<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (CB4AllStar @ Jul 20 2006, 01:05 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>lol I dont give a sh*t. The guy was injury prone. He was injured all the time. Ewing was dominant offensively and defensively. He was a great shotblocker, he scored a ton more. He was more consistent, he put up better numbers. He is just the better player.</div>I just said Ewing was the greater player. Was he better at his peak? I don't think so, but when you compare their careers there is no question that Ewing was better overall. Walton does have an MVP, something Ewing never won.So basically what I'm saying isOverall Ewing>Overall WaltonPeak Ewing<Peak WaltonAlso, I have seen both guys play in their primes. God bless ESPN Classic.
Okay, whatever. It's your opinion. Bill Walton was injury hampered and only good for a few years though. Ewing was dominant for like 14 years and was a great shotblocker. He was really athletic and a great shotblocker, so I dont see how you could call him "soft".
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (CB4AllStar @ Jul 20 2006, 10:31 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Okay, whatever. It's your opinion. Bill Walton was injury hampered and only good for a few years though. Ewing was dominant for like 14 years and was a great shotblocker. He was really athletic and a great shotblocker, so I dont see how you could call him "soft".</div>I don't see how you can call him dominant either? He was a good scorer and weak side defender (and an underrated passer) but he didn't dominate anything.
Yes he did. He averaged 20+ ppg for 13 straight years, and if it werent for the Bulls and Pistons he would have won a championship for sure. He didnt have very much help, but he still propelled the Knicks into one of the best teams in the East. He was dominate, alot better then Bill Walton too.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (CB4AllStar @ Jul 20 2006, 12:38 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Yes he did. He averaged 20+ ppg for 13 straight years, and if it werent for the Bulls and Pistons he would have won a championship for sure. He didnt have very much help, but he still propelled the Knicks into one of the best teams in the East. He was dominate, alot better then Bill Walton too.</div>I agree with CB4 completley. Patrick Ewing was more of a scorer than Walton which ultimatley gives him the edge. They were both good shot blockers and rebounders but Walton didnt average near as many points as Ewing did throughout his career.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (CB4AllStar @ Jul 20 2006, 01:38 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Yes he did. He averaged 20+ ppg for 13 straight years, and if it werent for the Bulls and Pistons he would have won a championship for sure. He didnt have very much help, but he still propelled the Knicks into one of the best teams in the East. He was dominate, alot better then Bill Walton too.</div>He was consistant, not dominant. I actually do remember seeing him play growing up, and I was never amazed by what he did in a game. He didn't take it over, but you'd look at the box score at the end of the night and he'd have over 20 and 10. That's the kind of player he was. Bill Walton had foot injuries that killed his career. Saying Ewing is better than a peak Walton from looking at just stats is ignorant. If I wanted to look at just awards I could say Walton is better because he has an MVP and Ewing doesn't.Look at how many minutes Walton played a game and compare that to Ewing. Now tell me Ewing was the better scorer.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (CB4AllStar @ Jul 20 2006, 10:38 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Yes he did. He averaged 20+ ppg for 13 straight years, and if it werent for the Bulls and Pistons he would have won a championship for sure. He didnt have very much help, but he still propelled the Knicks into one of the best teams in the East. He was dominate, alot better then Bill Walton too.</div>If we're gonna say play the "would've" card, then Bill Walton was lightyears ahead of Ewing. Because if it wasn't for injuries Walton "would've" been a top 5 Center of all time.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Living_Legend33 @ Jul 20 2006, 12:47 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>He was consistant, not dominant. I actually do remember seeing him play growing up, and I was never amazed by what he did in a game. He didn't take it over, but you'd look at the box score at the end of the night and he'd have over 20 and 10. That's the kind of player he was. Bill Walton had foot injuries that killed his career. Saying Ewing is better than a peak Walton from looking at just stats is ignorant. If I wanted to look at just awards I could say Walton is better because he has an MVP and Ewing doesn't.Look at how many minutes Walton played a game and compare that to Ewing. Now tell me Ewing was the better scorer.</div>considering none of us have really gotten to see him play in his prime, lets go by statistics. I will list Patrick Ewings "peak season" or his prime, and I will do the same for Bill Walton...shall we?Patrick Ewing28.6 PPG10.9 RPG3.99 BPGin 38.6 MPGhow is that not dominanant living_legend?Bill Walton18.6 PPG14.4 RPG3.20 BPGin 34.8 MPGgive me patrick ewing...
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (ballerman2112 @ Jul 20 2006, 11:03 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>considering none of us have really gotten to see him play in his prime, lets go by statistics. I will list Patrick Ewings "peak season" or his prime, and I will do the same for Bill Walton...shall we?Patrick Ewing28.6 PPG10.9 RPG3.99 BPGin 38.6 MPGLost in the Eastern Conference Semifinals 4-1how is that not dominanant living_legend?Bill Walton18.6 PPG14.4 RPG3.20 BPGin 34.8 MPGWon the Championship and Finals MVPgive me patrick ewing...</div>In bold is just a little bit more information about those season.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (ballerman2112 @ Jul 20 2006, 02:03 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>considering none of us have really gotten to see him play in his prime, lets go by statistics. I will list Patrick Ewings "peak season" or his prime, and I will do the same for Bill Walton...shall we?Patrick Ewing28.6 PPG10.9 RPG3.99 BPGin 38.6 MPGhow is that not dominanant living_legend?Bill Walton18.6 PPG14.4 RPG3.20 BPGin 34.8 MPGgive me patrick ewing...</div>Yeah, Ewing was so dominant his team lost in the 2nd round that year while Bill Walton's won the NBA Championship in his best year. When Jordan, Hakeem, Kareem, Shaq, and others were at their peak their teams weren't losing in the 2nd round. The game in the early 90's was also very different from the game in the late 70's, so stats aren't the best way to compare players. I'm not saying you should rule them out, but they have to be considered in context along with team success.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Living_Legend33 @ Jul 20 2006, 01:19 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Yeah, Ewing was so dominant his team lost in the 2nd round that year while Bill Walton's won the NBA Championship in his best year. When Jordan, Hakeem, Kareem, Shaq, and others were at their peak their teams weren't losing in the 2nd round. The game in the early 90's was also very different from the game in the late 70's, so stats aren't the best way to compare players. I'm not saying you should rule them out, but they have to be considered in context along with team success.</div>Yeah ur right i guess.... I guess that Lebron James isnt dominated because he got elimanated in the 2nd round right? And Kobe for sure as hell isnt dominant because he got eliminated in the 1st round. Have u ever thought that maybe...just maybe, Bill Walton had a better supporting cast than Patrick Ewing? I guess that never crossed ur mind did it.And the thing that you said about stats hurts your arguement. It was far easier to get better stats the more years that you go back. Do you think that Wilt could have averaged 52 points if he was playing in the 80's and 90's? I dont think so....
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (ballerman2112 @ Jul 20 2006, 11:25 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Yeah ur right i guess.... I guess that Lebron James isnt dominated because he got elimanated in the 2nd round right? And Kobe for sure as hell isnt dominant because he got eliminated in the 1st round. Have u ever thought that maybe...just maybe, Bill Walton had a better supporting cast than Patrick Ewing? I guess that never crossed ur mind did it.And the thing that you said about stats hurts your arguement. It was far easier to get better stats the more years that you go back. Do you think that Wilt could have averaged 52 points if he was playing in the 80's and 90's? I dont think so....</div>It's much different for a Center. A dominant Center (even in those days) should win a championship at least once in his career. He should be able to put a team on his back and do what comes with the name, dominate. Ewing could never do that in the playoffs.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (ballerman2112 @ Jul 20 2006, 02:25 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Yeah ur right i guess.... I guess that Lebron James isnt dominated because he got elimanated in the 2nd round right? And Kobe for sure as hell isnt dominant because he got eliminated in the 1st round. Have u ever thought that maybe...just maybe, Bill Walton had a better supporting cast than Patrick Ewing? I guess that never crossed ur mind did it.And the thing that you said about stats hurts your arguement. It was far easier to get better stats the more years that you go back. Do you think that Wilt could have averaged 52 points if he was playing in the 80's and 90's? I dont think so....</div>Lebron isn't dominant right now, and this isn't his peak year like you said 89-90 was for Ewing. Kobe's team this year was pathetic and much worse that Ewing's team from 89-90. You did teach me something tough; I was unaware Wilt Chamberlain averaged 50 points a game in the late 1970's. Actually if you'd looked up the statistic you'd know that there wasn't much of a difference between the amount of points scored. Scored Allowed76-77 Blazers: 111.7 106.289-90 Knocks 108.3 106.9Bill Walton didn't need to score 28 Points a game for his team to win. Jordan scored more in the 80's than he did in the 90's. Does that mean his peak was in the 80's? No, because in the 90's he did what was needed to succeed. That wasn't scoring 37 points a game.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Living_Legend33 @ Jul 20 2006, 01:40 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Lebron isn't dominant right now, and this isn't his peak year like you said 89-90 was for Ewing. Kobe's team this year was pathetic and much worse that Ewing's team from 89-90. You did teach me something tough; I was unaware Wilt Chamberlain averaged 50 points a game in the late 1970's. Actually if you'd looked up the statistic you'd know that there wasn't much of a difference between the amount of points scored. Scored Allowed76-77 Blazers: 111.7 106.289-90 Knocks 108.3 106.9Bill Walton didn't need to score 28 Points a game for his team to win. Jordan scored more in the 80's than he did in the 90's. Does that mean his peak was in the 80's? No, because in the 90's he did what was needed to succeed. That wasn't scoring 37 points a game.</div>Where shall i start...i guess i will just go in order.Lebron isnt dominant? How do u get to that? He is the 2nd best player in the league already and he averages over 30 a game. that is considered dominant. he can take over a game and only a couple other guys in the league can do that. Lebron's peak isnt going to be alot higher than this year. Maybe a couple points higher and a rebound and assist higher...he is going to be in his prime for like 10 to 12 years.Im saying that it was easier for a good basketball player to score back then because the level of play wasnt as high....Like, when Bill Walton averaged over 14 RPG, do you think that he could do that in todays basketball? of course he couldnt.Your right, Bill Walton didnt need to score 28 a game because he actually had good teammattes to help him score. Michael Jordan was in his prime for numerous years so that is an awful comparison....
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (ballerman2112 @ Jul 20 2006, 02:48 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Where shall i start...i guess i will just go in order.Lebron isnt dominant? How do u get to that? He is the 2nd best player in the league already and he averages over 30 a game. that is considered dominant. he can take over a game and only a couple other guys in the league can do that. Lebron's peak isnt going to be alot higher than this year. Maybe a couple points higher and a rebound and assist higher...he is going to be in his prime for like 10 to 12 years.Im saying that it was easier for a good basketball player to score back then because the level of play wasnt as high....Like, when Bill Walton averaged over 14 RPG, do you think that he could do that in todays basketball? of course he couldnt.Your right, Bill Walton didnt need to score 28 a game because he actually had good teammattes to help him score. Michael Jordan was in his prime for numerous years so that is an awful comparison....</div>You didn't understand what I was trying to say, but maybe I didn't explain it correctly.Lebron isn't at his peak yet. Just watch, in 5 years he is going to be so much better than he is now. Lebron can take over a game. However, he couldn't beat the crumbling Pistons even though his team was up 3-2. For a player to be truly dominant he has to do a little better than that. He also got some rediculous calls from the ref's. I don't believe there's a dominant player in the NBA right now, just guys the media and ref's love to glamourize. You look at statistics way too much. This isn't baseball.Your assertion that the level of play in the current NBA is better than the 70's and 80's is just absurd. Listen to any analyst and they'll say that the fundamentals and skills of the players now don't compare to those of the 70's and 80's. I'd agree with the 50's and 60's because there were very few big men at the time and there also wasn't much defense. But by the mid-70's there were plenty of good centers and defense had picked up. Walton would've been just as good in the early 90's as he was in his prime. If the 77 and 78 Walton was playing right now he'd easily be the best Center in the league. You totally missed my point with the Jordan thing. I wasn't comparing Walton to Jordan. I was comparing Jordan to himself. You rate players soley on statistics. If you did that with Jordan than his third season would be his best according to you. He became a much better player over the years, but that wasn't reflected in his statistics. You can't just look at some numbers and say that one player is definetively better than the other.
He couldnt beat the Pistons because they were doubling him and tripling him when he tried to drive, and then when he passed to his teammates they automatically missed the shot. His teammates sucked that series. They couldnt make shots, and both Z and Drew Gooden dissapointed me. It's amazing to me, and should be amazing to everyone that Lebron even pulled his team ahead 3-2 against the Pistons.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (CB4AllStar @ Jul 20 2006, 03:09 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>He couldnt beat the Pistons because they were doubling him and tripling him when he tried to drive, and then when he passed to his teammates they automatically missed the shot. His teammates sucked that series. They couldnt make shots, and both Z and Drew Gooden dissapointed me. It's amazing to me, and should be amazing to everyone that Lebron even pulled his team ahead 3-2 against the Pistons.</div>Good point, but the Heat had a pretty easy time with them. There was a lot of dissension the Detroit locker room. While he was being double teamed, he also got a ton of questionable calls. I feel that off-sets the tough defense. While he teammates were pretty bad at times, he still had oppertunities to close out the series and was unable to do it. That's not dominating. He's still a great player, but not dominant like Jordan, Shaq, or Kareem. Maybe my defenition of dominant is just different from everyone else's.
I disagree. Jordan had a star player beside him in Scottie Pippen, and he had role players that could do their job. He had shooters like Steve Kerr, he had Dennis Rodman and Luc Longley rebounding and playing defense. He had a good team. Every player needs a good team for them to do well. Heck, even the Lakers team did better then the effort that Lebron's squad put up. I thought it was dominating enough when Lebron pulled ahead of the Pistons (best team in the League) when his team was playing like sh*t. Isn't that enough? You cant get past a 60+ win team like the Pistons if your team is playing like sh*t.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Living_Legend33 @ Jul 20 2006, 02:05 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>You didn't understand what I was trying to say, but maybe I didn't explain it correctly.Lebron isn't at his peak yet. Just watch, in 5 years he is going to be so much better than he is now. Lebron can take over a game. However, he couldn't beat the crumbling Pistons even though his team was up 3-2. For a player to be truly dominant he has to do a little better than that. He also got some rediculous calls from the ref's. I don't believe there's a dominant player in the NBA right now, just guys the media and ref's love to glamourize. You look at statistics way too much. This isn't baseball.Your assertion that the level of play in the current NBA is better than the 70's and 80's is just absurd. Listen to any analyst and they'll say that the fundamentals and skills of the players now don't compare to those of the 70's and 80's. I'd agree with the 50's and 60's because there were very few big men at the time and there also wasn't much defense. But by the mid-70's there were plenty of good centers and defense had picked up. Walton would've been just as good in the early 90's as he was in his prime. If the 77 and 78 Walton was playing right now he'd easily be the best Center in the league. You totally missed my point with the Jordan thing. I wasn't comparing Walton to Jordan. I was comparing Jordan to himself. You rate players soley on statistics. If you did that with Jordan than his third season would be his best according to you. He became a much better player over the years, but that wasn't reflected in his statistics. You can't just look at some numbers and say that one player is definetively better than the other.</div>Im sorry, maybe i should be basing Bill Walton and Patrick Ewing on how many times i have seen them play.....o wait a second! I have seen them play like twice each in their prime on some playoff games on ESPN classic. That doesnt do anybody any good. To be honest, lebrons peak isnt going to get much higher. His athleticism isnt going to get any better, his decision making might, but his passing isnt going to get much better either. His skills are already developed to the fullest. He will win a championship or 2 somewhere down the road but that doesnt mean that he will be a better player then. It might just mean that his supporting cast will be better. Did you expect Lebron James to beat the entire pistons roster by himself? It was amazing that he mad it that far agaisnt a team that won 65 games.I dont think you understand something about the NBA. In todays basketball, people are more athletic and more talented than the NBA back in the 70's and 80's ever dreamed of. The pace of the games and level of play are just so much higher these days. If you cant comprehend that, you are retarted. Watch games from back then and tell me that you dont see it.If you honestly believe that Bill Walton could compete with Shaq and Yao ming, you are dumber than I thought. The size and strength of these guys would overpower a guy like Bill Walton. He was good, but only for his time. 14 rebounds back then is the equivalent of like 10 rebounds in todays game....thats just how it is.I have to use statistics because I know both you and I didnt see these guys play a whole lot when they were in their primes. Jordan became better over his career because that is when he won his championships...that doesnt necessarliy mean that he was that much better of a player then. that is when he made his big shots and when he made his name more....
He could improve his defense, outside shooting, rebounding, and work on making his teammates better. He does a great job of those things now, but there is room for improvement. He's not Jordan yet.I didn't expect him to win, but I can't picture truly dominant players like Jordan, Shaq, or Kareem losing after being up 3-2. [quote name='ballerman2112' post='119659' date='Jul 20 2006, 03:25 PM']I have to use statistics because I know both you and I didnt see these guys play a whole lot when they were in their primes. Jordan became better over his career because that is when he won his championships...that doesnt necessarliy mean that he was that much better of a player then. that is when he made his big shots and when he made his name more....[/quote]Only Jordan himself will tell you he was a much better player in the 90's than the 80's. He's said that before. Yeah, athletecism is all that matters. Skill has absolutely nothing to do with how good a player is. The pace is so much faster, which is why they score more points now than they did then. Oh wait, none of that is true. I guess it makes me retarded to believe that team basketball is better and harder to play than a bunch of athletic guys playing one on one for 48 minutes. The Mavericks, Suns, Spurs, and Pistons have success because they play as a team. They didn't have all the best athletes in the NBA. Yeah, Shaq is really tearing it up right now. Yao is also a tremendous defensive player that can shut anyone down. That's not even mentioning the other great centers like Brad Miller and Marcus Camby. The Center position sucks right now. I'm not saying a prime Walton would be better than a prime Shaq, but he'd be a lot better overall than the current Shaq, Yao, Camby, and Brad Miller.
