was 8/2/3 in 91'.

[Duncan21formvp]

The Knicks weren't contenders until 1992.

Starks was a former grocery clerk who went undrafted, not a top 5 pick. He played 9 MPG as a rookie in 89' and was out the league the year after going to the CBA (90's version of the G-League) before the Knicks signed him the following season. He was 8/2/3 in 91'.

That's also how Pippen started though and then he became a star. Even Drexler was the same.

[Roundball_Rock]

Pippen was the 5th pick. Drexler 13th or 14th. Starks was undrafted. Pippen, Drexler became starters in their second season. Starks was out the league after his rookie season. You can't compare Stark's story to anyone. It was a good story but his limitations got exposed during those 1993-1996 playoff runs. He would be fine as a number 3 on a contender but even back then wouldn't fly as a 2. What other contender then had a worse 2?

[HoopsNY]

Haven't read through the posts but this is a REALLLYYYYY good question. As a kid, I never understood why the Knicks were so bad offensively. But looking back on it, what did the Knicks really have to leverage? Since they were very competitive, they didn't really have great draft picks (in terms of the order) after they got Rod Strickland. So what were the options? I don't recall there being many.

By the late 90s they brought in LJ (injured LJ) and Allan Houston. But by then it was too late like you mentioned. It's sad because the Knicks should have beaten the friggin damn Rockets in 1994. I'll never forget my father yelling at the TV screen asking John Starks to "STOP SHOOTING!"

[HoopsNY]

Their 1996 draft looked promising with the 18th, 19th and 21st picks

John Wallace (Syracuse) played 7yrs, only 2 with NY and avg. 7ppg
Walter McCarty (Kentucky) played 11yrs, mostly with Boston and avg. 5.2ppg
Dontae' Jones (Miss. St.) never played for the Knicks due to foot injury. Then traded the following season, with McCarty and others to Boston for Chris Mills. Jones was a bust and out of the league after appearing in only 15gms.

The thing about the draft is that you still have to look at who else is available. You weren't going to draft Ilgauskas with Ewing still around, and the next best player was who? Derek Fisher? It's not entirely unreasonable that the Knicks chose those players.

[Roundball_Rock]

Haven't read through the posts but this is a REALLLYYYYY good question. As a kid, I never understood why the Knicks were so bad offensively. But looking back on it, what did the Knicks really have to leverage? Since they were very competitive, they didn't really have great draft picks (in terms of the order) after they got Rod Strickland. So what were the options? I don't recall there being many.

They could have traded Oakley for Drexler like the Rockets did Thorpe for Drexler in 95'. They could have thrown Starks in there and gotten a second player back in an Oakley/Starks for Drexler/X trade.

The other scenario is T. Hardaway in 96'. Miami got him for pennies on the dollar (Hardaway/Gatling for old Willis/Bimbo Coles). Why was it Miami (with Riley ironically) getting him and not New York?

Those would have been the big swings they could have taken. Smaller moves would have been guys like Hornacek, Hawkins, Gill. None superstars but all arguably upgrades over Starks. Certainly Hornacek would be.

[HoopsNY]

They could have traded Oakley for Drexler like the Rockets did Thorpe for Drexler in 95'. They could have thrown Starks in there and gotten a second player back in an Oakley/Starks for Drexler/X trade.

The other scenario is T. Hardaway in 96'. Miami got him for pennies on the dollar (Hardaway/Gatling for old Willis/Bimbo Coles). Why was it Miami (with Riley ironically) getting him and not New York?

Those would have been the big swings they could have taken. Smaller moves would have been guys like Hornacek, Hawkins, Gill. None superstars but all arguably upgrades over Starks. Certainly Hornacek would be.

It's a bit of confirmation bias though because Starks was shaping up to be a good 2nd option, especially by 1993-94 where he became an all-star averaging 19 pts and 6 assists. Starks seemed to be improving every year, including where the playoffs were concerned right up to the start of '94 playoffs.

In hindsight it seems like a good move, but that's what it is - hindsight. Now forgive my memory, but I don't recall the serious trade talks concerning those players. Many of them ended up being traded, but I can't recall if the Knicks had enough to pull those deals off.

[Roundball_Rock]

It's a bit of confirmation bias though because Starks was shaping up to be a good 2nd option, especially by 1993-94 where he became an all-star averaging 19 pts and 6 assists.

True--but Starks regressed in 95' (similar to Nick Anderson the next year after he choked himself in the finals). Maybe they wrote it off as an outlier, just a bad (compared to his prior standard) first half. That is where talent evaluation comes in, though. The best teams make the right calls even when they are hard to see.

I mentioned Starks in connection to Drexler because they played the same position. The main piece in the Drexler trade was a PF so maybe Oakley could have been enough with another piece. They could have moved Starks to the bench as the 6th man as they later did when they got Allan Houston. Or put Drexler at SF and keep Starks as a starter.


In hindsight it seems like a good move, but that's what it is - hindsight. Now forgive my memory, but I don't recall the serious trade talks concerning those players. Many of them ended up being traded, but I can't recall if the Knicks had enough to pull those deals off.

I don't remember the Knicks in any of these talks. The Knicks seemed to prefer tinkering around the edges until the late 90's when they brought in Houston, Johnson, Sprewell but that was too late for Ewing.

The Knicks had a distinct identity and maybe they worried they would disrupt it by making a major change but ultimately they were a flawed team and their flaw came back to haunt them time and again (similar to the 00's Suns who were the opposite: great offense, poor defense). Miami, due to Riley, built a similar defensive-oriented team around a Ewing-like center but they still went out and got Tim Hardaway as another star. They did better, not worse, with Hardaway but the caveat is they were a newly formed contender while the Knicks had been contending since 1992.

I agree with your basic point: it is easier to see this stuff in hindsight than in real time but the teams that actually won back in the 90's were the Pistons, Bulls, Rockets, Spurs (people forget they acquired Rodman at one point)--all teams willing to make moves.

[Nowitness]

Played with the least amount of help of any top 50 player. But none the less you couldn't win with Ewing as your best player. He'd be an amazing third option, in that Chris Bosh/Kevin Love situation, but anything other than that he is a consistent first round bounce.

[Whoah10115]

Played with the least amount of help of any top 50 player. But none the less you couldn't win with Ewing as your best player. He'd be an amazing third option, in that Chris Bosh/Kevin Love situation, but anything other than that he is a consistent first round bounce.


:roll:

[tpols]

Played with the least amount of help of any top 50 player. But none the less you couldn't win with Ewing as your best player. He'd be an amazing third option, in that Chris Bosh/Kevin Love situation, but anything other than that he is a consistent first round bounce.

he was literally 1 game away from winning a championship with john starks.

if you give him a chris mullin or tim hardaway or hell... even a thunder dan he's winning a ring as best player.

[Roundball_Rock]

Played with the least amount of help of any top 50 player.

I can see that argument. It depends on how you weigh a dominant defensive cast versus an anemic offensive cast at the same time.


he was literally 1 game away from winning a championship with john starks.

Where the weaknesses of Starks and Ewing got exposed and caused them to ultimately lose. It wasn't just 1 game. It was 1 shot away. Yet Ewing was 6 for 20 in that game. In Game 7, Starks infamously goes 2 for 18 (Knicks lost Game 7 by 6) while Ewing loses his match up again to Hakeem. If Ewing goes 7 for 20 in Game 6 it goes to OT; 8 for 20 they win.

You could make a similar comment about 93' and 95'. In the Charles Smith game the Knicks were down 2 when Smith kept getting stuffed (Armstrong scored a meaningless point after the blocks to make the final margin 4). When Jordan was missing shots Pippen and to a lesser extent Armstrong made many key shots late in that game. Where was Starks? Oakley? If the Knicks take a 3-2 lead, they reverse the Bulls' momentum and then would have two shots to win, including Game 7 in New York (this is the exact scenario that played out the following year for the Knicks against the Bulls).

In 95' Ewing got outplayed by Rik Smits and missed the series winning finger roll. Not much else to say about this other than if you are in your prime, on a contender and are a player of Ewing's caliber you should be outplaying Rik Smits in an important series.

If we play the "came close" game that is a long list of players. Basically every all-time great that didn't win came close at some point (Wilkins, Hill, T Mac are rare exceptions).

Both the Knicks and Ewing are to blame. If the Knicks put more offensive talent around him, he would have done enough to win. If Ewing showed up more often in the playoffs, the Knicks would have won in 94' and possibly (although not likely) in other years.

Part of the problem with Ewing's postseason performances was the lack of a legitimate second scorer to relieve pressure on him and unlike Hakeem he couldn't overcome that consistently (especially when facing real centers like Hakeem, Smits, Parish, or Mourning on the other side). If Ewing learned to pass the way Shaq or Hakeem did, he could have made teams pay for double teams and helped set up offensively challenged teammates, but he never added that to his game.

[Nowitness]

Nah you can't win with him. Had the worst hands ever, couldn't pass out of the double team, stiff as a board, rather than planting his ass down low settled for 22 foot fadeaways, if caught on the switch opponents scored 90% of the team, interior defense wasn't close to that of Hakeem, Robinson or Dikembe.

Man started a theory that his team plays better without him. Respect to the OG, he had horrible teammates. But apart from beating an ancient Boston team his careers plays out like Joakim Noah.

[Roundball_Rock]

Man started a theory that his team plays better without him

Ironically it never really got put to the test in his prime. He was injured his first two years but was durable from 1987-1997. When he started getting hurt again in 98' and subsequent years, he was no longer an elite player.

I suspect if he went down in 1992 or 1994 his team would collapse without him. They would have zero offense without him. John Starks was a poor #2 option--imagine him as a #1.

They did make the finals without him in 1999 but he was past his prime and they had Sprewell, Houston, Johnson there by then to pick up the slack in a way Starks, Oakley, Smith, Mason and co,, could not do.

[HoopsNY]

I think what would have really been interesting to watch is had Ewing not had that hand injury. With Houston becoming a viable second option and the eventual addition of Spreewell, it would have been interesting to see how the Knicks played out.

They had guys like Camby, LJ, Kurt Thomas, and Chris Childs. All of them were gritty players who could handle themselves defensively. A healthy Ewing (minus the achilles injury also), really makes the 1997-98 season interesting. And then of course, there's the 1999 season.

I firmly believe a healthy Ewing and LJ makes that series with the Spurs much more competitive. The Knicks could have thrown out Ewing-Camby-LJ-Houston-Spreewell and that would have made a great series.

[Whoah10115]

Nah you can't win with him. Had the worst hands ever, couldn't pass out of the double team, stiff as a board, rather than planting his ass down low settled for 22 foot fadeaways, if caught on the switch opponents scored 90% of the team, interior defense wasn't close to that of Hakeem, Robinson or Dikembe.

Man started a theory that his team plays better without him. Respect to the OG, he had horrible teammates. But apart from beating an ancient Boston team his careers plays out like Joakim Noah.

Lol you just saying random thingies.

As a 3rd option (disregards Game 7).

Golly

[Roundball_Rock]

Good points. The one caveat is aging. He was already 35 by 98' but I overall agree with you. He was aging gracefully (started to decline after the 90' season) and a healthy Ewing would make the 99' finals look a lot different. They probably still lose but you never know.

[Nowitness]

Lol you just saying random thingies.

As a 3rd option (disregards Game 7).

Golly

Couldn't deny anything I said tho. Everything stated was facts, as I said least amount of help of any top 50 player but also the players with the most flaws and most things you need to cover up for.

He was Dikembe with a jump shot.

[Roundball_Rock]

We aren't allowed to discuss the flaws of any 90's superstar except for one here. :lol