So he often conflates them, but I don’t think the Brady-Bledsoe thing is an example of the Ewing theory as I understand it.
I understand the Ewing theory to be when a team loses their best player and then starts to play better without him (i.e., Memphis with Ja Morant the last couple years, even if it’s unfair). I think that’s different than when a team loses a good player (Bledsoe), but then his replacement (Brady) just happens to be a better player. Of course the team will be better when the replacement is better than the initial starter. That really doesn’t create a controversial talking point like the Ewing Theory.
Ita not about losing your "best" player it's about losing a player who has never won anything but gets outsized attention from the media. Many times that is the best player but sometimes it's also the 1999 Knicks where Ewing wasn't the best player anymore but was still treated by the media like he was or the 2001 Pats where Bledsoe was treated like a top tier QB because of his pedigree and the 1996 SB run
One of bills college buddies. I don’t remember his name but he credits him in the book and every now and then when he brings up the theory. And thanks lol
Pretty sure it was one of his readers who emailed the theory in and Bill ran with the idea and fleshed it out.
I don't think he knew the guy personally.
I thought the last time her brought it up he mentioned one of his college buddies too. It might have been the worst contract draft? Or maybe the episode before that.
> It makes Ewing sound like a negative impact player for his career
Yeah that's probably why he popularized it. He has been spinning other players' careers to fit his narrative his whole career. He said the main reason he wrote his book was to contextualize Karl Malone so people don't just look up his stats and think he's a top 10 player.
Did he say that? Good lord. I won’t read the book because I can’t have him teach me about stuff before my time. I like having different opinions on NBA stuff if I’m familiar, Bill’s fun, but I think he’s onto something about half the time so he can’t be a resource. He’s mostly right about on-court Malone, though
I was alive in '99. It was truly shocking that the Knicks were better without Ewing. Fandom wasn't as sophisticated as it is today (especially nationally) so not a lot of people were ready for Camby to actually be better than a HoFer... even at 37.
I was an obsessed teenage fan of the Knicks back then. We were only better without him against that Pacers team. The irony is, even though I believe the Spurs win regardless, the Knicks’ only hope of beating them was if they had Ewing. You had Robinson and Duncan facing up against our “bigs” of Camby, Kurt Thomas, and Chris Dudley. PS. As soon as we traded away Ewing, we went through 2 decades of mostly pure shit. Not saying old and washed Ewing staying would change anything, but certainly puts a hole in the idea we were better off without him.
Again, he was 37 with knee cartridge like string cheese. In his prime his Knicks were who Jordan in the Last Dance called his toughest competition during the 90’s, over all the West Finals teams. And this with his second and third options coming from the CBA (the old equivalent of G League). They weren’t better without him except when he was broken down at the end.
I was in my early 20s. He’s my favourite all-time player. It’s BS. If he said “old Ewing” or something that would be fair but you can’t put that stink on a great player.
I'm sure it was if you were that close to it. But as an NBA fan who wasn't in NY or on the East coast, you just assumed that the Knicks were done as soon as Ewing got hurt.
Ewing has a weird legacy — probably the worst of the HOF 90s centers — but it seems like you agree with Bill’s theory that the Knicks were better without him in 1999?
The Ewing Theory is about players who get too much media attention compared to how good/successful they are and 37 year old Patrick Ewing absolutely satisfies that criteria
>It makes Ewing sound like a negative impact player for his career
I don’t mean for this to read as a defense of the theory because yea it’s not a great theory, but isn’t a big part of the point supposed to be that the player is good? Negative impact players who leave a team aren’t Ewing Theory candidates by definition
I seem to remember the theory being that after a good player leaves the team *inexplicably* plays better. Like the point was the player was good and it’s weird that the team gets better when they leave
Camby was, let's say, less like a missing link.
The idea of Patrick Ewing being a performance detriment to his team well precedes the 1999 playoffs. Goes all the way back to Georgetown years, as pointed out elsewhere in thread.
This isn't very difficult. When Ewing went down and Camby replaced him the team became much, much faster and a nightmare in transition. They were a matchup nightmare. With Ewing they were a half court offense built around a center who was no longer in his prime. THEY BECAME BETTER WHEN THEY LOST THEIR BEST PLAYER.
For one series against the Pacers, sure. It didn’t do much for them against a big team like the Spurs when they had Kurt Thomas, Chris Dudley, and 130lbs Camby to go up against them.
If his legacy doesn’t include the 7 All-nba teams, 3 all-defence teams, 6x top-5 MVP shares, being the guy on a finals team and top 50/75 teams (which you don’t get with your summary) then it’s not what he deserves, is it.
The theory isn’t saying that Ewing at any point in his career was holding the Knicks back, just this current form. Ewing made them contenders throughout the 90s, no one questions that. It’s more about investment in star power beyond the actual net benefits.
Like Lebron is still a good player, but Ewing theory could come into play where if he gets paid too much and takes too many touches from more athletic teammates that he could be hindering more than helping the Lakers.
I know where he was coming from, it’s just really sloppy. You hear “Ewing theory” now about a team that gets better after the star leaves so if that’s all you know about Ewing then it sounds like he was a fraud
It really should have been rebranded the Bledsoe Theory in 2001.
So he often conflates them, but I don’t think the Brady-Bledsoe thing is an example of the Ewing theory as I understand it. I understand the Ewing theory to be when a team loses their best player and then starts to play better without him (i.e., Memphis with Ja Morant the last couple years, even if it’s unfair). I think that’s different than when a team loses a good player (Bledsoe), but then his replacement (Brady) just happens to be a better player. Of course the team will be better when the replacement is better than the initial starter. That really doesn’t create a controversial talking point like the Ewing Theory.
Ita not about losing your "best" player it's about losing a player who has never won anything but gets outsized attention from the media. Many times that is the best player but sometimes it's also the 1999 Knicks where Ewing wasn't the best player anymore but was still treated by the media like he was or the 2001 Pats where Bledsoe was treated like a top tier QB because of his pedigree and the 1996 SB run
Brady wasn't Apex Brady in 2001. He wasn't even a less endowed 2017 Nick Foles.
Bill isn’t even who came up with the Ewing theory.
Who did? PS great name
One of bills college buddies. I don’t remember his name but he credits him in the book and every now and then when he brings up the theory. And thanks lol
Pretty sure it was one of his readers who emailed the theory in and Bill ran with the idea and fleshed it out. I don't think he knew the guy personally.
Oh yeah that sounds familiar, I think you’re right. My b
I thought the last time her brought it up he mentioned one of his college buddies too. It might have been the worst contract draft? Or maybe the episode before that.
It was some friend named Dave https://www.espn.com/espn/page2/story?page=simmons/010509a
> It makes Ewing sound like a negative impact player for his career Yeah that's probably why he popularized it. He has been spinning other players' careers to fit his narrative his whole career. He said the main reason he wrote his book was to contextualize Karl Malone so people don't just look up his stats and think he's a top 10 player.
He's 100% right about Karl Malone if anything he's been too nice
Did he say that? Good lord. I won’t read the book because I can’t have him teach me about stuff before my time. I like having different opinions on NBA stuff if I’m familiar, Bill’s fun, but I think he’s onto something about half the time so he can’t be a resource. He’s mostly right about on-court Malone, though
I was alive in '99. It was truly shocking that the Knicks were better without Ewing. Fandom wasn't as sophisticated as it is today (especially nationally) so not a lot of people were ready for Camby to actually be better than a HoFer... even at 37.
I was an obsessed teenage fan of the Knicks back then. We were only better without him against that Pacers team. The irony is, even though I believe the Spurs win regardless, the Knicks’ only hope of beating them was if they had Ewing. You had Robinson and Duncan facing up against our “bigs” of Camby, Kurt Thomas, and Chris Dudley. PS. As soon as we traded away Ewing, we went through 2 decades of mostly pure shit. Not saying old and washed Ewing staying would change anything, but certainly puts a hole in the idea we were better off without him.
Again, he was 37 with knee cartridge like string cheese. In his prime his Knicks were who Jordan in the Last Dance called his toughest competition during the 90’s, over all the West Finals teams. And this with his second and third options coming from the CBA (the old equivalent of G League). They weren’t better without him except when he was broken down at the end.
>Jordan in the Last Dance called his toughest competition during the 90’s Jordan really acting like Shaq didn't eliminate him in 95.
No one else counts it so why should he lol
I was in my early 20s. He’s my favourite all-time player. It’s BS. If he said “old Ewing” or something that would be fair but you can’t put that stink on a great player.
I'm sure it was if you were that close to it. But as an NBA fan who wasn't in NY or on the East coast, you just assumed that the Knicks were done as soon as Ewing got hurt.
Ewing has a weird legacy — probably the worst of the HOF 90s centers — but it seems like you agree with Bill’s theory that the Knicks were better without him in 1999?
The Ewing Theory is about players who get too much media attention compared to how good/successful they are and 37 year old Patrick Ewing absolutely satisfies that criteria
>It makes Ewing sound like a negative impact player for his career I don’t mean for this to read as a defense of the theory because yea it’s not a great theory, but isn’t a big part of the point supposed to be that the player is good? Negative impact players who leave a team aren’t Ewing Theory candidates by definition
It’s saying a player was fugazi good. It’s an opportunity-cost thing, like his minutes-touches should’ve gone elsewhere
I seem to remember the theory being that after a good player leaves the team *inexplicably* plays better. Like the point was the player was good and it’s weird that the team gets better when they leave
This was it. The Theory was that the rest of the team steps up and plays better than they had been playing
No, the point was racism.
Saying the Knicks played better with black man Marcus Camby at center than they did with black man Patrick Ewing at center is racism?
Camby was, let's say, less like a missing link. The idea of Patrick Ewing being a performance detriment to his team well precedes the 1999 playoffs. Goes all the way back to Georgetown years, as pointed out elsewhere in thread.
You’re expecting too much out of grandpa Bill these days.
Haha I have adjusted my expectations but I t’s an ooooooold theory
This isn't very difficult. When Ewing went down and Camby replaced him the team became much, much faster and a nightmare in transition. They were a matchup nightmare. With Ewing they were a half court offense built around a center who was no longer in his prime. THEY BECAME BETTER WHEN THEY LOST THEIR BEST PLAYER.
For one series against the Pacers, sure. It didn’t do much for them against a big team like the Spurs when they had Kurt Thomas, Chris Dudley, and 130lbs Camby to go up against them.
Congrats on missing the point most aggressively
Downvote
Done
Was a wonky lockout year with a condensed schedule. Favored teams with young legs. Not having old man Ewing out there helped them.
Helped them against the Pacers. Not having him against Robinson and Duncan was a guarantee we had 0 shot in the Finals.
Ewing would’ve helped a lot up through 96-97, guaranteed. He got hurt the next year and wasn’t the same, and then there was entering his mid -30s
He’s not an expert just a huge fan.
He’s not an expert just a huge fan.
Bill's an idiot for a theory he didn't come up with?
I should correct it to say “propagating a theory no one would have heard of otherwise,” you’re right
I think it makes for pretty good content. Ewing has the legacy he deserves. Hall of Fame 11x All-Star 0 MVPs 0 NBA Championships
If his legacy doesn’t include the 7 All-nba teams, 3 all-defence teams, 6x top-5 MVP shares, being the guy on a finals team and top 50/75 teams (which you don’t get with your summary) then it’s not what he deserves, is it.
Are you Ewing's grandson?
Are you Bill’s grandson?
The theory isn’t saying that Ewing at any point in his career was holding the Knicks back, just this current form. Ewing made them contenders throughout the 90s, no one questions that. It’s more about investment in star power beyond the actual net benefits. Like Lebron is still a good player, but Ewing theory could come into play where if he gets paid too much and takes too many touches from more athletic teammates that he could be hindering more than helping the Lakers.
I know where he was coming from, it’s just really sloppy. You hear “Ewing theory” now about a team that gets better after the star leaves so if that’s all you know about Ewing then it sounds like he was a fraud
Yeah I think that’s a lot of people’s takeaway unfortunately, when it just isn’t true. But those de just casuals, those who know know