This was the media's perception of him though, which was hardly ingrained in fact - Ewing DID defer more as he got older.

Let's not forget that 99 was an asterisk season, and that the "8th seed" Knicks trailed the "1st seed" by a mere 6 games. In an 82 game season the Knicks likely would have been a 4th seed, because they suffered some injuries early and gelled late... Ewing for instance missed 12 games, which might not seem like much, but that was literally a quarter of the regular season.

Anyway, the phenomenon (it's really not a "theory", is it?) is informative in that it identifies players who are overrated by the conventional wisdom and are proven so in their absence. Obviously a team's true best player would hurt the team when they miss time, so it's more about players who aren't really their teams' best, but for some reason are viewed as such by the public.

http://www.basketball-reference.com/fc/pcm_finder.cgi?request=1&sum=1&p1=cambyma01&y1=2009&p2=ewingpa01&y2=1997

- You see a different story.

Camby has the superior defensive numbers, but the Drtgs are only one point apart, and overall Ortg -Drtg completely evens out. Ewing's a more efficient scorer and much more prolific as his usage is more than 10pts higher than Camby's.

Additionally, the factor that makes the two of them look comparable is that we work in metrics that consider stats per minute or per possession. Patrick had a much healthier career through the age of 34 and gave 6 more minutes of production per game, meaning that overtime you get his superior production not just for the 30 minutes that Camby plays but also for 6 additional minutes when Camby's backup is in the game.

That led Patrick to have a 42.1 edge in WS at the same age, which is significant, but even if we level it out and look at per minute WS Pat's got a .0033 WS/min while Camby has a .0029 WS/min. Outside of rebound and block rate there's really no argument for Marcus over Pat when you compare them through age 34.

ALL of that being said - you're right in that Camby may have been the better player in '99 and was fantastic in the playoffs.

What the hell?! I'm so disappointed in you! Don't tell me you're actually endorsing that ridiculous "Ewing Theory"... are you? That can't be! First of all, its illogical. Second of all, your own Win Share numbers rightfully debunk the notion that Ewing was even the best player on the Knicks in 1999. By Win Rate the best player, even in the regular season, was Marcus Camby. And he stepped his game up two levels in the playoffs. And Camby's subsequent play has shown he was the better center. By Win Score, Win Shares, or Marginal Win Score, Camby as a full-time center has well outproduced Ewing. Ewing was slightly above average, nothing more. Camby was and is an efficient machine.

I would love to get your opinions.