Chris Bosh / Ewing Theory

[Apollo]

Ewing Theory
One of Bill Simmons's most used internet themes has been the famous Ewing Theory, which was conceived by Dave Cirilli and named after Patrick Ewing of the New York Knicks. In 1998-99, the Knicks made the NBA Finals after Ewing sustained an Achilles' tendon injury. Thus, the Ewing Theory claims that when a longtime superstar who receives an inordinate amount of media attention and fan interest has never won a championship leaves the team via injury, trade, or free agency, and the media writes the team off, the team will play better.

Is Chris Bosh good enough to qualify? Can the Raps be better without Bosh?

Two first round exits? Absolutely not. Word around the league is that he's a fake tough guy. That's Durant being polite. Real word around the league is that he's soft.

[Tim W.]

The Ewing Theory is completely flawed because Ewing was a shadow of his former self when that Simmons came up with that. In his prime, the Knicks were certainly not better when he was out. When he was old, he couldn't impact the game like he used to, but the team still played with him as if he was in his prime. It didn't work. If a team that had Shaq on it tried to play as if he was in his prime, they would play better when he was off the court. That's why he works in Boston. He's a role player who's playing a career low 20 mpg and only taking 5 shots per game. Ewing should have been relegated to a role player role when he hit, like, 35, but at 37 he was still playing more than 30 mpg and taking 12.5 shots per game.

[golden]

I think the theory applies to contenders. Even without Ewing, the Knicks still had a ton of talent - Sprewell, Johnson, Houston, Camby.

The Cavs and Raptors didn't have a dearth of talent outside of the stars that left their respective clubs.

Applies to contenders? LOL. The Ewing Theory doesn't apply to anything. I just don't understand why some people want to believe in this so badly that they start adding qualifiers to try and make it fit where it doesn't (i.e. mostly everywhere). IMO, it's a joke made up by Bill Simmons that probably has him laughing his ass off everytime somebody references it or tries to take it seriously.

[MangoKid]

Applies to contenders? LOL. The Ewing Theory doesn't apply to anything. I just don't understand why some people want to believe in this so badly that they start adding qualifiers to try and make it fit where it doesn't (i.e. mostly everywhere). IMO, it's a joke made up by Bill Simmons that probably has him laughing his ass off everytime somebody references it or tries to take it seriously.

Most veteran teams will play better together when their "star" falls victim to injury (simply because the vets pick up the slack). That's what the Ewing theory is.

The Raptors are much better without Bosh at any rate. If he was still around, this team would still be playing mediocre baskteball. it would be better mediocre baskteball, but nonethless mediocre basketball.

[MangoKid]

The Ewing Theory is completely flawed because Ewing was a shadow of his former self when that Simmons came up with that. In his prime, the Knicks were certainly not better when he was out. When he was old, he couldn't impact the game like he used to, but the team still played with him as if he was in his prime. It didn't work. If a team that had Shaq on it tried to play as if he was in his prime, they would play better when he was off the court. That's why he works in Boston. He's a role player who's playing a career low 20 mpg and only taking 5 shots per game. Ewing should have been relegated to a role player role when he hit, like, 35, but at 37 he was still playing more than 30 mpg and taking 12.5 shots per game.

I wouldn't say Ewing was a shadow of him former self. He was still averaging a double-double (17-10) with a couple of blocks per when the injury happened. The offense wasn't as good, but the defense was.

[Tim W.]

I wouldn't say Ewing was a shadow of him former self. He was still averaging a double-double (17-10) with a couple of blocks per when the injury happened. The offense wasn't as good, but the defense was.

The stats were still decent, but he was being force fed the ball too much, and his defense was not nearly as good as it had been. I wouldn't even say it was good by his last season in NY because they played him too many minutes, and he was too slow. He was still an intimidator, but he was just not quick enough, especially at the end of games, to have much of an impact on defense.

[golden]

Most veteran teams will play better together when their "star" falls victim to injury (simply because the vets pick up the slack). That's what the Ewing theory is.

The Raptors are much better without Bosh at any rate. If he was still around, this team would still be playing mediocre baskteball. it would be better mediocre baskteball, but nonethless mediocre basketball.

See, there you go again adding another qualifier - veteran teams - to try and make it force fit. The Ewing Theory keeps getting redefined... Simmons was frickin' brilliant, or perhaps completely taken by surprise by people who are eating this ish up. Our company should hire him to brand a new product we're coming out with. LMAO.

[MangoKid]

See, there you go again adding another qualifier - veteran teams - to try and make it force fit. The Ewing Theory keeps getting redefined... Simmons was frickin' brilliant, or perhaps completely taken by surprise by people who are eating this ish up. Our company should hire him to brand a new product we're coming out with. LMAO.

A theory hashed by ESPN.com writer Bill Simmons and his friend Dave Cirilli. It that explains the reason why teams inexplicably become better after their star player leaves the team for any reason (trade, injury, etc.). Two elements must be present for a situation to be explained by the Ewing Theory: 1) The team has a star player who receives a lot of attention but never wins anything, and 2) The star player leaves the team and everybody writes the team off.

LINK

Is it all BS? Sure it is.

The Cavaliers don't fall into that category because James had won multiple MVPs.

It applies to the Raptors because Bosh hadn't really won anything here. Are the Raptors better off without Bosh? Yup.

[golden]

LINK

Is it all BS? Sure it is.

The Cavaliers don't fall into that category because James had won multiple MVPs.

It applies to the Raptors because Bosh hadn't really won anything here. Are the Raptors better off without Bosh? Yup.

Actually you got it wrong yet again. It's the player's team that doesn't win anything, not individual awards - so Lebron is a prime candidate. Here is the Ewing Theory defined by Bills Simmons himself:

http://proxy.espn.go.com/espn/page2/story?id=1193711


Bill Simmons: "...Dave introduced me to the Ewing Theory three years ago, and we've been tinkering with it like Voltaire and Thoreau ever since. Eventually, we decided that two crucial elements needed to be in place for any situation to qualify for "Ewing" status:

A star athlete receives an inordinate amount of media attention and fan interest, and yet his teams never win anything substantial with him (other than maybe some early-round playoff series).

That same athlete leaves his team (either by injury, trade, graduation, free agency or retirement) -- and both the media and fans immediately write off the team for the following season.

When those elements collide, you have the Ewing Theory."

BTW - totally with you on the "thank-god-we-didn't-resign-Bosh". He's a great player, but I cannot believe what a jerk/wuss/diva he's become. His act would be even worse if he stayed with the Raps as a disgruntled wannabe. No way I could stomach 4 years of that. He starting to make Wince Carter look good.