Teammate career rankings between Jordan and Lebron -- The Reality

[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