Teammate career rankings between Jordan and Lebron -- The Reality

[QUOTE=3ball;14111863]Ewing leads:But again, the most important stat is scoring, where Ewing destroyed Pippen and separated himself as a top tier player and rival of Malone, Robinson and MJ... never pippen's rival.. pippen had no rivals because he wasn't on the top level to be rivals with the top dogs[/QUOTE]

Your count is wrong. Pippen also leads in WS/48. His column is also more impressive and I will explain why. Impact stats are not raw but they are adjusted for noise, and most of them account for possession. Your [U]total[/U] game or the repertoire you have in your skillset. Bpm-rapm-apm are especially great because of the isolated effect. No other stats capture numbers away from team but these do. And with rapm, there are no numbers needed. It is without the box-score. Pure impact.

The only conclusion we arrive at is Pippen > Ewing & therefor the more important player. Another way to look at it is, with the stats you frequently used to prop Jordan, they also matchup perfectly for Pippen. The end result is alike.

[quote=Roundball_Rock]Ewing is ahead in: PER, TS %, peak WS/48
Pippen is ahead in: prime WS/48, BPM, OBPM, DBPM, VORP, ORTG, prime WOWYR, WOWYR score, peak BPM, Augmented Plus-Minus, Real Adjusted Plus-Minus, Net on/off court[/quote]

And here is the correct count.

[QUOTE=1-9ball]the most important stat is scoring, where Ewing destroyed Pippen [/QUOTE]

That is a myth.

Prime scoring: Ewing 24.0, Pippen 20.0
Prime PO scoring: Ewing 22.5, Pippen 19.2

When you factor in assists and Pippen's ability to actually make his teammates better, Pippen was the more impactful offensive player (which the offensive RAPM and OBPM numbers back up).

Ewing was not a great player to run an offense through because of his poor passing skills (unlike Shaq or Hakeem). It is a big reason why, along with the lack of a 2nd star, why the Knicks' offenses consistently were below average or flat out bad. Pippen could anchor a good offense and a great defense; Ewing could anchor a below average/bad offense and a great defense.

Ewing was never higher than 4th in MVP and made only 1 all-NBA first team. MJ stans present him as if he was Malone, Robinson, or Barkley--he wasn't. He got a lot of hype but he played in New York, the largest market and home of the national sports media (plus the Knicks' local announcer was the marquee announcer on flagship NBC telecasts), so not surprising. More revisionism from MJ stans.

Ewing and Robinson were both centers so we can compare them prime vs. prime in all-NBA.

1990: Ewing 1st, Robinson 3rd (rookie year)
1991: Robinson 1st, Ewing 2nd
1992: Robinson 1st, Ewing 2nd
1993: Ewing 2nd, Robinson 3rd
1994: Robinson 2nd
1995: Robinson 1st
1996: Robinson 1st

Let's do the same with Pippen and Barkley for the same time frame.

1990: Barkley 1st
1991: Barkley 1st
1992: Both 2nd
1993: Barkley 1st, Pippen 3rd
1994: Pippen 1st, Barkley 2nd
1995: Pippen 1st, Barkley 2nd
1996: Pippen 1st, Barkley 3rd

Pippen surpassed Barkley by 94'--Ewing never surpassed Robinson for a sustained period. He was ahead of rookie Robinson but only once after that.

[QUOTE=Insidious]Impact stats are not raw but they are adjusted for noise, and most of them account for possession. Your total game or the repertoire you have in your skillset. Bpm-rapm-apm are especially great because of the isolated effect. No other stats capture numbers away from team but these do. And with rapm, there are no numbers needed. It is without the box-score. Pure impact.[/QUOTE]

Great points. The most important stat is the scoreboard: the goal is to score more than the other team. Anything a player can do to further that goal matters. Individual scoring is only a fraction of what a player does on the court.

[QUOTE=3ball;14111885]Ewing's 5 year peak destroys pippen's, so who cares about your arbitrary 9-year peak that includes fossil Ewing

Ewing leads the vast majority of stat categories for their careers, as shown above

And Ewing was a vastly superior scorer that carried teams, which made him a rival of MJ, Isiah, and Malone, while Pippen was never on that level. This is common knowledge[/QUOTE]

What? There is nothing arbitrary about a 9 year prime. Afterall those are the years that actually matter.

[QUOTE=Roundball_Rock;14111871]Take the L and move on. Pippen>Ewing using MJ stans' own metrics.

[IMG]https://media.giphy.com/media/UddZtcUQtMgc8/giphy.gif[/IMG]

:hammertime:[/QUOTE]

:hammertime: :djparty

[QUOTE=insidious301;14111889]Your count is wrong. Pippen also leads in WS/48. His column is also more impressive and I will explain why. Impact stats are not raw but they are adjusted for noise, and most of them account for possession. Your [U]total[/U] game or the repertoire you have in your skillset. Bpm-rapm-apm are especially great because of the isolated effect. No other stats capture numbers away from team but these do. And with rapm, there are no numbers needed. It is without the box-score. Pure impact.

The only conclusion we arrive at is Pippen > Ewing & therefor the more important player. Another way to look at it is, with the stats you frequently used to prop Jordan, they also matchup perfectly for Pippen. The end result is alike.



And here is the correct count.[/QUOTE]

No, my comprehensive list was for their [I]careers[/I].

I could care 2 bird shits about your arbitrary 9 year prime that includes fossil Ewing - Ewing's 5 year peak destroys Pippen's, or their 1 year peak..

aka Ewing averaged 29/11/3 with 4.0 blocks in 90'.. or 26/11/3 with 3.0 blocks from 90-94".. and far superior playoff peaks as well.. it's a dumb comparison.

Ultimately, Pippen's scoring deficit put him on a lower level of player entirely - a 2nd option, aka a "pippen", while Ewing was an alpha dog 1st option.. Ewing was on the top tier with MJ, Malone and Robinson - Pippen never was and this is common knowledge

[QUOTE=insidious301;14111899]What? There is nothing arbitrary about a 9 year prime. Afterall those are the years that actually matter.[/QUOTE]

I used the time frame they were all-NBA type players. 1-9ball is trying to use their washed up years.

5 year primes? That is harder to do because it is harder to draw the line. For instance, is it 1992-1996 or 1993-1997 for Pippen? Realistically, we would go 92', 94', 95', 96', 97' but that isn't how BBR software works.

A notable thing about Ewing is his best stats came on bad or average teams. Pippen had his stats on contenders. It is easier to rack up stats on a 39 win team than it is on a 67 win team. Ewing benefited from his situation statistically yet still loses to Pippen over and over.

Let's tally their 5 highest years in certain metrics.

Pippen BPM: 7.7, 7.5, 6.3, 6.1, 5.8
Ewing BPM: 5.5, 5.2, 4.9, 4.5, 4.2

Pippen has 6 seasons better than Ewing's best in BPM.

Pippen VORP: 7.2, 6.8, 6.4, 6.1, 5.9
Ewing VORP: 6.0, 5.5, 5.5, 4.9, 4.8

As you can see, Pippen's four best seasons are higher than Ewing's best and Pippen's 5th best is 0.1 behind Ewing's best. Ewing's second best season would be 7th for Pippen.

5 year augmented plus minus:

Pippen: 5.3 (23rd all-time)
Ewing: 4.3 (56th all-time)

Plus/minus is where Pippen's all-around game and intangibles shows up. People forget stuff like Pippen being an elite rebounder for a perimeter player. He averaged 9 RPG at his peak, which would be 10 RPG in today's pace--as a SF.

Peak BPM:

Pippen: 24th
Ewing: 125th

In CORP (championships added over replacement player), Pippen had 6-7 MVP level seasons while Ewing had 3-4.

Ewing didn't score enough to offset his lack of passing, creation ability. He needed to learn to playmake (MJ himself mocked him by saying he would never win a chip until he learned to pass out a double team) or needed to score more. Doing what he did led to bad offenses coupled with elite defenses and it is hard to win when your team is bad half the time on the court.

Edit: forgot to add if we compare their numbers as number 1 options the gap grows even more in advanced stats and in scoring it closes to 22.2 versus 24.0 in the RS and Pippen pulls ahead 22.8 to 22.5 in the PO. Granted we don't have a big sample for Pippen in the PO but we have 141 RS games of prime Pippen as a number 1 option.

[QUOTE=Roundball_Rock;14111916]I used the time frame they were all-NBA type players. 1-9ball is trying to use their washed up years.

5 year primes? That is harder to do because it is harder to draw the line. For instance, is it 1992-1996 or 1993-1997 for Pippen? Realistically, we would go 92', 94', 95', 96', 97' but that isn't how BBR software works.

A notable thing about Ewing is his best stats came on bad or average teams. Pippen had his stats on contenders. It is easier to rack up stats on a 39 win team than it is on a 67 win team. Ewing benefited from his situation statistically yet still loses to Pippen over and over.

Let's tally their 5 highest years in certain metrics.

Pippen BPM: 7.7, 7.5, 6.3, 6.1, 5.8
Ewing BPM: 5.5, 5.2, 4.9, 4.5, 4.2

Pippen has 6 seasons better than Ewing's best in BPM.

Pippen VORP: 7.2, 6.8, 6.4, 6.1, 5.9
Ewing VORP: 6.0, 5.5, 5.5, 4.9, 4.8

As you can see, Pippen's four best seasons are higher than Ewing's best and Pippen's 5th best is 0.1 behind Ewing's best. Ewing's second best season would be 7th for Pippen.

5 year augmented plus minus:

Pippen: 5.3 (23rd all-time)
Ewing: 4.3 (56th all-time)

Plus/minus is where Pippen's all-around game and intangibles shows up. People forget stuff like Pippen being an elite rebounder for a perimeter player. He averaged 9 RPG at his peak, which would be 10 RPG in today's pace--as a SF.

Peak BPM:

Pippen: 24th
Ewing: 125th

In CORP (championships added over replacement player), Pippen had 6-7 MVP level seasons while Ewing had 3-4.

Ewing didn't score enough to offset his lack of passing, creation ability. He needed to learn to playmake (MJ himself mocked him by saying he would never win a chip until he learned to pass out a double team) or needed to score more. Doing what he did led to bad offenses coupled with elite defenses and it is hard to win when your team is bad half the time on the court.[/QUOTE]

Good stuff, Roundball. So with all the goalpost shifting, their narrative is still shot. I actually expected better. Well not really. But hey don't get me wrong, Ewing was great. I liked him as a player and saw most of his prime. The thing is though there were better centers and perimeter players then. Pippen was one of them. The only pushback you will hear is from the same fanbase, but they are faint. Not much wiggle room when you're arguing against logic and data.

[QUOTE=3ball;14111910]No, my comprehensive list was for their [I]careers[/I].[/quote]

That's silly way to debate. Using prime years or when they were [U]at their best[/U] draws a cleaner picture. And we aren't talking peanuts here, a 9 year sample is pretty massive. From that timeline, Pippen outdueled Ewing in most advanced stat categories. And even better, the ones that measure individual from team. So the endgame here is Pippen actually being a #1 who was better than his opponents #1. That is quite a luxury Jordan had.

[quote]I could care 2 bird shits about your arbitrary 9 year prime that includes fossil Ewing - Ewing's 5 year peak destroys Pippen's, or their 1 year peak..[/quote]

I didn't ask about your feelings. You're too emotionally invested if anything. Again, more data entry is prone to less noise, so that means 9 years > your smaller sample. This is basic math.

Yes roundball, we know that pippen has a non-horrific BPM (the stockton stat, aka steals weighted stat), so you keep harping on it

But what else does he have?.. VORP?.. yes, we already know he has good value above replacement, another meaningless stat.. And what else.. OBPM?.. APG, SPG, ORTG?. thres?. that's it..

otherwise, it's all Ewing - PPG, DREB, OREB, RPG, BPG, TS, FG, EFG, FT%, 2-pt %, PER, WS/48, DRTG, reg season peak, playoff peak, H2H, 1st option (pippen is 2nd option)

[QUOTE=Roundball_Rock;14111508]Heat, Bulls had similar results in win totals in the previous four years.

1990-1993 Bulls: 55, 61, 67, 57
2011-2014 Heat: 58, 57*, 66, 54

Yet...

1994 Bulls: 55
2015 Heat: 37

So 55, 61, 67, 57, 55 for the Bulls from 1990-1994 and 58, 57, 66, 54--and 37 for the Heat from 2011-2015.

Can anyone identify the difference here? There is one number here that is not like the other numbers.

*Over 82 games.[/QUOTE]

I try to stay away from the daily MJ/Bron war going on in here but I couldn't avoid such low hanging fruit.

You want the difference bro?

Well, MJ left his team as 3 peat champs so they had the chemistry and confidence of champs heading into 1993-94. Plus, you had Pip and Grant entering their absolute peaks. Not to mention, they added Kukoc, by far the best Euro player on the leagueat the time, along with Kerr.

Bron, on the flip side, got facialed in historic fashion in the finals and left a sinking ship. And by 2015, Wade was clearly past his prime.

And please, I could care less about some stat you might throw at me without proper context. I am always weary of people who depend so heavily on stats.

PEACE!

Clipper, that makes no sense. The Heat were 2x champs. No confidence :lol ? Yeah, yeah. MJ stans will bring up stats all the time but then don't want to see their own stats applied outside of their deceptive agenda, like the OP.

Basically the one "argument" for Ewing is that he scored 4.0 more in the RS and 3.3 more PPG in the PO (with Pippen scoring 1.8 less as a first option in the RS and 0.3 more in the PO). That's pretty pathetic. That's it?

Another 1-9ball lie was Pippen had no rival. He did. His name was Grant Hill, a Pippen-like player without the elite defense. Before that he didn't have a direct comp at SF but the New York Times in 1991 and Sports Illustrated compared him to another two-way elite player. That player's name? michael Jordan.

The data is for the entire time Ewing was all-NBA level. 97' he was second team all-NBA. That was his highest since 93', since he didn't make All-NBA from 1994-1996. MJ stans raved about 94' Ewing who All-NBA voters thought was fourth best at his position so why exclude 97' when he was behind only Hakeem?

[QUOTE=3ball;14111947]Yes roundball, we know that pippen has a non-horrific BPM (the stockton stat, aka steals weighted stat), so you keep harping on it

But what else does he have?.. VORP?.. yes, we already know he has good value above replacement, another meaningless stat.. And what else.. OBPM?.. APG, SPG, ORTG?. thres?. that's it..

otherwise, it's all Ewing - PPG, DREB, OREB, RPG, BPG, TS, FG, EFG, FT%, 2-pt %, PER, WS/48, DRTG, reg season peak, playoff peak, H2H, 1st option (pippen is 2nd option)[/QUOTE]

You make a habit of being wrong. Steals are [U]also[/U] weighted in vorp, winshares & ws48. They're also stats you have used to prop up Jordan/Ewing. And once again, Pippen has Ewing beat in WS/48 not the other way around. So that isn't in his favor just like BPM-RAPM-APM-VORP-ORTG-WS-WS48 aren't either.

Pippen was never on MJ's level. He was never on the top tier level of MJ, Robinson, Shaq, Malone, Hakeem, Barkley, and yes - Ewing.. Pippen was [U]never[/U] on this tier and was always considered a secondary player, aka 2nd option, while they were all alpha dog 1st options..

Pippen's inherent secondary nature was revealed and played out like an experiment in the 94' playoffs - Pippen predictably bricked and imploded.. it's funny because mj elevated pippen TO a second option - he would never be a clear-cut #2 or a champion #2 anywhere else..

people forget that MJ helped Pippen improve on offense more than another player would - Pippen would be a slightly WORSE offensive player if he came up alongside someone other than MJ, and pippen's offense was already shaky alongside MJ many nights

everyone knows the drill:

no pip, no chip

[QUOTE=insidious301;14111963]You make a habit of being wrong. Steals are [U]also[/U] weighted in vorp, winshares & ws48. They're also stats you have used to prop up Jordan/Ewing. And once again, Pippen has Ewing beat in WS/48 not the other way around. So that isn't in his favor just like BPM-RAPM-APM-VORP-ORTG-WS-WS48 aren't either.[/QUOTE]

These guys are shameless. Several of these stats are stats they will be quick to invoke when convenient.

Pippen crushes Ewing across the board. This is backed up by their AT rankings. You can argue all this is wrong but don't cherry pick stats for the OP or to argue Pippen sucked or that Pippen shouldn't have been MVP etc. and then cut and run when the same stats go the other way.

The steals excuse is laughable. Blocks are weighted as well in these stats and blocks favor Ewing, the center.

This guy is a fool. Pippen was a contributor in every category but not super elite outside of steals. But when you are good or great in every category it adds up in advanced stats. That doesn't even get to defense which is hard to quantify.

Pippen was voted the best all-around player in 1995 by coaches and GM's, etc. There is a reason for that...

We actually posted at the same time, Roundball. That's weird although great minds think alike.

[QUOTE=3ball;14111975]Pippen was never on MJ's level. He was never on the top tier level of MJ, Robinson, Malone, and yes - Ewing.. Pippen was [U]never[/U] on this tier and was always considered a secondary player, aka 2nd option, while they were all alpha dog 1st options..

Pippen's inherent secondary nature was revealed and played out like an experiment in the 94' playoffs - Pippen predictably bricked and imploded.. it's funny because mj elevated pippen TO a second option - he would never be a clear-cut #2 or a champion #2 anywhere else..[/QUOTE]

Pippen had better prime stats than Ewing. So not only was Pippen on the level of Ewing, but he had more impact too. What that also tells us is Chicago's #2 was actually a #1, and outplayed the #1 on the Bulls' best rival. Pippen year after year ranked top 10 in most impact stats, so him being a superstar isn't anything new. There would be years like 1994 & even better if he had a team built around his strengths. Not around his defense either, but on the offensive end. For that theory, his [B][U]OBPM[/U][/B], which was better than Ewing's, is a good rule of thumb.

[QUOTE=insidious301;14112000]Pippen had better prime stats than Ewing. [/QUOTE]

In what world? Ewing peaked at 29/11 w/ 4 blocks a game and averaged 25/11 w/ 2.7 bpg from '90-'97. Ewing outplayed & beat peak Pippen in '94, despite Grant & Armstrong being the 3rd & 4th highest scorers on 60+%TS efficiency.

[QUOTE=insidious301;14112000]We actually posted at the same time, Roundball. That's weird although great minds think alike.



Pippen had better prime stats than Ewing. So not only was Pippen on the level of Ewing, but he had more impact too. What that also tells us is Chicago's #2 was actually a #1, and outplayed the #1 on the Bulls' best rival. Pippen year after year ranked top 10 in most impact stats, so him being a superstar isn't anything new. There would be years like 1994 & even better if he had a team built around his strengths. Not around his defense either, but on the offensive end. For that theory, his [B][U]OBPM[/U][/B], which was better than Ewing's, is a good rule of thumb.[/QUOTE]

Great points (especially the one about great minds :cheers: ).

Pippen never had a team built around his strengths and weaknesses. He inherited MJ's team and then MJ returned the second year. Ewing had teams tailor made for him and they spotlight what he required. The only way the Knicks could contend is with a #1 or #2 defense. They required that because their offenses were consistently bad. So the Knicks had to stack up on hard nosed defenders all over the roster but lacked scoring punch or playmaking as the price. Starks, Oakley, Mason being the headliners. That gave them elite defenses but came at the expense of offense. When the Knicks needed baskets in close playoff games, often they didn't get them. Hence so many losses in so many close series.

Pippen would easier to build around because of his versatility. He could anchor a good offense and an elite defense. He could score more, playmake less or vice versa. Pippen could fit with a wide range if rosters. Ewing couldn't. What Pippen needed was a second option (Grant was a dunker and scored on outbacks). The Bulls
signed Harper to be that but he flopped as a scorer in Chicago. If they had a full prime they could have gotten him someone. Krause should have traded for Hornacek in 94' at the deadline. Bulls go to the finals and probably win a chip then.

Moses Malone finished fourth in BPM on the Sixers in 1983, and he led the team in PER, WS/48 and won an MVP. What is the point with this silly comparison? Using BPM to somehow argue Pippen > Ewing is just laughable. Look at the raw numbers, eye test, and literally anything else. Ewing blows Pippen out of the water. BPM obviously has issues rating center production properly. By your logic, Pippen is better than Hakeem when he was dropping 30+ in the finals. Drexler almost doubled Hakeem's OBPM that championship year, but nobody in their right mind believes Drexler > Hakeem that year. Hakeem was the fricking reigning MVP, lol! So naturally you don't see threads like "Drexer > Hakeem in 1995 cuz BPM herp derp...." :oldlol: :hammerhead: :facepalm

Ewing's much more valuable to a team in the 90s, idiot acts as if Scottie could have done more than Ewing with the tools that he had. Wow. So Pippen having two all-star teammates wasn't enough, he needed Jeff Hornacek? Who was Ewing's 2nd best player? Oakley? Or Starks? An undrafted player who made 1 all-star team? Ewing led a team to the Finals with his 2nd option averaging 14.6 ppg on 38.1% for the Playoffs. The fact he did that with below-average help on offense is nothing short of spectacular, & was really close to beating Hakeem as well, but obviously Starks goes 2/18 w/ 0/11 from 3 in a 6-point loss in Game 7.

[QUOTE=goozeman;14112012]Moses Malone finished fourth in BPM on the Sixers in 1983, and he led the team in PER, WS/48 and won an MVP. What is the point with this silly comparison? Using BPM to somehow argue Pippen > Ewing is just laughable. Look at the raw numbers, eye test, and literally anything else. Ewing blows Pippen out of the water. BPM obviously has issues rating center production properly. By your logic, Pippen is better than Hakeem when he was dropping 30+ in the finals. Drexler almost doubled Hakeem's OBPM that championship year, but nobody in their right mind believes Drexler > Hakeem that year. Hakeem was the fricking reigning MVP, lol! So naturally you don't see threads like "Drexer > Hakeem in 1995 cuz BPM herp derp...." :oldlol: :hammerhead: :facepalm[/QUOTE]

Ewing was the anchor on both sides of the court and led his teams to many deep Playoff runs as the #1 guy. He was a better scorer & defensive player & beat/outplayed Pippen when both had their own teams & were in their primes, what else did he need to do in order to be better?

[QUOTE=ImKobe;14112014]

Ewing was the anchor on both sides of the court and led his teams to many deep Playoff runs as the #1 guy. He was a better scorer & defensive player & beat/outplayed Pippen when both had their own teams & were in their primes, what else did he need to do in order to be better?[/QUOTE]

Naw, man, you don't understand. Bobby Jones scoring 9ppg in 1983 was better than back-to-back league MVP and Finals MVP Moses Malone because BPM says so. :oldlol:

[QUOTE=goozeman;14112021]Naw, man, you don't understand. Bobby Jones scoring 9ppg in 1983 was better than back-to-back league MVP and Finals MVP Moses Malone because BPM says so. :oldlol:[/QUOTE]

And they'll completely disregard Stockton having a higher BPM, VORP & PER than Pippen throughout his career. It's hilarious.

[QUOTE=goozeman;14112021]Naw, man, you don't understand. Bobby Jones scoring 9ppg in 1983 was better than back-to-back league MVP and Finals MVP Moses Malone because BPM says so. :oldlol:[/QUOTE]

and per and ws/48 say parish was better than bird in the early 80s. every metric has these bad examples. once in awhile these examples reveal a mistake in popular opinion too. A lot of people in the media for good reason acted like klay was the 2nd or 3rd guy with gs but draymond was just more impactful in 16 and likely most of the kd years too. He was better in every one of those bball reference stats in 16 and the plus minus stuff too.

[QUOTE=NBAGOAT;14112027]and per and ws/48 say parish was better than bird in the early 80s. every metric has these bad examples. once in awhile these examples reveal a mistake in popular opinion too. A lot of people in the media for good reason acted like klay was the 2nd or 3rd guy with gs but draymond was just more impactful in 16 and likely most of the kd years too. He was better in every one of those bball reference stats in 16 and the plus minus stuff too.[/QUOTE]

Gimme a break, man. You could make the legit case that Parish was equal or even better than Bird in 1981. His efficiency blew Bird's away on almost equal scoring, and Parish had all-time great defensive seasons during that era. That's nothing weird about that at all and you know it. You can't make any kind of excuse on the other hand for Bobby Jones having more value according to BPM than Moses Malone during an MVP season. It's a joke.

[QUOTE=goozeman;14112035]Gimme a break, man. You could make the legit case that Parish was equal or even better than Bird in 1981. His efficiency blew Bird's away on almost equal scoring, and Parish had all-time great defensive seasons during that era. That's nothing weird about that at all and you know it. You can't make any kind of excuse on the other hand for Bobby Jones having more value according to BPM than Moses Malone during an MVP season. It's a joke.[/QUOTE]

well with bpm you can default to vorp, jones played like 25mpg and that matters. and no arguing parish over bird is pretty bad and you know it.

[QUOTE=goozeman;14110880][B]Career Rankings[/B]

[B]PER:[/B]

Anthony Davis....3
Dwayne Wade......21
Kyrie Irving.....33
Kevin Love.......45
Chris Bosh.......62
Scottie Pippen...132
Horace Grant.....185

[B]OBPM:[/B]

Anthony Davis....12
Kyrie Irving.....13
Dwayne Wade......25
Kevin Love.......29
Scottie Pippen...90
Chris Bosh.......102
Horace Grant.....107

[B]
WS/48:[/B]

Anthony Davis....13
Horace Grant.....55
Kevin Love.......57
Kyrie Irving.....68
Dwayne Wade......70
Chris Bosh.......76
Scottie Pippen...129
[B]
Ortg:[/B]

Horace Grant.....4 :biggums:
Anthony Davis....28
Kevin Love.......47
Kyrie Irving.....89
Chris Bosh.......107
Dwayne Wade......231
Scottie Pippen...NR top 250
[B]
Effective Field Goal Percentage:[/B]

Anthony Davis....86
Kyrie Irving.....99
Horace Grant.....206
Kevin Love.......225
Chris Bosh.......227
Scottie Pippen...244
Dwayne Wade......NR top 250
[B]
True Shooting:[/B]

Anthony Davis.....41
Kyrie Irving......84
Chris Bosh........89
Kevin Love........92
Dwayne Wade.......183
Dennis Rodman.....244 :rockon:
Scoottie Pippen...NR top 250 :facepalm
Horace Grant......NR top 250

[B]BPM:[/B]

Anthony Davis.....12
Dwayne Wade.......22
Kyrie Irving......32
Scottie Pippen....35 :applause:
Kevin Love........48
Chris Bosh........134
Horace Grant......176


Notice that all the real stats that are actually measuring something tangible (PER, OBPM, Ortg, WS/48, eFG%, TS%, etc) actually correlate very closely with one another in rankings. They all say that Pippen was maybe a top-100 offensive player all-time. Pippen wasn't even a Chris Bosh level offensive talent. Also, Scottie Pippen's BPM ranking is wildly incongruous because it rewards defensive stars playing on great defensive teams. From BREF about the BPM 2.0 changes:




When basketball reference reworked the stat back in 2016, players like John Stockton (another Pippen-like two-way player) saw their career BPM double. And here is the kicker... Even with that bonus bump gifted to him and playing on the best defensive teams of all-time practically his entire career, Pippen wouldn't even be a top-three impact player compared to Lebron's teammates. All-time Pippen is just slightly better than Kevin Love.

In summation, in order for Lebron to be on the level of Jordan, he would need to win six titles and win six Finals MVP's with a Chris Bosh/Kevin Love level player as his second option.

Lebron fans...

[IMG]https://external-content.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=https%3A%2F%2Fmedia.giphy.com%2Fmedia%2Fl4Ki2obCyAQS5WhFe%2Fgiphy.gif&f=1&nofb=1[/IMG][/QUOTE]
Damn.

[QUOTE=NBAGOAT;14112037]well with bpm you can default to vorp, jones played like 25mpg and that matters. and no arguing parish over bird is pretty bad and you know it.[/QUOTE]

Per 100

[i]Parish........[B]32ppg........16reb[/B].......3ast.......71ft%.......[B]55fg%.......58ts%.......13Ortg.......96Drtg[/B]
Bird.......... 26ppg........13reb.......[B]6ast.......86ft%[/B].......48fg%.......52ts%.......107Org.......99Dtg[/I]

Parish also had a higher OBPM, DBPM, and BPM that season, which negates your point totally, but let's just forget about that. The only reason Bird was better an any advanced stat (VORP) is because Parish only played 28mpg. Parish was dominant. He just gets forgotten because he has no personality and Bird's popularity overshadows the rest of the players on those Celtics teams. I don't see the similarity at all really to BPM rating Bobby Jones over Moses Malone during an MVP season.

gooseman=1-9ball? 1-9ball was called out the other day for his daily "MJ teammates/Pippen sucked" thread and was asked to post something different. It seems instead of heeding that he simply turned to an alt to post the same.

[QUOTE=NBAGOAT;14112027]and per and ws/48 say parish was better than bird in the early 80s. every metric has these bad examples. once in awhile these examples reveal a mistake in popular opinion too. A lot of people in the media for good reason acted like klay was the 2nd or 3rd guy with gs but draymond was just more impactful in 16 and likely most of the kd years too. He was better in every one of those bball reference stats in 16 and the plus minus stuff too.[/QUOTE]

MJ stans want it both ways. They post stat after stat--look at the OP. Then when we look at 15 stats and Pippen crushes Ewing over and over again--suddenly stats don't matter. It is obvious they have no beliefs, just an agenda but then just admit it that and stop posting stats as if they mean anything to them when they cut and run whenever stats for MJ's teammates show up--even the same stats that they themselves cited. :lol

Re PER, it has a bias against playmakers/passers because of the turnover component so that helps explain Bird. It also explains why Ewing is slightly ahead of Pippen in PER.

[QUOTE=goozeman(1-9ball or Soundwave?)][B]You could make the legit case that Parish was equal or even better than Bird in 1981.[/B] His efficiency blew Bird's away on almost equal scoring, and Parish had all-time great defensive seasons during that era. [/QUOTE]

:roll: :roll: :roll:

WS/48 says Grant peaked at #3 and Kukoc #6 in the entire NBA. It also has Pippen as perennial top 10. Do MJ stains want to own WS/48? It makes MJ's teammates look great. Of course, MJ stains will just revert to their a la carte menu of cherry picking.

[QUOTE=1-9ball Junior]Ewing was the anchor on both sides of the court a[/QUOTE]

That is the point. :facepalm He sucked at anchoring on the offensive end of the floor. How dumb are you? He is supposed to get an award for anchoring garbage offenses? If he could anchor a top 10 offense he would have multiple rings.

That was too much to ask. His offenses were below average, sometimes not even top 20, every year when the Knicks were contenders (outside of being 12th of 27 in 92'--amazing feat!). #25 in 97' :oldlol: [url]https://www.basketball-reference.com/teams/NYK/1997.html[/url]. Damn, what anchoring!

These morons think 22-24 PPG is enough scoring to offset an inability to playmake or pass out of double teams. With his limitations, he needed to be scoring 30 to make it work (since he forced the team to construct offensively challenged but defensively dominant rosters).

This is another example of the hypocrisy of MJ stains. Ewing's team sucked on offense but they can't even admit it, despite daily telling us how bad MJ's teammates were on offense. The Bulls were top 10 in offense w/out MJ; the Knicks as contenders were never top 10 even with MJ.

Then there is the little fact Ewing spawned a theory that his teams were better without him, you know, like making the NBA finals without him.

I like how MJ stains credit Ewing for "leading a team to the finals." That is because MJ retired at his peak, at the last minute sabotaging the champs from replacing him with a NBA player. That would be like Duncan retiring at his peak right before the season, the Spurs being forced to sign a G-Leaguer to "replace" him, and the Suns making it. That somehow makes Nash better? :oldlol: We also never hear what happened in that finals: one of the WOAT finals performance. An absolute meltdown by Ewing.

[QUOTE=Gooseman]Using BPM to somehow argue Pippen > Ewing is just laughable.[/QUOTE]

Lie after lie after lie from MJ stains. They are so dishonest they would lie to you if it was raining and say it wasn't. We used 16 stats (forgot CORP in my summary)--Pippen won over and over again. :oldlol:

[QUOTE=gooseman]Look at the raw numbers, eye test, and literally anything else.[/QUOTE]

1-9ball said this almost verbatim. Give it up: you need Ewing for your agenda and need to destroy Pippen for your agenda. The problem is the numbers and all-time consensus says Pippen>Ewing.

MJ stains throw a lot of BS and deception out there but to recap.

Ewing is ahead in: PER, TS %, peak WS/48
Pippen is ahead in: prime WS/48, BPM, OBPM, DBPM, VORP, ORTG, prime WOWYR, WOWYR score, peak BPM, Augmented Plus-Minus, Real Adjusted Plus-Minus, Net on/off court, CORP

So that is 13-3 for Pippen and where Ewing is ahead it is close--but when Pippen is ahead it rarely is close. The beat down got so bad several MJ stans suddenly said we shouldn't use stats--despite using stats 24/7.

Also note how MJ stains talk about Ewing or literally any 90's star except Pippen: they don't identify a single flaw. These guys are presented as flawless, perfect, etc. These aren't honest analyses. They can't talk the strengths and weaknesses, which all these players have. If they were flawless they would be GOAT candidates but we know a guy like Pippen is 20-30 AT and Ewing in the 35-40 or so range.

[QUOTE=ImKobe;14112004]In what world? Ewing peaked at 29/11 w/ 4 blocks a game and averaged 25/11 w/ 2.7 bpg from '90-'97. Ewing outplayed & beat peak Pippen in '94, despite Grant & Armstrong being the 3rd & 4th highest scorers on 60+%TS efficiency.[/QUOTE]

The one where reality operates. Prime Pippen (91-98) vs Ewing (88-97) was broken down for everyone to see.

[quote]WS/48: [B]Pippen .185[/B], Ewing .172
BPM: [B]Pippen 6.0[/B], Ewing 4.0
OBPM: [B]Pippen 3.9[/B], Ewing 2.0
DBPM: [B]Pippen 2.1[/B], Ewing 2.0
PER: Ewing 22.5, Pippen 21.2
VORP: [B]Pippen 45.9[/B] (599 games), Ewing 44.7
VORP per 82: [B]Pippen 6.3[/B], Ewing 4.6
ORTG: [B]Pippen 112[/B], Ewing 108
TS %: Ewing 56%, Pippen 55%[/quote]

7-2 in Pippen's favor. And if we include APM-RAPM, Pippen leads there too. So tell us what the impact argument is for Ewing, because I'm not seeing one.

[QUOTE=goozeman;14112012]Moses Malone finished fourth in BPM on the Sixers in 1983, and he led the team in PER, WS/48 and won an MVP. What is the point with this silly comparison? Using BPM to somehow argue Pippen > Ewing is just laughable. Look at the raw numbers, eye test, and literally anything else. Ewing blows Pippen out of the water. BPM obviously has issues rating center production properly. By your logic, Pippen is better than Hakeem when he was dropping 30+ in the finals. Drexler almost doubled Hakeem's OBPM that championship year, but nobody in their right mind believes Drexler > Hakeem that year. Hakeem was the fricking reigning MVP, lol! So naturally you don't see threads like "Drexer > Hakeem in 1995 cuz BPM herp derp...." :oldlol: :hammerhead: :facepalm[/QUOTE]

BPM is one of the best measures of impact, and in your OP you also used it. Along with ws/ws48/ortg to argue in favor of LeBron's teammates. So if you are being honest and objective what makes the use of these stats laughable? They're the [U]same[/U] numbers lauded in your original argument. This is a huge error your part. You're basically telling ISH not to say what you mean nor mean what you say. How does that make any sense?

Still waiting for you to answer which one of LeBron's teammates were better than Prime Ewing. I know that question isn't comfortable, but you got to leave your safe space at some point.

Tons of incel meltdowns in this thread.

:roll:

[QUOTE=Insidious]BPM is one of the best measures of impact, and [B]in your OP you also used it[/B]. Along with ws/ws48/ortg to argue in favor of LeBron's teammates. So if you are being honest and objective what makes the use of these stats laughable?[B] They're the same numbers lauded in your original argument[/B].[/QUOTE]

:roll: You can't make this stuff up, can you?

[QUOTE=Insidious]Still waiting for you to answer which one of LeBron's teammates were better than Prime Ewing. I know that question isn't comfortable, but you got to leave your safe space at some point.[/QUOTE]

:lol It is a simple question...

I will throw this out for MJ stans as well: identify a weakness in Ewing's game. Adults can discuss athletes or presidents or movies or whatever and identify pros and cons to each. Can these people? If Ewing was flawless, why was he ringless? According to MJ stans themselves, he lost multiple times to a one man team whose key teammates "played so badly" despite "anchoring" a great team himself. Isn't that on him, at least to some degree?

[QUOTE=ArbitraryWater;14111281]Well its a different era.

Teams are all loaded now.

Bron isn‘t out here facing teams with Starks, Majerle, Smits, etc as sidekick[/QUOTE]

like i said

[QUOTE=Roundball_Rock;14112220]:roll: You can't make this stuff up, can you?



:lol It is a simple question...

I will throw this out for MJ stans as well: [B]identify a weakness in Ewing's game.[/B] Adults can discuss athletes or presidents or movies or whatever and identify pros and cons to each. Can these people? If Ewing was flawless, why was he ringless? According to MJ stans themselves, he lost multiple times to a one man team whose key teammates "played so badly" despite "anchoring" a great team himself. Isn't that on him, at least to some degree?[/QUOTE] As a Knicks fan, I can tell you one. He didn´t have good hands and he was occasionally turnover- prone.

[QUOTE=ArbitraryWater;14112224]like i said[/QUOTE]
Not really. Only Miami, Cleveland and Golden State were super teams. 3 legitimate, in prime perennial All Star caliber players, or franchise type guys. In later stages, 4 when KD joined the Warriors.

Two of those teams mind you are LeBron teams. And both teams with stacked all star talent went up against a depleted bum eastern conference.

And all of them, especially Golden State was a reaction and continuation of LeBron needing to form super teams to finally win.

So LeBron can effectively blame himself for all of it, including the team that kept him from winning 3 Finals.

He formed those teams to win as easily as possible. The rest of the contenders or elite teams was two star teams.

Boston and the Spurs were all old, well past their primes and formed organically.

And to be honest, a two star team in Kobe with sidekick Gasol, and some very quality role players eventually beat both those squads.

[QUOTE=Turbo Slayer;14112232]As a Knicks fan, I can tell you one. He didn´t have good hands and he was occasionally turnover- prone.[/QUOTE]

Yup, and he wasn't a great passer like his contemporaries like Hakeem and Shaq. He could score but his prime average was 24.0 and his prime PO average was 22.5. That is good but not super elite scoring. He did peak at 29 PPG--but that was on a 45 win team--and he had a 27 PPG year but again, on a 39 win team. When the Knicks were good he wasn't putting up those kind of numbers, and he is remembered for those 1992-1997 Knicks teams that were contenders (except in 96' when they had a down year). He was 23.6 PPG in the RS from 1992-1997 and 22.4 PPG in the PO.

But you aren't here with an agenda. The MJ stan agenda calls for them to present every 90's star as flawless--except Pippen, who was the WOAT but fooled the whole world for a decade when he played and in retirement.

Here is what Backpicks had to say about Ewing (so an expert without any agenda--he has Ewing 28th all-time, higher than most experts, so he is pro-Ewing):

The bottom line is this:

[QUOTE]For my money, he strung together 10 consecutive All-Star seasons, with four weak-MVP years and a top-30 peak of all time. [B]I don’t love his portability, nor that he failed to play on a really good offense. To scale well, Ewing would need to curtail his isolation frequency, and I have doubts that he could[/B]. I could also see devaluing his mid-’90s defense slightly more, which could push him as low as 30th. [B]Nonetheless, he packaged strong scoring with a top-20 defensive peak, just enough to land him here[/B].[/QUOTE]

By "portability" he means how much a player's game translates to various teams and roster contexts. He values players whose games fit in more contexts, which makes sense. If you are drafting from scratch and building a franchise around a player you don't know what the rest of the roster will be. That was my point earlier. Pippen's diverse skill set and all-around game allows him to fit on any team with a range of "casts" around him. Ewing's record shows the teams needed a very specific type of "cast" around him--and the cost of that was having a lack of scoring or playmaking on the roster. If Ewing could score 30 PPG it would have worked but not when he was scoring 22.5 in the playoffs and the team had no other scorer and no strong creator after Jackson left for Indiana.

[QUOTE]Ewing was never a good passer, capable of hitting strong-side cutters but otherwise lacking vision; he sometimes forced double-teamed shots in lieu of hitting open teammates. And occasionally, he would just make the wrong pass when doubled:[/QUOTE]

He also says Ewing was not a good offensive rebounder.

[QUOTE]While he scooped some offensive boards in that game, he was never strong in that department (outside of 1988). From ’88-97, Ewing typically fell between the 34th and 42nd percentile in offensive rebounding rate among bigs[/QUOTE]

Generally, though, he is pro-Ewing as I noted earlier. You can read the full profile at [URL="https://backpicks.com/2018/01/22/backpicks-goat-27-patrick-ewing/"]https://backpicks.com/2018/01/22/backpicks-goat-27-patrick-ewing/[/URL]. He lauds Ewing's defense, his defensive rebounding, and his peak scoring.

As a comp, here is his bottom line on Pippen (who he has 25th all-time now, 23rd when he did the write up but KD and Curry moved past since then):

[QUOTE]In total, [B]Pippen’s perimeter defense, rebounding and strong passing make him a highly scalable asset, capable of supercharging all kinds of teams[/B]. He played second fiddle on excellent offenses alongside Jordan, spent most of his prime leading good or great defenses, and his brush with the MVP in 1994 is inline with my estimation of his peak as a weak MVP candidate. However, Pippen’s prime was shortened by injuries, and his last high-level year was in 1997. (He was stellar at times in 1998 until his back flared up in the postseason.)

[B]He’s entrenched in the group of players from 22-26, with a peak strong enough to edge out Stockton, but one that lags behind the players ahead of him[/B]. After his back surgery, he churned out two more All-Star level seasons, giving him 11 or 12 by my count. That’s just enough longevity to earn the nod over a similar-peak challenger, Moses Malone, for the No. 23 spot on the list.[/QUOTE]

[URL="https://backpicks.com/2018/01/29/backpicks-goat-23-scottie-pippen/"]https://backpicks.com/2018/01/29/backpicks-goat-23-scottie-pippen/[/URL]

Look at 2020 PER rankings at this website. [URL="http://insider.espn.com/nba/hollinger/statistics"]http://insider.espn.com/nba/hollinger/statistics[/URL]

Is Towns better than LeBron?

Is Hassan Whiteside better than Nikola Jokic?

Is Tony Bradley better than CP3?

PER isn´t perfect.

[QUOTE=Turbo Slayer;14112259]Look at 2020 PER rankings at this website. [URL="http://insider.espn.com/nba/hollinger/statistics"]http://insider.espn.com/nba/hollinger/statistics[/URL]

Is Towns better than LeBron?

Is Hassan Whiteside better than Nikola Jokic?

Is Tony Bradley better than CP3?

PER isn´t perfect.[/QUOTE]

Yup. No stat is perfect. Every stat has outliers. PER in particular has a bias against ballhandlers because of the turnover component and it has a bias in favor of big men. Look at the PER leaders: 6 of the top 11 are big men. In BPM it is 4 of 11, VORP 3 of 11.

All stats have flaws and outliers but when we look at 16 stats and they are all telling us the same thing that is a different story...

Which list is closest to be an accurate list of the top 10 players?

1. James Harden • HOU 7.3
2. Giannis Antetokounmpo • MIL 6.6
3. LeBron James • LAL 6.1
4. Damian Lillard • POR 5.9
5. Nikola Jokić • DEN 5.5
6. Anthony Davis • LAL 5.4
7. Luka Dončić • DAL 5.4
8. Kawhi Leonard • LAC 5.1
9. Jimmy Butler • MIA 3.7
10. Chris Paul • OKC 3

1. Giannis Antetokounmpo • MIL 11.5
2. James Harden • HOU 9.6
3. Kawhi Leonard • LAC 8.9
4. Luka Dončić • DAL 8.4
5. LeBron James • LAL 8.4
6. Anthony Davis • LAL 8.0
7. Karl-Anthony Towns • MIN 7.8
8. Damian Lillard • POR 7.5
9. Nikola Jokić • DEN 7.4
10. Jimmy Butler • MIA 5.4

1. Giannis Antetokounmpo • MIL 31.9
2. James Harden • HOU 29.1
3. Luka Dončić • DAL 27.6
4. Anthony Davis • LAL 27.4
5. Damian Lillard • POR 26.9
6. Kawhi Leonard • LAC 26.9
7. Karl-Anthony Towns • MIN 26.5
8. Joel Embiid • PHI 25.8
9. LeBron James • LAL 25.5
10. Hassan Whiteside • POR 25.0

To me the middle one is the most accurate (BPM). It has the top 6 players right (not necessarily the order but the right players) and the only outlier in the top 10 is KAT.

[QUOTE=Roundball_Rock;14112178]That is the point. :facepalm He sucked at anchoring on the offensive end of the floor. How dumb are you? He is supposed to get an award for anchoring garbage offenses? If he could anchor a top 10 offense he would have multiple rings.

That was too much to ask. His offenses were below average, sometimes not even top 20, every year when the Knicks were contenders (outside of being 12th of 27 in 92'--amazing feat!). #25 in 97' :oldlol: [url]https://www.basketball-reference.com/teams/NYK/1997.html[/url]. Damn, what anchoring!

These morons think 22-24 PPG is enough scoring to offset an inability to playmake or pass out of double teams. With his limitations, he needed to be scoring 30 to make it work (since he forced the team to construct offensively challenged but defensively dominant rosters).

This is another example of the hypocrisy of MJ stains. Ewing's team sucked on offense but they can't even admit it, despite daily telling us how bad MJ's teammates were on offense. The Bulls were top 10 in offense w/out MJ; the Knicks as contenders were never top 10 even with MJ.

Then there is the little fact Ewing spawned a theory that his teams were better without him, you know, like making the NBA finals without him.

I like how MJ stains credit Ewing for "leading a team to the finals." That is because MJ retired at his peak, at the last minute sabotaging the champs from replacing him with a NBA player. That would be like Duncan retiring at his peak right before the season, the Spurs being forced to sign a G-Leaguer to "replace" him, and the Suns making it. That somehow makes Nash better? :oldlol: We also never hear what happened in that finals: one of the WOAT finals performance. An absolute meltdown by Ewing.



Lie after lie after lie from MJ stains. They are so dishonest they would lie to you if it was raining and say it wasn't. We used 16 stats (forgot CORP in my summary)--Pippen won over and over again. :oldlol:



1-9ball said this almost verbatim. Give it up: you need Ewing for your agenda and need to destroy Pippen for your agenda. The problem is the numbers and all-time consensus says Pippen>Ewing.[/QUOTE]

How do you anchor an elite offense with mediocre offensive players around you? Look at the Hakeem teams in the 90s, plenty of them were average/not elite. The '94 team was just 15th in ORTG w/ a 105.9 ORTG, the Knicks were #16 at 105.7, the Bulls had a 106.1 ORTG. So much for Pippen leading an "elite" offense, .4 higher ORTG than the terrible Ewing Knicks with Starks missing 23 games. Knicks also had the 2nd highest SRS in the league compared to the '94 Bulls being 11th. All this talk about Pippen being such an elite offensive player, but then he goes up against the Knicks and loses with Grant & Armstrong combining for 33.4 ppg on over 60%TS. Starks was the 5th highest scorer in the series at 14.7 ppg on 55%TS, somehow the Knicks still win. Guess being the better 2-way player helps Ewing elevate a worse offensive supporting cast to a win when it matters.

[QUOTE=ImKobe;14112347]How do you anchor an elite offense with mediocre offensive players around you? Look at the Hakeem teams in the 90s, plenty of them were average/not elite. The '94 team was just 15th in ORTG w/ a 105.9 ORTG, the Knicks were #16 at 105.7, the Bulls had a 106.1 ORTG. So much for Pippen leading an "elite" offense, .4 higher ORTG than the terrible Ewing Knicks with Starks missing 23 games. Knicks also had the 2nd highest SRS in the league compared to the '94 Bulls being 11th. All this talk about Pippen being such an elite offensive player, but then he goes up against the Knicks and loses with Grant & Armstrong combining for 33.4 ppg on over 60%TS. Starks was the 5th highest scorer in the series at 14.7 ppg on 55%TS, somehow the Knicks still win. Guess being the better 2-way player helps Ewing elevate a worse offensive supporting cast to a win when it matters.[/QUOTE]

Sounds like a lot of excuses, but not many facts. ORTG isn't the only stat Pippen beats Ewing in either. He rates better in BPM-OBPM-VORP-WS-WS48-APM-RAPM. Adjusted plus minus is especially [U]key[/U] because it separates individual from team, therefor making your criticism weak.

[quote]
WS/48: [B]Pippen .185[/B], Ewing .172
BPM: [B]Pippen 6.0[/B], Ewing 4.0
OBPM: [B]Pippen 3.9[/B], Ewing 2.0
DBPM: [B]Pippen 2.1[/B], Ewing 2.0
PER: Ewing 22.5, Pippen 21.2
VORP: [B]Pippen 45.9[/B], Ewing 44.7
VORP per 82: [B]Pippen 6.3[/B], Ewing 4.6
ORTG: [B]Pippen 112[/B], Ewing 108
TS %: Ewing 56%, Pippen 55%[/quote]

And here is Oakley on Ewing's limitations. Going as far to say Ewing actually held NY back.

[video=youtube;mPnEI6HBfwo]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mPnEI6HBfwo#t=11m19s[/video]

Starting at 11:18