Ewing played in every game in the 1999 playoff run until his injury in Game 1 of the Eastern Conference Finals. He helped them get passed 2 teams with great Centers (Alonzo Mourning and Dikembe Mutombo). Arguably the reason they couldn't compete with the Spurs in the Finals was his injury and absence.
Its not entirely retarded, it has some merit up against slow teams, but teams who are more efficient or fast paced would have squashed the Knicks in the conference finals, instead it was a good thing to be up against another slow paced team in the Pacers (Ironic, the PACERS of all teams) and they took advantage of it, but inagine if it was a team that prefered fast tempo?
Let's not forget, those so called up tempo teams in the eastern conference playoffs you theoretically mention were bounced or not good enough to compete against the Pacers and Knicks. If you can, name one up tempo eastern conference team in the 1999 playoffs that would have beaten the Knicks or the Pacers? Please enlighten us.
There is a flaw in this example. The Knicks lost to the Spurs! Without Patrick Ewing, Knicks didn't have the size to guard David Robinson and Tim Duncan. Also the very next year when Patrick Ewing left the Knicks, they didn't even make it to the playoffs. The Knicks are better with Patrick Ewing and the theory is flawed.
the knicks made the 2000 east finals....stupid..ewing didnt leave until summer 2000 and then they lost in round 1 vs the raptors in 2001 and he failed in seattle but made the 02 playoff with orlando...know your history
The Knicks made, but lost in the first round in 2001, which was the first season Ewing was gone. They got back to the postseason in 2004, but were swept, and badly outplayed by a much better Nets team then too. Not until 2011 did they make the playoffs from that point on again, nor did they win a playoff game until 2012, and series until 2013.
Ty !!! The knicks blew past the pacers b/c the pacers were old & the Knicks played w/ faster younger run & gun guys. That core of the pacers were together for way too long w/o winning.
that story makes no sense..Ewing was a beast at the playoffs that year , before he got injured against miami..he beat prime Alonzo Mourning playing with one foot
@tol jw - Ewing had heart. It's a shame that Bill Simmons and his friend refuse to recognize those parts about Ewing's game late in his career. The big man was practically playing on one leg during that 1999 playoff run as you mentioned.
It does make sense because it's not saying anything negative about Ewing as a player. It's talking about how the team played with and without him. If you can lose a player at one position and make up the shortfall plus more at other positions then it's a net gain, no matter how good the player you lost is. It's also about the opposition and how you match up against them. The Knicks may have been able to do better against the Pacers without Ewing by playing a more up-tempo offence but that would not be the case against every team. Ewing was a great player but an offence focused on his style of play was not necessarily the best option for the Knicks against every team. That's really what it comes down to.
Ewing was at the end of his career. Everyone knew the knicks had a great roster without Ewing. It only helped them for the pacers. They definitely needed him for the finals. They lost the finals because they were two small and the spurs imposed their will on the smaller knicks.
@@MetalMadness_00 Well I don't think many truly Shaq was actually going to leave Orlando at the time. It was a pretty huge shock when he signed with LA it seemed too. But even then, if the Magic traded him while they were still true title contenders in 96, the city would have gone up in flames though! Plus Ewing was a free agent after 97, and wasn't like that trade would have done Orlando any real good as a result too.
Ewing was one of the most underrated players of his era. During the first Jordan three peat the Knicks gave the Bulls all they could handle. Ewing was a huge reason for that too
I don't like that they call it the Ewing theory because that stuff happened with him on the decline. In his prime he was a factor in the wins. Rudy Gay theory is the most accurate. Guys who 20+ scorers that don't win where they go and teams get better when the leave. The opposite of this the Sam Cassell theory. Underrated and makes teams winners wherever he went.
And the Knicks not having Ewing obviously didn't really help them in a sense at any point, save for when it ever so slightly may have in the 99 conference finals, but probably would have won it with him anyway. That and not having him available in the NBA Finals that year (with L.J. also being badly banged up) gave them absolutely no shot to beat an already heavily favored Spurs team then for that matter also. If anything, the Giants losing Tiki Barber is what this (mostly) bogus theory should be named after. That of which not only has a far better ring to it, but was one of the very few examples when a team truly did get better when they lost a great talent in the end.
Everybody did. But still, the Pacers didn't improve at all. They were a dark horse contender with PG that lost to the Heat in the ECF twice and once to the Cavs in round one. And with Oladipo they again lost to the Cavs in round one and with Phily, Boston, Toronto and the Bucks I don't think they're anybodys dark horse contender now. (If the Pacers somehow win a title with Oladipo somebody please screenshot this and post it everywhere 😂😂😂😂)
The Hawks experienced this when we traded away Joe Johnson. 2 seasons later, they won 60 games and made it to the Eastern Conference Finals without have a true "scorer or star"
Almighty Sosa300 it was a rebuild, but so was when Melo left the Nuggets. Many expected the Hawks to maybe be a 7 or 8 seed in the East after having a few 48+ win seasons with Joe Johnson. No one expected that roster to ever win 60 games and get the number 1 seed. Before that season, Horford was the only one of them that had been an all star. The whole starting 5 were all stars that season
micah3000 paul millsap and Teague had a big role in their success, not to mention the shooting of korver. Remember the hawks weren't good immediately after losing iso joe, it took them a while to get used to playing with each other. Also budenholzer was the coach of the year that year so it was just perfect timing all around
The Joe Johnson situation is not comparable. Like Almighty Sosa300 said, the Hawks were rebuilt during that time. They were different teams with a different coach. Budenholzer brought a significant improvement to the Hawks offensive and defensive philosophy and execution. Plus Joe Johnson wasn't a superstar. He was a great player, but much easier to replace than a superstar. Also, the Hawks having 4 all-stars in 2015 was a joke. The only one even remotely deserving of the nod was Horford, and I'm not even sure of that.
If the Knicks had Ewing it would have been Ewing and Camby vs Duncan and Robinson, and we would have had a chance. I don't think losing Ewing made the Knicks better at all. The reason why Ewing couldn't win in the 90s was because Jordan and the Bulls were in the East
The Nuggets example is a stretch... They got Iguadala in a trade who was an All Star player and as you said they had some really great role players who were honestly borderline all stars in Ty Lawson and Gallinari. Also you failed to mention that the Carmelo-led Knicks that year won 54 games and actually made it past the first round of the playoffs unlike the Nuggets. Bad example.
Furthermore that Nuggets faced the Lakers in the western conference final!!!! Some example are really meaningful , but some are rather disrespectful!!!
Actually, its funny you would mention this. The Bulls were shockingly similar with and without Jordan. Chicago was 55-27 the year after Jordan retired. They were 57-25 the year before, which is only a 2 win difference Yes, they lost in the second round in 7 games in 1994, but largely on the back of the questionable Hubert Davis foul call. When you compare the 1993 and 1994 Chicago Knicks series, they are shockingly similar. In both 1993 and 1994, the Knicks won games 1 and 2, the Bulls won games 3 and 4 both years. The Knicks trailed by one point with a chance to win game 5 both years, but the got the foul call in 94 vs the no call in 1993. Then the Bulls win game 6 both seasons. If that last play against Charles Smith is called a foul, the Knicks probably win that series in 7 as well. It's kind of shocking in retrospect how well the Bulls did without Jordan.
Still out in the 2nd Rd that's a huge difference to winning the championship 3x2..... Jordan built and strengthened the defensive backbone and mentality on that team by the constant pressure he put them in at training cause he knew thats all he needed to win as he can be the whole offence on his own when he needs to.... So yeah they will go far on the back of their defence but always gonna get knocked out cause without Jordan they had a poor offence one of the worst scoring supporting casts in NBA history.... Jordan is undeniable.... Peeps can keep trying to downplay it but Jordan was the NBA...
P they where not Harvard on offense without me they just didn’t have a closer because Mj would take the last shot except when passing it out of the double team
You know the drill 1.Patrick Ewing 2.Micheal Jordan 3.Charles Barkley 4.Gary Payton 5. Hakeem Olajuwon 6.Reggie Miller 7.shaq 8.Clyde Drexler 9.Isiah Thomas 0.Scottie Pippen Edit: comment who you got
Simmons tried to rename this to the Tiki Barber theory after he left the Giants, criticized the team, and then the Giants pulled off the greatest upset in Super Bowl history without Barber and his crippling fumbles.
That of which makes far more sense for certain too, since the Knicks never truly were better off without Ewing at any point (while the Giants definitely were WITHOUT Tiki) for that matter also.
This Ewing theory must be one of the most stupid things ever. The logic sure happens but Ewing to be used as example is just wrong. Ewing got " build" with a bunch of C players. Charles Smith, Greg Anthony, Starks, Chris Child, Herb Williams, Gerald Wilkins. good grief. Michael had Pippen. Malone had Stockton. Barkley had Kevin Johnson. Even Olajuwon had Drexler and Sampson earlier and a good squad on Ellie, Horry and Smith. Ewing had Starks shooting like crazy and missing all of it. Even an injured, old Ewing led Knicks to ECF in 99 and another in 2000 (schooling the mvp candidate Zo and Heat). Ewing must be used in example of how shit of franchise you can be if you dont build right. Thats why Shaq got his titles in L.A. A more help in mid 90s Ewing would be champion.
Starks is the prototype JR Smith lol. Hakeem didn't have Drexler for his first chip. But yes the Knicks didn't surround Ewing with better players until Ewing was way past his prime and declined.
@@s.l5787 Uh, the Knicks never really "improved" without Ewing at any point (assuming that's what you're referring to all the way), considering not once were they truly better off without him, nor have they made it as far as the third round since he left. Only once did they have a 50+ win season, and so much as win a mere single playoff series (in 2013), after he was no longer part of their organization for that matter too.
Pacers totally experienced the Ewing Theory this year with PG being gone. He never wanted to buy into Nate McMillans system and even though he was their best player, he acted like he didnt want to be playing most games. Counteract that with Oladipo who bought into what Nate wanted from the team, and you have an awesome team to watch and a team that could be a contender in the next few years.
That's funny. I think Elgin Baylor criticism was so unfair. Baylor and West's Lakers had to deal with that Celtics Juggernaut similar to Ewing's Knicks losing to Jordan & Pippen's Bulls.
There should be sub-categories of the "Ewing" theory. Ewing was a high volume scorer built for half-court sets at a plodding tempo. Guys like Dantley, Monta Elllis, Melo, are just black hole, ball hogs almost guaranteeing zero long term team success for being the 1 or 2 team option.
melo lead his team to conference finals against kobe and the spurs many times. prime melo really wasnt this ballhog, no defence, guy people confuse with literally bad knicks team melo.
The Allan Houston thing was also very interesting. i felt that the huge contract and his sudden terrible play afterwards set everything in motion for years of Knicks woes.
The knicks would not of been playing the pacers if Ewing didn't carry them in game 5 against the heat. Additionally the knicks definetly would of been better against spurs if they had Ewing, cabs kept getting into foul trouble and they had Dudley playing huge minutes
the knicks weren't a 8th seed also without him they went from a conference finals finalist to a 1st round and out team when they traded him in 2000 while keeping the rest of the core of the 99 team so...guess it didnt work
Timberwolves didn't get better without him for a good 5 seasons, he was replaced by a superior player without him, the Suns sucked ass that half season without him before Nash.
Well that's because he was replaced with much better, and team players when he left in most cases. He also did virtually nothing for the Knicks for that matter also, and only reason they "improved" without him, was because they literally had nowhere to go but up after he left, as had been the case for them ever since Ewing left too.
This is crap. Patrick ewing was just playing in a tough era. Hakeem was just better and there was no way patrick could stop him. In the east Patrick ran into michael jordan all the time and there was no way to stop him either. The ewing theory is flawed for the person who started it.
Ray Pittman - The rest of his team still had to play against those players that you mentioned , and as reported """ they had more success without him "".
It doesn't matter. Ewing & New York had it's chances. In the 1994 NBA finals Patrick Ewing under performed, vs Indiana in 1995 Patrick Ewing under performed. Like Barkley in the years 1993-1995 & 1997 Their teams had a chance 🤦♂️
I blame the coaches not the players. San Antonio doesn’t have a Duncan factor or a Ginobili factor. Popovich knows how to utilize his bench and define the team roles of his Superstars.
I think it's really not fair to call this the "Ewing-Theory" because of the 98/99 Season of the Knicks. I agree the Knicks were better without him in that year. But Ewing was already 36 or 37 at that time. Sprewell and Houston were the younger and better players and should had beed the go-to-guys. But I don't think in Ewings prime the Knicks were better without him. He lead the team to the Finals in 94 and his winning record in his prime is far better than Monta, Gay or Melos including 60, 57, 55 and 57 win-Seasons from 92-97 where he was the leader.
He was there best player in 98-99. He was the reason they reached the finals. The theory itself has validity but calling it after Ewing was a giant mistake.
The NY Knicks wouldn't have gotten out of the 1st round of the 1998-99 playoffs against the Miami Heat if it wasn't for old man Ewing checking 'Zo. Let's for a moment believe Chris Dudley and Marcus Camby checked Alonzo Mourning in that best of 5 series after the Heat went down in that unfortunate 1997-98 1st round loss. 1-on-1 'Zo eats Camby, Dudley and Herb Williams for Breakfast, Lunch and Dinner without Ewing's presence. Ewing was holding his own against 'Zo on one injured leg.
the ingredients for a good nba youtuber: a non-annoying voice covers interesting topics decent editing interesting commentary conveys ideas in an organized manner Andy hoops falls under this and so does the bigger nba youtubers these days
The Melo claim doesn't really make sense. The Ewing Theory is that a team becomes better after its supposed best player leaves, however the Nuggets gained back 4 very good role players/fringe star in Gallinari. Also you messed up pretty badly, they didn't have their 57 win season right after trading Melo, it happened two years after he was traded to the Knicks. That same year the Knicks actually had 54 wins, meaning Melo helped them have a really good year. ALSO THE NUGGETS FUCKING TRADED FOR ANDRE IGUADALA, A GUY WHO WAS ON TEAM USA AND PLAYED IN THE OLYMPICS THE YEAR PRIOR. Dude, you really messed up with that one. I'm not a Melo fan but you can't just dis him like that, that Nuggets one was a HUUUUGE reach.
Well, they did have a 38-28 record the next year in a shortened season, so they won 58% of their games. The year before with Melo they won 56% percent of their games before he was traded, so they actually did have a better year without him. And Iguodala wasn't obtained until the following season so it's not like he was responsible.
I remember that during the late 1990s due to Ewing getting hurt countless times. At that point he became a liability and I recall people saying the Knicks should get rid of him.
i think it makes sense if the player is a cancer like melo...but I think in reality if a team plays better its cause of style or matchups or it unlocks others potential to show they can do more....like this knicks team was filled with talent in larry camby kurt ward childs sprewell and houston so they were good enough to win without pat for a round...but its because of pat they got there...those minutes he ate up helped keep the other guys fresher...duh....if he hadn't played all year how do you replace those minutes?...these idiots dont think that far ahead I guess..its easy to say the 2011 mavericks didnt need caron butler cause they won without him which is true but they didnt have him with that core so who knows if they win easier with him or not but losing him unlocked others games and the minutes he ate up that season kept the other wings fresh like a marion barea kidd stevenson brewer terry...
I totally agree. That's why I have a problem with the Ewing Theory primarily created by none other than Bill Simmons. @Asmosis Jones, you're spot on. There is a difference in covering and writing sports as compared to playing the game. I remembered Allen Iverson's led Sixers team playing the Knicks to start the 2000-01 season. Ewing's absence was immediately felt. And the Sixers absolutely destroyed the Knicks at the Garden. Fans were chanting Patrick's name late in the 3rd quarter. And the Knicks were bounced in the first round by the Toronto Raptors during the 2001 playoffs. Perhaps they would have lost in that 1st round with Ewing that year. But they definitely were not better afterwards. And then as we all know to this day, the Knicks haven't been the same since the Ewing era ended.
@@toddsands6000 And the Knicks trading Ewing was what doomed them since, which they've never recovered from too. Granted he was no great by then anymore, but there was hardly any evidence they were better off without him at any point. Trading him away also killed their cap space (when they should have just let his contract expire, instead of taking on the bad contracts they absorbed in order to make that bad deal all the way happen), thus couldn't improve the roster in the coming years shortly after as a result either.
@@freakyfornash it wasn't the trade so much as what the trade brought back. We took on Glen Rice's bad contact which led to a series of bad moves the next few years where the Knicks took on bad longterm contracts to remain relevant. We could've simply lhad Ewing finish his last year with us and let his money come off the books. Who knows? Maybe he would've been open to sign a minimum deal for one more farewell season and leave on good terms plus mentor Marcus Camby.
@@Israel-nb7ip And that of which also made it such a raw deal for the Knicks, with the bad contracts that followed. They could have had much needed cap space down the road, at a time when playing in New York was still both a viable, and desirable destination for players, when the Knicks represented the class of the NBA. That was until Dolan took them over, and totally turned the franchise upside down, while making them the laughingstock of the NBA since.
Also, you forgot probably one of the most obvious examples of this effect; the Pistons getting rid of Josh Smith. They became a lot better once he was gone but because of mismanagement in the front office and an inept coaching staff they weren't able to put it together the next season. However, they did make the playoffs which is better than anything they did when they had Josh Smith.
You're kidding me, you pick the end of his career! Go as the mid 1990s Bulls, Pacers and Rockets if Ewing wasn't needed back then. Yes they couldn't pass those teams to a title, but they wouldn't have gotten there without him.
The Nuggets went through this before Melo. When they traded Iverson, they went from being a lower tiered playoff team, to being a contender. With Billups running the offense, that team really hit its stride. Reached the conference finals in 09 losing in 6. While with Iverson they were swept out of the first round the year before.
thats the reason why the 03-04 Pistons are my favourite team of all time. No real superstars (maybe Billups), just pure hustlers and teammates that had a chemistry thats almost unmatched. Ben Wallace was a monster in the paint and undersized, Rasheed did his thing, Rip was incredible, Prince and of course the guts of the team in Billups.
I can't think of any other examples, but maybe the reason why this happens is because of the sheer amount of possessions those players take. It's possible that the team couldn't get going because they had the ball so often. However, I think noticing it is only by having a great team around them or someone ready to step up.
It's a shame that Patrick is one of the most under appreciated players in NBA history. This guy gave his all for the Knicks and his career is put into a retrospective like this, like he never did anything smh it kills me as a Knick fan to watch videos like this. He's a Hall of Famer and the greatest Knick of all time, he worked his ass off day in and day out for this organization and that's the reason his jersey number 33 is immortalized in the rafters at Madison Square Garden
So I'd talk about Yao Ming remember when they played hard and good against the Lakers , and also when Chris Webber was injured the Sacramento kings actually played better without him.
it means you have try less hard for your own shot when if youre cutting-open-positioned well, he will find you. having a good playmaker on your team makes you a worse independent threat/makes you lazy.
From chi town, and we have been calling it the D Rose theory. D Rose on the bench, the team played great team ball like a well oiled machine, passing around the horn, everyone touching the ball, everyone scoring. Soon as he got healthy for a week, game plan changes to get the rock to him
This is how I lowkey felt about Derrick Rose after he was injured. The fact that the Bulls lost the league MVP and not only didn't lose a step, but got better surprised me alot.
Really? They were 1 seeds in 2011 and 2012, lost Rose in the playoffs and didn't win another game against the Sixers. The following seasons, they were 5th and 3rd seeds and didn't even crack 50 wins without Rose, like they did in 2012 with a 66 game schedule. They won 62 games in 2011 as well. In 2015, Rose didn't really affect the Bulls' record, but I blame Pau for that. Dude was a ballstoper and played weakass defense. Rose was also injured for 30 games.The Bulls actually challenged the Cavs that year in the playoffs. That doesn't happen without Rose.
Yeah let's ignore the fact that the Nuggets have had less success since he's been gone and the only time the last 2 decades the Knicks have done jackshit is with Carmelo.
You say that Elgin Baylor could've been the reason the lakers kept losing to the celtics. However, the lakers didn't beat the celtics in the 72 finals. they beat the knicks
Ewing was the only reason that the Knicks made it to the playoffs in the late 80s to mid 90s. Ewing use to kill the Bulls in the early 90s but he didn't have any help.
He never had a true # 2 compliment like Jordan/Pippen. Wilkins/Starks/Houston etc. could never match the production and compliment Ewing. He got heavier and his body began to break down after the 97 season as well.
Sean DeBarge I'm a lifelong Knicks fan n I agree although technically I guess when he got Spree n LJ along with Houston but like yu said by then he was on a heavy decline
This could apply for the pacers after PG left. Yes they lost but in 7 games while the pacers with George were swept the year before. Oladipo seems to be a much better fit than PG was his last season there.
Barry Bonds retired in 2005 and the Giants won the 2010, 2012, and 2014 World Series. With his contract off the books, the organization could finally build around execllent pitching and solid underrated hitters.
Here's the thing though the Knicks didn't get better which would be proven in years to come. And had he been healthy they would've been more formidable against the spurs. It's almost like y'all forgot that we had a reinvented lj who kill u from downtown as well as in the post, Houston, sprewell, n camby.. all of these guys were the go to guys on their respective teams are shared that light with another guy minus Houston. Hill was the man on Detroit but if u watch the Detroit playoff series u will see that Houston carried that team not hill ... and we all know the playoffs it's where it really counts.... so when u go back n look n say oh he only scored 18-15 points a game remember the ball was being shared by 5 go to guys..... the big mistakes that happened during Ewings era was that the Knicks did not keep King 👑... that would've shown ewing to play second fiddle n focus more on rebounding n blocking which he did well anyway. The next was letting go of the xman n trading Jackson. Had these moves not been done the Knicks and ewing at least get one ring outta that. Plus they were robbed the year the team was suspended against the heat. The Knicks were better than the bulls that year n I guess the NBA didn't want to take chances of the bulls losing or getting bruised along the way during the series. N I think anyone who's watched the NBA let's just say in the last 15 yrs has seen robberies happen around the league in the playoffs
And surely Ewing could only have helped them in the 99 Finals, who they were already totally mismatched against the Spurs with, never mind without. L.J. being badly banged up, and barely able to play didn't exactly help them then for that matter also, after the team did all they could to make it the Finals, but had no energy left to finish the job that season.
The team and franchise still haven't done anything without him. Great theory Bill. The nba finals would have been way more competitive if Ewing never got hurt
The Patrick Ewing/Knicks example is actually one of the weaker examples of the moronic Simmons' "Ewing Theory." He was why they regularly went several rounds in the playoffs during his time there, including a Finals appearance in which they lost to a simply superior Hakeem. For that matter, Ewing was why they got to the 1999 Conference Finals in which he got hurt in the first place. Simmons simply markets his "I Hate New York" product to people with his same low self-esteem.
Ewing theory was situational with the Knicks. It was a by product of the slowdown game that was played so much in the ‘90’s to a fast pace Golden State ball we get today.
ThePrayinmantiz they were good in 12-13 or was it 11-12 they won like 50 something games, the Carmelo trade screwed them, should have kept amare, danilo etc
The Ewing Theory was based on the idea that Ewing's teams played better without him, even when he was at Georgetown. The problem is that the numbers don't back it up. During his time with the Knicks, New York was worse without him than him. The Ewing Theory fits their run in the 1999 playoffs, but he was well past his prime then.
There is no such thing is a Ewing theory he was all they had and your example is bad because he was old and they just bought in Spreewell and Houston to help scoring and the Denver Melo doesn't make sense because the record was better when he left but u didn't put in there they lost in the first round and added Iguodala, first round exits something George Karl did a couple times with good teams
You just foreshadowed OKCs future. Westbrick gets injured and the team ends up playing much better without him, busting the myths of how he was never the problem.
It's a little unfair to say the Nuggets improvement was part of the Ewing theory. They added a lot of good role players, and added their two star players in Lawson and Iguodala since the trade.
Well, in 96/97 season Knicks won 57 games. Year after, when Ewing played only 26 games due to injury, Knicks won 43 games. So one playoff series against Indiana is to small sample. I think, against two towers from San Antonio, Ewing would be that what they missing in those finals.
With Carmelo, it's truly ridiculous. Every team he was ever on did better in his absence, the Nuggets, the Knicks, where the Knicks went 8-1 when Anthony was essentially replaced by Jeremy Lin, the Thunder and the Rockets
That Garnett explanation of why they won without Rondo was VERY generous. Basically, "Rondos so great, we get complacent when he's out there." Sure, and the Bulls were better without Jordon. He was just TOO good.
Ewing played in every game in the 1999 playoff run until his injury in Game 1 of the Eastern Conference Finals. He helped them get passed 2 teams with great Centers (Alonzo Mourning and Dikembe Mutombo). Arguably the reason they couldn't compete with the Spurs in the Finals was his injury and absence.
Richard Kennedy II yea that theory is retarded
Its not entirely retarded, it has some merit up against slow teams, but teams who are more efficient or fast paced would have squashed the Knicks in the conference finals, instead it was a good thing to be up against another slow paced team in the Pacers (Ironic, the PACERS of all teams) and they took advantage of it, but inagine if it was a team that prefered fast tempo?
Let's not forget, those so called up tempo teams in the eastern conference playoffs you theoretically mention were bounced or not good enough to compete against the Pacers and Knicks. If you can, name one up tempo eastern conference team in the 1999 playoffs that would have beaten the Knicks or the Pacers? Please enlighten us.
There is a flaw in this example. The Knicks lost to the Spurs! Without Patrick Ewing, Knicks didn't have the size to guard David Robinson and Tim Duncan. Also the very next year when Patrick Ewing left the Knicks, they didn't even make it to the playoffs. The Knicks are better with Patrick Ewing and the theory is flawed.
1000% agree. This theory sounds so wrong. Ewing forever. Without him knicks become sucks.
the knicks made the 2000 east finals....stupid..ewing didnt leave until summer 2000 and then they lost in round 1 vs the raptors in 2001 and he failed in seattle but made the 02 playoff with orlando...know your history
The Knicks made, but lost in the first round in 2001, which was the first season Ewing was gone. They got back to the postseason in 2004, but were swept, and badly outplayed by a much better Nets team then too. Not until 2011 did they make the playoffs from that point on again, nor did they win a playoff game until 2012, and series until 2013.
Ty !!! The knicks blew past the pacers b/c the pacers were old & the Knicks played w/ faster younger run & gun guys. That core of the pacers were together for way too long w/o winning.
@@freakyfornash Ewing was not on the Knicks in 2001. He was playing for the Sonics that year.
that story makes no sense..Ewing was a beast at the playoffs that year , before he got injured against miami..he beat prime Alonzo Mourning playing with one foot
@tol jw - Ewing had heart. It's a shame that Bill Simmons and his friend refuse to recognize those parts about Ewing's game late in his career. The big man was practically playing on one leg during that 1999 playoff run as you mentioned.
It does make sense because it's not saying anything negative about Ewing as a player. It's talking about how the team played with and without him. If you can lose a player at one position and make up the shortfall plus more at other positions then it's a net gain, no matter how good the player you lost is. It's also about the opposition and how you match up against them. The Knicks may have been able to do better against the Pacers without Ewing by playing a more up-tempo offence but that would not be the case against every team. Ewing was a great player but an offence focused on his style of play was not necessarily the best option for the Knicks against every team. That's really what it comes down to.
Inefficient
Ewing was at the end of his career. Everyone knew the knicks had a great roster without Ewing. It only helped them for the pacers. They definitely needed him for the finals. They lost the finals because they were two small and the spurs imposed their will on the smaller knicks.
We should’ve traded him for Shaq in 1996
@@MetalMadness_00 There was no way the Magic were that stupid to trade Shaq for an older Ewing during the 1996 offseason.
@@Theterminato2013 Shaq was leaving Orlando no matter what that year tho we should’ve traded Ewing to make room for him
@@MetalMadness_00 Well I don't think many truly Shaq was actually going to leave Orlando at the time. It was a pretty huge shock when he signed with LA it seemed too. But even then, if the Magic traded him while they were still true title contenders in 96, the city would have gone up in flames though! Plus Ewing was a free agent after 97, and wasn't like that trade would have done Orlando any real good as a result too.
@@freakyfornash they could’ve had plenty of cap space if they let Ewing walk in 97
Ewing was one of the most underrated players of his era. During the first Jordan three peat the Knicks gave the Bulls all they could handle. Ewing was a huge reason for that too
Make a video on the Kelly Oubre theory: "When people love your game even though you haven't accomplished anything on the court."
ADAJ3 When you're ao handsome you don't even need to be good at basketball to be a fan favorite. Can also apply to Parsons
No that should be the white mamba theory
Every time he steps out of the sideline everyone cheers
James H you're right
Tre from kickgenius
So true
Every team Rudy gay leaves, gets better
Kevin Williams kings are still gonna be trash
Kevin Williams that's what I said
Its because of Gay Rudy Gay
That explains why the Spurs are losing right now.
No, because they dont have their star player, Kawhi
I don't like that they call it the Ewing theory because that stuff happened with him on the decline. In his prime he was a factor in the wins. Rudy Gay theory is the most accurate. Guys who 20+ scorers that don't win where they go and teams get better when the leave. The opposite of this the Sam Cassell theory. Underrated and makes teams winners wherever he went.
And the Knicks not having Ewing obviously didn't really help them in a sense at any point, save for when it ever so slightly may have in the 99 conference finals, but probably would have won it with him anyway. That and not having him available in the NBA Finals that year (with L.J. also being badly banged up) gave them absolutely no shot to beat an already heavily favored Spurs team then for that matter also. If anything, the Giants losing Tiki Barber is what this (mostly) bogus theory should be named after. That of which not only has a far better ring to it, but was one of the very few examples when a team truly did get better when they lost a great talent in the end.
Plz do a story about the Vancouver Grizzlies
Slept on VO and the pacers this video.
Everybody did. But still, the Pacers didn't improve at all. They were a dark horse contender with PG that lost to the Heat in the ECF twice and once to the Cavs in round one. And with Oladipo they again lost to the Cavs in round one and with Phily, Boston, Toronto and the Bucks I don't think they're anybodys dark horse contender now.
(If the Pacers somehow win a title with Oladipo somebody please screenshot this and post it everywhere 😂😂😂😂)
The Hawks experienced this when we traded away Joe Johnson. 2 seasons later, they won 60 games and made it to the Eastern Conference Finals without have a true "scorer or star"
micah3000 that was more an example of a rebuild and great coaching, plus they had 4 all stars on that team
Almighty Sosa300 it was a rebuild, but so was when Melo left the Nuggets. Many expected the Hawks to maybe be a 7 or 8 seed in the East after having a few 48+ win seasons with Joe Johnson. No one expected that roster to ever win 60 games and get the number 1 seed. Before that season, Horford was the only one of them that had been an all star. The whole starting 5 were all stars that season
micah3000 paul millsap and Teague had a big role in their success, not to mention the shooting of korver. Remember the hawks weren't good immediately after losing iso joe, it took them a while to get used to playing with each other. Also budenholzer was the coach of the year that year so it was just perfect timing all around
The Joe Johnson situation is not comparable. Like Almighty Sosa300 said, the Hawks were rebuilt during that time. They were different teams with a different coach. Budenholzer brought a significant improvement to the Hawks offensive and defensive philosophy and execution. Plus Joe Johnson wasn't a superstar. He was a great player, but much easier to replace than a superstar. Also, the Hawks having 4 all-stars in 2015 was a joke. The only one even remotely deserving of the nod was Horford, and I'm not even sure of that.
Swept by LeBron lmao
As I could not find this channel before, so much quality in videos in such a short time, it takes a subscriber !!!!!!!
MR. Question ummmm ur English isn't good
sorry for this time :(
If the Knicks had Ewing it would have been Ewing and Camby vs Duncan and Robinson, and we would have had a chance. I don't think losing Ewing made the Knicks better at all. The reason why Ewing couldn't win in the 90s was because Jordan and the Bulls were in the East
It only gave them a chance against Indiana
The Nuggets example is a stretch... They got Iguadala in a trade who was an All Star player and as you said they had some really great role players who were honestly borderline all stars in Ty Lawson and Gallinari. Also you failed to mention that the Carmelo-led Knicks that year won 54 games and actually made it past the first round of the playoffs unlike the Nuggets. Bad example.
katsikisj very bad. melo is just unpopular with these channels
Furthermore that Nuggets faced the Lakers in the western conference final!!!! Some example are really meaningful , but some are rather disrespectful!!!
or maybe the Ewing Theory can be summarized as Jordan retiring.
Actually, its funny you would mention this. The Bulls were shockingly similar with and without Jordan. Chicago was 55-27 the year after Jordan retired. They were 57-25 the year before, which is only a 2 win difference Yes, they lost in the second round in 7 games in 1994, but largely on the back of the questionable Hubert Davis foul call. When you compare the 1993 and 1994 Chicago Knicks series, they are shockingly similar.
In both 1993 and 1994, the Knicks won games 1 and 2, the Bulls won games 3 and 4 both years. The Knicks trailed by one point with a chance to win game 5 both years, but the got the foul call in 94 vs the no call in 1993. Then the Bulls win game 6 both seasons. If that last play against Charles Smith is called a foul, the Knicks probably win that series in 7 as well. It's kind of shocking in retrospect how well the Bulls did without Jordan.
Still out in the 2nd Rd that's a huge difference to winning the championship 3x2..... Jordan built and strengthened the defensive backbone and mentality on that team by the constant pressure he put them in at training cause he knew thats all he needed to win as he can be the whole offence on his own when he needs to.... So yeah they will go far on the back of their defence but always gonna get knocked out cause without Jordan they had a poor offence one of the worst scoring supporting casts in NBA history.... Jordan is undeniable.... Peeps can keep trying to downplay it but Jordan was the NBA...
MJ had D and scoring his whole carreer.
It was his passing that got better and better role players that gave them championships
P they where not Harvard on offense without me they just didn’t have a closer because Mj would take the last shot except when passing it out of the double team
You know the drill
1.Patrick Ewing
2.Micheal Jordan
3.Charles Barkley
4.Gary Payton
5. Hakeem Olajuwon
6.Reggie Miller
7.shaq
8.Clyde Drexler
9.Isiah Thomas
0.Scottie Pippen
Edit: comment who you got
Maxwell Adam gary payton
Maxwell Adam shaq
Jordan
Maxwell Adam U KNOW JORDAN!
Payton
Simmons tried to rename this to the Tiki Barber theory after he left the Giants, criticized the team, and then the Giants pulled off the greatest upset in Super Bowl history without Barber and his crippling fumbles.
Lol, I remember that one.
It was a great season.
Both are from my favorite Franchises 😂 add in The Piazza theory then It would be the trifecta
That of which makes far more sense for certain too, since the Knicks never truly were better off without Ewing at any point (while the Giants definitely were WITHOUT Tiki) for that matter also.
Great point
Tiki barber had an ego problem
Do the story of Mirza Teletovic's childhood
th-cam.com/video/djNBuj5eycw/w-d-xo.html
NoJay he
This Ewing theory must be one of the most stupid things ever. The logic sure happens but Ewing to be used as example is just wrong. Ewing got " build" with a bunch of C players. Charles Smith, Greg Anthony, Starks, Chris Child, Herb Williams, Gerald Wilkins. good grief. Michael had Pippen. Malone had Stockton. Barkley had Kevin Johnson. Even Olajuwon had Drexler and Sampson earlier and a good squad on Ellie, Horry and Smith. Ewing had Starks shooting like crazy and missing all of it. Even an injured, old Ewing led Knicks to ECF in 99 and another in 2000 (schooling the mvp candidate Zo and Heat). Ewing must be used in example of how shit of franchise you can be if you dont build right. Thats why Shaq got his titles in L.A. A more help in mid 90s Ewing would be champion.
Starks is the prototype JR Smith lol. Hakeem didn't have Drexler for his first chip. But yes the Knicks didn't surround Ewing with better players until Ewing was way past his prime and declined.
Doesn't explain the fact that they improved without Ewing
Found the Knicks fan
Ewing had John Starks
@@s.l5787 Uh, the Knicks never really "improved" without Ewing at any point (assuming that's what you're referring to all the way), considering not once were they truly better off without him, nor have they made it as far as the third round since he left. Only once did they have a 50+ win season, and so much as win a mere single playoff series (in 2013), after he was no longer part of their organization for that matter too.
Pacers totally experienced the Ewing Theory this year with PG being gone. He never wanted to buy into Nate McMillans system and even though he was their best player, he acted like he didnt want to be playing most games. Counteract that with Oladipo who bought into what Nate wanted from the team, and you have an awesome team to watch and a team that could be a contender in the next few years.
Man congrats on 50k your channel has grown so much since i got here at like 10! Thanks for the great content fam keep it up
Will Clark I've been since 8k
Will Clark 400 subs
if you put Elgin baylor on this list, then its "Baylor Theory" not Ewing theory..
That's funny. I think Elgin Baylor criticism was so unfair. Baylor and West's Lakers had to deal with that Celtics Juggernaut similar to Ewing's Knicks losing to Jordan & Pippen's Bulls.
I thought of Tiki Barber. Retired in 2006 after rushing for 1500 yards and 15 TDs, in 2007 the Giants beat the undefeated Patriots.
There should be sub-categories of the "Ewing" theory. Ewing was a high volume scorer built for half-court sets at a plodding tempo. Guys like Dantley, Monta Elllis, Melo, are just black hole, ball hogs almost guaranteeing zero long term team success for being the 1 or 2 team option.
melo lead his team to conference finals against kobe and the spurs many times. prime melo really wasnt this ballhog, no defence, guy people confuse with literally bad knicks team melo.
The Allan Houston thing was also very interesting. i felt that the huge contract and his sudden terrible play afterwards set everything in motion for years of Knicks woes.
The knicks would not of been playing the pacers if Ewing didn't carry them in game 5 against the heat. Additionally the knicks definetly would of been better against spurs if they had Ewing, cabs kept getting into foul trouble and they had Dudley playing huge minutes
the knicks weren't a 8th seed also without him they went from a conference finals finalist to a 1st round and out team when they traded him in 2000 while keeping the rest of the core of the 99 team so...guess it didnt work
Stephon Marbury is another example.... every team got better after he left (ex. Timberwolves, Suns, New Jersey)
Californian Conservative h
Californian Conservative Still one of my favorite players lol
Timberwolves didn't get better without him for a good 5 seasons, he was replaced by a superior player without him, the Suns sucked ass that half season without him before Nash.
Well that's because he was replaced with much better, and team players when he left in most cases. He also did virtually nothing for the Knicks for that matter also, and only reason they "improved" without him, was because they literally had nowhere to go but up after he left, as had been the case for them ever since Ewing left too.
Shit, Stephan marbury was a troublemaker
Patrick Ewing is my Favorite NBA Player of All Time🏀 He should have won a Championship in 1994☹️
Riley was too loyal to ice-cold Starks in Game 7
"the pacers were uncomfortable playing at this pace"
This is crap. Patrick ewing was just playing in a tough era. Hakeem was just better and there was no way patrick could stop him. In the east Patrick ran into michael jordan all the time and there was no way to stop him either. The ewing theory is flawed for the person who started it.
Ray Pittman - The rest of his team still had to play against those players that you mentioned , and as reported """ they had more success without him "".
It doesn't matter. Ewing & New York had it's chances. In the 1994 NBA finals Patrick Ewing under performed, vs Indiana in 1995 Patrick Ewing under performed. Like Barkley in the years 1993-1995 & 1997 Their teams had a chance 🤦♂️
I blame the coaches not the players. San Antonio doesn’t have a Duncan factor or a Ginobili factor. Popovich knows how to utilize his bench and define the team roles of his Superstars.
I think it's really not fair to call this the "Ewing-Theory" because of the 98/99 Season of the Knicks. I agree the Knicks were better without him in that year. But Ewing was already 36 or 37 at that time. Sprewell and Houston were the younger and better players and should had beed the go-to-guys. But I don't think in Ewings prime the Knicks were better without him. He lead the team to the Finals in 94 and his winning record in his prime is far better than Monta, Gay or Melos including 60, 57, 55 and 57 win-Seasons from 92-97 where he was the leader.
The Knicks WEREN'T better without him. His ability to score in the post and interior defense made the team better period. Even when he was 37-38.
He was there best player in 98-99. He was the reason they reached the finals. The theory itself has validity but calling it after Ewing was a giant mistake.
The NY Knicks wouldn't have gotten out of the 1st round of the 1998-99 playoffs against the Miami Heat if it wasn't for old man Ewing checking 'Zo. Let's for a moment believe Chris Dudley and Marcus Camby checked Alonzo Mourning in that best of 5 series after the Heat went down in that unfortunate 1997-98 1st round loss. 1-on-1 'Zo eats Camby, Dudley and Herb Williams for Breakfast, Lunch and Dinner without Ewing's presence. Ewing was holding his own against 'Zo on one injured leg.
the ingredients for a good nba youtuber:
a non-annoying voice
covers interesting topics
decent editing
interesting commentary
conveys ideas in an organized manner
Andy hoops falls under this and so does the bigger nba youtubers these days
The Melo claim doesn't really make sense. The Ewing Theory is that a team becomes better after its supposed best player leaves, however the Nuggets gained back 4 very good role players/fringe star in Gallinari. Also you messed up pretty badly, they didn't have their 57 win season right after trading Melo, it happened two years after he was traded to the Knicks. That same year the Knicks actually had 54 wins, meaning Melo helped them have a really good year. ALSO THE NUGGETS FUCKING TRADED FOR ANDRE IGUADALA, A GUY WHO WAS ON TEAM USA AND PLAYED IN THE OLYMPICS THE YEAR PRIOR. Dude, you really messed up with that one. I'm not a Melo fan but you can't just dis him like that, that Nuggets one was a HUUUUGE reach.
katsikisj Jason Kidd was the main reason for those wins. Not Melo
katsikisj when’s last time the nuggets went to the conference finals oh when melo was on the team
Well, they did have a 38-28 record the next year in a shortened season, so they won 58% of their games. The year before with Melo they won 56% percent of their games before he was traded, so they actually did have a better year without him. And Iguodala wasn't obtained until the following season so it's not like he was responsible.
I remember that during the late 1990s due to Ewing getting hurt countless times. At that point he became a liability and I recall people saying the Knicks should get rid of him.
This is an absurd notion. What happened after Ewing was traded?
i think it makes sense if the player is a cancer like melo...but I think in reality if a team plays better its cause of style or matchups or it unlocks others potential to show they can do more....like this knicks team was filled with talent in larry camby kurt ward childs sprewell and houston so they were good enough to win without pat for a round...but its because of pat they got there...those minutes he ate up helped keep the other guys fresher...duh....if he hadn't played all year how do you replace those minutes?...these idiots dont think that far ahead I guess..its easy to say the 2011 mavericks didnt need caron butler cause they won without him which is true but they didnt have him with that core so who knows if they win easier with him or not but losing him unlocked others games and the minutes he ate up that season kept the other wings fresh like a marion barea kidd stevenson brewer terry...
I totally agree. That's why I have a problem with the Ewing Theory primarily created by none other than Bill Simmons. @Asmosis Jones, you're spot on. There is a difference in covering and writing sports as compared to playing the game. I remembered Allen Iverson's led Sixers team playing the Knicks to start the 2000-01 season. Ewing's absence was immediately felt. And the Sixers absolutely destroyed the Knicks at the Garden. Fans were chanting Patrick's name late in the 3rd quarter. And the Knicks were bounced in the first round by the Toronto Raptors during the 2001 playoffs. Perhaps they would have lost in that 1st round with Ewing that year. But they definitely were not better afterwards. And then as we all know to this day, the Knicks haven't been the same since the Ewing era ended.
@@toddsands6000 And the Knicks trading Ewing was what doomed them since, which they've never recovered from too. Granted he was no great by then anymore, but there was hardly any evidence they were better off without him at any point. Trading him away also killed their cap space (when they should have just let his contract expire, instead of taking on the bad contracts they absorbed in order to make that bad deal all the way happen), thus couldn't improve the roster in the coming years shortly after as a result either.
@@freakyfornash it wasn't the trade so much as what the trade brought back. We took on Glen Rice's bad contact which led to a series of bad moves the next few years where the Knicks took on bad longterm contracts to remain relevant. We could've simply lhad Ewing finish his last year with us and let his money come off the books. Who knows? Maybe he would've been open to sign a minimum deal for one more farewell season and leave on good terms plus mentor Marcus Camby.
@@Israel-nb7ip And that of which also made it such a raw deal for the Knicks, with the bad contracts that followed. They could have had much needed cap space down the road, at a time when playing in New York was still both a viable, and desirable destination for players, when the Knicks represented the class of the NBA. That was until Dolan took them over, and totally turned the franchise upside down, while making them the laughingstock of the NBA since.
Tim Tebow left the Broncos in 2011 and the Broncos, with Manning won 5 straight division titles, made two SB's and won 1.
Tfw the Pacers went through the 'Ewing Theory' this year.
That's true even for the Clippers
Carmelo's injury leading to the whole Linsanity craze is also a thing.
paul george and the indiana pacers now haha
Yeah oladipo could be a star. Oladipo is similar to like James harden when harden got traded he got better. And when oladipo was traded he was better
lowlw gaming just took two trades to make it work
Anita Ballengee yeah
But when they had George they won and played better
@@hyekyo3595 your prediction was right
Also, you forgot probably one of the most obvious examples of this effect; the Pistons getting rid of Josh Smith. They became a lot better once he was gone but because of mismanagement in the front office and an inept coaching staff they weren't able to put it together the next season. However, they did make the playoffs which is better than anything they did when they had Josh Smith.
You're kidding me, you pick the end of his career! Go as the mid 1990s Bulls, Pacers and Rockets if Ewing wasn't needed back then. Yes they couldn't pass those teams to a title, but they wouldn't have gotten there without him.
The Nuggets went through this before Melo. When they traded Iverson, they went from being a lower tiered playoff team, to being a contender. With Billups running the offense, that team really hit its stride. Reached the conference finals in 09 losing in 6. While with Iverson they were swept out of the first round the year before.
I loved the old 90's, stars stayed for a long time
B because max contracts weren't a thing back then, guys had no reason to leave because they knew jordan would win the finals anyway
90's were weak asf
thats the reason why the 03-04 Pistons are my favourite team of all time. No real superstars (maybe Billups), just pure hustlers and teammates that had a chemistry thats almost unmatched. Ben Wallace was a monster in the paint and undersized, Rasheed did his thing, Rip was incredible, Prince and of course the guts of the team in Billups.
Can you guys think of any other examples of the Ewing theory? Lemme know! Also, the next video will be the most shocking NBA stat lines - part 5!
Andy Hoops Andy I'm a big fan can u shout me out next video
Andy Hoops a few years ago when Josh Smith got waived and the Pistons won 7 straight games.
Calvin Johnson leaving the Lions
Zlatan and the Swedish national football team.
Andy Hoops when Dwight left Houston to go to Atlanta even though he wasn't the best player on the rockets they went from 8th seed to the third seed
I can't think of any other examples, but maybe the reason why this happens is because of the sheer amount of possessions those players take. It's possible that the team couldn't get going because they had the ball so often. However, I think noticing it is only by having a great team around them or someone ready to step up.
I think it is stupid
It's a shame that Patrick is one of the most under appreciated players in NBA history. This guy gave his all for the Knicks and his career is put into a retrospective like this, like he never did anything smh it kills me as a Knick fan to watch videos like this. He's a Hall of Famer and the greatest Knick of all time, he worked his ass off day in and day out for this organization and that's the reason his jersey number 33 is immortalized in the rafters at Madison Square Garden
and then, Victor Oladipo happened.
So I'd talk about Yao Ming remember when they played hard and good against the Lakers , and also when Chris Webber was injured the Sacramento kings actually played better without him.
Kg made no sense at all.
I thought it was just me. I had to read his analogy a few times and it still made no sense.
basically saying Rondo limits what you are capable of with the basketball and caps your growing potential
it means you have try less hard for your own shot when if youre cutting-open-positioned well, he will find you. having a good playmaker on your team makes you a worse independent threat/makes you lazy.
Best basketball channel in youtube
I love you andy
Calling a man gay just because hes a bad basketball player is what's wrong with America
From chi town, and we have been calling it the D Rose theory. D Rose on the bench, the team played great team ball like a well oiled machine, passing around the horn, everyone touching the ball, everyone scoring. Soon as he got healthy for a week, game plan changes to get the rock to him
This is how I lowkey felt about Derrick Rose after he was injured. The fact that the Bulls lost the league MVP and not only didn't lose a step, but got better surprised me alot.
James Burgess They were thw 1st seed in the east at one poin with Rose. I'm pretty sure they haven't won that much since Rose lost the use of his legs
Well Jimmy Butler Rose so they lost a star for a star lmao..
Demian de Jesus no they lost an mvp for a star
They lost to the 8th seeded sixers as soon as rose went down in the playoffs... I don't think they got better
Really? They were 1 seeds in 2011 and 2012, lost Rose in the playoffs and didn't win another game against the Sixers. The following seasons, they were 5th and 3rd seeds and didn't even crack 50 wins without Rose, like they did in 2012 with a 66 game schedule. They won 62 games in 2011 as well. In 2015, Rose didn't really affect the Bulls' record, but I blame Pau for that. Dude was a ballstoper and played weakass defense. Rose was also injured for 30 games.The Bulls actually challenged the Cavs that year in the playoffs. That doesn't happen without Rose.
Holy shit russell westbrook litteraly fits the ewing theory to a tee
Carmelo with the nuggets and now the Knicks
Kevin Bing Carmelo made the playoffs every time with the nuggets they made it to the western conference finals
And the Knicks stopped going to the playoffs when Phil Jackson joined
They didn't just get rid of Melo, they got Iguodala too
Kevin Bing look at this season. 😂😂😂😂😂😂😂 the Knicks horrible without Melo.
Yeah let's ignore the fact that the Nuggets have had less success since he's been gone and the only time the last 2 decades the Knicks have done jackshit is with Carmelo.
You say that Elgin Baylor could've been the reason the lakers kept losing to the celtics. However, the lakers didn't beat the celtics in the 72 finals. they beat the knicks
When the pistons got rid of josh smith.
The guy was past his prime. Calling it the Ewing theory is disrespectful!
The Knicks went to the Finals with Ewing So Theory DEBUNKED
They went to the finals without Ewing Ewing was injured in the ecf
When Jordan was retired.
Is DeMar Derozan was another perfect example of "Ewing Theory?"
Well you were wrong about Indiana
Ewing was the only reason that the Knicks made it to the playoffs in the late 80s to mid 90s. Ewing use to kill the Bulls in the early 90s but he didn't have any help.
He never had a true # 2 compliment like Jordan/Pippen. Wilkins/Starks/Houston etc. could never match the production and compliment Ewing. He got heavier and his body began to break down after the 97 season as well.
Kam Mike Because last time I checked the game of basketball is a team sport. Jordan had more help.
Kam Mike just because yu don't win it all doesn't mean yu don't have an impact
Sean DeBarge I'm a lifelong Knicks fan n I agree although technically I guess when he got Spree n LJ along with Houston but like yu said by then he was on a heavy decline
Kam Mike what?? Ewing didn't have an impact?
This could apply for the pacers after PG left. Yes they lost but in 7 games while the pacers with George were swept the year before. Oladipo seems to be a much better fit than PG was his last season there.
Does Russell Westbrook count because when he was hurt in like 2013 and the Thunder made the Playoffs?
Not really considering he played 50 games.
Goatbrook okay
In the 2013 playoffs Westbrook got hurt therefore the 1 seed Thunder lost to the Grizzlies in the second round.
Barry Bonds retired in 2005 and the Giants won the 2010, 2012, and 2014 World Series. With his contract off the books, the organization could finally build around execllent pitching and solid underrated hitters.
Actually the Pavers are better now so I guess the Ewing theory is applied to PG
The Knicks needed Ewing to defeat the Spurs in the NBA Finals, so the theory is FLAWED.
I hate that title! The Ewing theory?... Despicable.
Keep up the good work man. I love the videos...And I liked Garnett's quote on Rondo. That was a great comparison.
Here's the thing though the Knicks didn't get better which would be proven in years to come. And had he been healthy they would've been more formidable against the spurs. It's almost like y'all forgot that we had a reinvented lj who kill u from downtown as well as in the post, Houston, sprewell, n camby.. all of these guys were the go to guys on their respective teams are shared that light with another guy minus Houston. Hill was the man on Detroit but if u watch the Detroit playoff series u will see that Houston carried that team not hill ... and we all know the playoffs it's where it really counts.... so when u go back n look n say oh he only scored 18-15 points a game remember the ball was being shared by 5 go to guys..... the big mistakes that happened during Ewings era was that the Knicks did not keep King 👑... that would've shown ewing to play second fiddle n focus more on rebounding n blocking which he did well anyway. The next was letting go of the xman n trading Jackson. Had these moves not been done the Knicks and ewing at least get one ring outta that. Plus they were robbed the year the team was suspended against the heat. The Knicks were better than the bulls that year n I guess the NBA didn't want to take chances of the bulls losing or getting bruised along the way during the series. N I think anyone who's watched the NBA let's just say in the last 15 yrs has seen robberies happen around the league in the playoffs
And surely Ewing could only have helped them in the 99 Finals, who they were already totally mismatched against the Spurs with, never mind without. L.J. being badly banged up, and barely able to play didn't exactly help them then for that matter also, after the team did all they could to make it the Finals, but had no energy left to finish the job that season.
The team and franchise still haven't done anything without him. Great theory Bill. The nba finals would have been way more competitive if Ewing never got hurt
you forgot the Celtics losing Isaiah Thomas in the playoffs and winning more
Seth Youmans you mean 1 game lmaooo
Hahahaahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
"you mean 1 game lmaooo"
lol more like their only game...couldn't even take one with Thomas
The Patrick Ewing/Knicks example is actually one of the weaker examples of the moronic Simmons' "Ewing Theory." He was why they regularly went several rounds in the playoffs during his time there, including a Finals appearance in which they lost to a simply superior Hakeem. For that matter, Ewing was why they got to the 1999 Conference Finals in which he got hurt in the first place. Simmons simply markets his "I Hate New York" product to people with his same low self-esteem.
Notification squad stand up💯💯💯🔥🔥🔥
Ewing theory was situational with the Knicks. It was a by product of the slowdown game that was played so much in the ‘90’s to a fast pace Golden State ball we get today.
Celtics won a playoff game against Cleveland without Isaiah
Brandon Yoder a playoff game 😂😂😂😂
SkinsNatsWiz pretty significant considering they were losing by the largest margin at halftime in eastern conference finals history in the game before
Andy is the only basketballhead that gives any attention to the Hawks.
#RESPECT
The Knicks have been shit since Ewing left ...this guy has no idea what he's talking about.
ThePrayinmantiz they were good in 12-13 or was it 11-12 they won like 50 something games, the Carmelo trade screwed them, should have kept amare, danilo etc
Porzingis will save the franchise
Carl Clark 2012 the Knicks went 54-28 but lost in the second round i think
The Ewing Theory was based on the idea that Ewing's teams played better without him, even when he was at Georgetown. The problem is that the numbers don't back it up. During his time with the Knicks, New York was worse without him than him. The Ewing Theory fits their run in the 1999 playoffs, but he was well past his prime then.
EWING NOT EUING
That's how you pronounce it
East wing?
Now they call this the “Irving theory”
There is no such thing is a Ewing theory he was all they had and your example is bad because he was old and they just bought in Spreewell and Houston to help scoring and the Denver Melo doesn't make sense because the record was better when he left but u didn't put in there they lost in the first round and added Iguodala, first round exits something George Karl did a couple times with good teams
Darren Johnson weren’t they dealing with injuries during that first round exit?
Nope they just couldn't hold steph curry
This was a really good piece right here.
Melo plays d
You just foreshadowed OKCs future. Westbrick gets injured and the team ends up playing much better without him, busting the myths of how he was never the problem.
finally someone posted
I feel like there are just so many good players don't never get a chance and having a star injured or traded given them opportunity
John Tavares and the Islanders is a great example of Ewing Theory
The Knicks post-Ewing for about a decade pretty much proved that theory incorrect
It's a little unfair to say the Nuggets improvement was part of the Ewing theory. They added a lot of good role players, and added their two star players in Lawson and Iguodala since the trade.
The Rockets playoff run where both Yao and McGrady injured beforehand but still managed a deep run can also go into this xD
Great video my man
Please do a story on why Mark Jackson can't get a NBA coaching job. Keep up the good work!
Well, in 96/97 season Knicks won 57 games. Year after, when Ewing played only 26 games due to injury, Knicks won 43 games. So one playoff series against Indiana is to small sample. I think, against two towers from San Antonio, Ewing would be that what they missing in those finals.
Great video man!
With Carmelo, it's truly ridiculous. Every team he was ever on did better in his absence, the Nuggets, the Knicks, where the Knicks went 8-1 when Anthony was essentially replaced by Jeremy Lin, the Thunder and the Rockets
That Garnett explanation of why they won without Rondo was VERY generous. Basically, "Rondos so great, we get complacent when he's out there." Sure, and the Bulls were better without Jordon. He was just TOO good.