"ewing theory" in hockey

[Hawksfan2828]

i find this really fascinating, and a provocative argument that having a cohesive team is more important than a transcendent superstar.



http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/story?page=simmons/010509a


so basically the nuts and bolts of ewing theory is that the team has a superstar or franchise player who isn't in the upper echelon of elite players. they build the team around him and, in basketball, run the majority of plays for him. they are an above-average team, but can never get over the top because the superstar always gets outplayed by the opposing team's superstars. this especially makes sense in basketball, where if you have two star players at the same position going against each other, most of the time they defend each other and it really is in a sense a one-on-one matchup. see: patrick ewing against hakeem olajuwon or wilt chamberlain against bill russell or dominique wilkins against larry bird.

so ewing is the test case. most famously, this knicks went to the finals in a year he was injured. they banded together, got other guys more involved in the offense, and played really well as a team, doing as well without him as they had in the previous five years with him.

supposedly ewing's college team, georgetown, used to also play better when he was out of the lineup than when he was in. i have no idea if this is accurate, but they did win a national title with him for what it's worth.


so who are hockey's "ewing theory" players? simmons coyly mentions ray bourque, which i can't make heads or tails of. he also mentions lindros in '00, which seems more plausible to me.

i think the crux of the theory is that with an unquestioned alpha dog, guys sometimes do less looking to and deferring to their star for the heavy lifting. that works when you star is jordan, not so much when it's ewing. but with him out, the other guys play better as a team and take more accountability for and control of the team.

you see this sometimes with non-playoff teams making an unexpected run for the 8th seed after trading their impending UFA star at the deadline, or going on a win streak after their best player packs it in for the year after they are mathematically eliminated. but the better and more interesting case, of course, is always in the playoffs.

so i'm thinking, mats sundin? in '02, he gets hurt and alyn mccauley and gary roberts lead the team into the third round.

pierre turgeon in '93?

a little out there, but markus naslund's absence from the swedish olympic team in '06 (also note his absence in '94 after playing on the '93 WC team that won the silver)?

other names in NHL history who might qualify?

I don't know if I quite understand what you're asking but;

Would the early to mid 90's Hawks teams count? They won nothing as a team (not the Cup obviously) but had a few stars and superstars...

Roenick, Belfour and Chelios. Obviously Chelios and Belfour won personal awards but as far as a team they choked often... Of course we could also blame Keenan for some of it given his crazy coaching style.

How about the Sharks? or even the Nucks?

 

[wgknestrick]

i find this really fascinating, and a provocative argument that having a cohesive team is more important than a transcendent superstar.



http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/story?page=simmons/010509a


so basically the nuts and bolts of ewing theory is that the team has a superstar or franchise player who isn't in the upper echelon of elite players. they build the team around him and, in basketball, run the majority of plays for him. they are an above-average team, but can never get over the top because the superstar always gets outplayed by the opposing team's superstars. this especially makes sense in basketball, where if you have two star players at the same position going against each other, most of the time they defend each other and it really is in a sense a one-on-one matchup. see: patrick ewing against hakeem olajuwon or wilt chamberlain against bill russell or dominique wilkins against larry bird.

so ewing is the test case. most famously, this knicks went to the finals in a year he was injured. they banded together, got other guys more involved in the offense, and played really well as a team, doing as well without him as they had in the previous five years with him.

supposedly ewing's college team, georgetown, used to also play better when he was out of the lineup than when he was in. i have no idea if this is accurate, but they did win a national title with him for what it's worth.


so who are hockey's "ewing theory" players? simmons coyly mentions ray bourque, which i can't make heads or tails of. he also mentions lindros in '00, which seems more plausible to me.

i think the crux of the theory is that with an unquestioned alpha dog, guys sometimes do less looking to and deferring to their star for the heavy lifting. that works when you star is jordan, not so much when it's ewing. but with him out, the other guys play better as a team and take more accountability for and control of the team.

you see this sometimes with non-playoff teams making an unexpected run for the 8th seed after trading their impending UFA star at the deadline, or going on a win streak after their best player packs it in for the year after they are mathematically eliminated. but the better and more interesting case, of course, is always in the playoffs.

so i'm thinking, mats sundin? in '02, he gets hurt and alyn mccauley and gary roberts lead the team into the third round.

pierre turgeon in '93?

a little out there, but markus naslund's absence from the swedish olympic team in '06 (also note his absence in '94 after playing on the '93 WC team that won the silver)?

other names in NHL history who might qualify?

Jagr 2000-01

 

[Voight]

Meh, Ewing is one of the most overrated players of all time anyway.

 

[vadim sharifijanov]

Meh, Ewing is one of the most overrated players of all time anyway.

the basketball sundin: very good player, but many people had either unreasonable expectations for him or watched him with rose-tinted glasses because of the jersey he was wearing.

 

[Ishdul]

Meh, Ewing is one of the most overrated players of all time anyway.

I would be inclined to say the exact opposite.

 

[Big Phil]

Okay, I have determined that from what is expected in this thread as the definition of the "ewing theory" that the player who exemplifies this the most is Steve Stamkos.

 

[Joedaman55]

Rick Nash, maybe Alexander Mogilny (before the devils), Owen Nolan, and Roberto Luongo come to mind.

Nash is difficult but that team seemed to get better when he left and the team no longer has the pressure of the anointed superstar not having any help.

Mogilny was a really good player but tended to struggle with injuries and effort.

Nolan is tough because the Nordiques built around him originally but he was traded and they became better eventually.

Luongo has always had some harsh criticism and it's debatable if the Canucks were better with Schneider (but who knows what they were doing when they traded him later).

The Ewing theory is pretty hard in hockey because you need more than a few superstars to win in hockey unlike basketball.

 

[chrispw1]

Peter Forseberg with the 2001 Avalanche, he got hurt during the playoffs and they still won the cup

 

[Big Phil]

Peter Forseberg with the 2001 Avalanche, he got hurt during the playoffs and they still won the cup

Yeah, I don't think he applies here. Now, I am one who always points to Sakic as the better playoff performer when it gets brought up because when the Avs won the Cup he was "the man" not Forsberg. But I don't think you can deny Forsberg's worth. He has two runs where he led the playoffs in points despite not reaching the final. He had 21 points in 22 games in 1996 when they won and through two rounds in 2001 might have been the front runner for the Conn Smythe. Sakic and Roy really ramped it up in the final two rounds and the whole team really rallied around Forsberg getting injured so I wouldn't say a team is ever "better" if he isn't around. Not Pete.

 

[vadim sharifijanov]

I think John Tavares is a canidate but I can't see the islanders being good without him.

epic bump but man oh man tavares

a very very good player who led/captained the isles to three playoff appearances and one series win (against florida) in nine years, scoring a reasonable playoff clip and finishing as a hart finalist twice

in the two years after he left, three series wins and counting, a game away from making the final four for the first time since tavares was two years old

 

[JackSlater]

It doesn't look so great for Stamkos either at the moment. But yes, Tavares is looking like a prime Ewing Theory example.

 

[sr edler]

The narrative around McCauley/Roberts & Sundin and the 2002 playoffs is highly exaggerated, almost to a ridiculous point.

McCauley/Roberts "led" Maple Leafs won against the Senators in the 2nd round of the 2002 playoffs. This is a team that the Maple Leafs had already dismantled rather comfortably both in the 2000 & 2001 playoffs with Sundin. Sundin had also already been to the Conference Finals with the Maple Leafs in 1999, without any of McCauley and Roberts, so it's not like the team charted completely undiscovered territories with said folk heroes steering the ship.

Sundin in 2001 in the 2nd round against the defending Stanley Cup champions NJD had 9 points in 7 games. He recorded points in 10 out 11 playoff games that year. Quite a difference playing the early 00s Senators and the Stanley Cup champions (00)/defending SC champions (01) NJD. Sometimes so-so teams makes the CFs depending on matchups, like the 2012 Coyotes. It happens.

Sundin must have had some real high bad teammate powers though, in light of McCauley/Roberts mutual disappearance act during the 3rd round in 2002 against Carolina.

 

[jcs0218]

I think John Tavares is a canidate but I can't see the islanders being good without him.

9 years later.

 

[jcs0218]

Is it just me? Or does it seem that the Tampa Bay Lightning usually play better in the Playoffs when Stamkos is injured?

 

[c9777666]

The Knicks of the last 20 years have certainly discounted the Ewing theory.

 

[Boxscore]

John Tavares. The Isles are one win away from a Conference Finals appearance--and they're doing it in style--and by committee.

 

[buffalowing88]

Is it just me? Or does it seem that the Tampa Bay Lightning usually play better in the Playoffs when Stamkos is injured?

I'm so happy someone mentioned this. I had a feeling when I saw the thread pop back up. It's definitely time to apply the Ewing Theory to Stamkos and, honestly, if they could find a suitor in the next year or two, they need to unload him. I love Stamkos, I think his peak from 09-13 was as good as just about anyone, but his health issues are concerning and I think the team has learned to play without him better than they would with him. It's going to be a difficult choice in TB sooner or later, but Stamkos is falling down the totem pole of most important members of the team.

 

[alko]

Kovalchuk and Chara spring to mind.

 

[NyQuil]

My issue with the theory is whether it is about the individual or simply the phenomenon where a team immediately steps up in the absence of any star player.

There’s an odd assumption in sports that a team will automatically suck when a star player or two goes down.

My issue is that anecdotally, with the Senators, there are a host of examples where not only did they play better, but it can often be a turning point in the entire season for the better.

A similar situation happens when a player returns from injury. Fans assume the team will improve when the change to ice time and distribution messes with the chemistry, or the team breathes a collective sigh of relief, and starts to lose. That and the star may not be at his best.

So I guess my point is whether this Ewing theory is particular to specific individual players or just simply the natural result of teams stepping up in the absence of any star, Ewing or not.

I’m wondering if we are being unfairly selective in choosing players on teams that underperformed when you can find similar situations on teams that did win championships but we just don’t go looking for them.

 

[NyQuil]

Sometimes you have to pay attention to the date of the post.

 

[Voight]

I'm so happy someone mentioned this. I had a feeling when I saw the thread pop back up. It's definitely time to apply the Ewing Theory to Stamkos and, honestly, if they could find a suitor in the next year or two, they need to unload him. I love Stamkos, I think his peak from 09-13 was as good as just about anyone, but his health issues are concerning and I think the team has learned to play without him better than they would with him. It's going to be a difficult choice in TB sooner or later, but Stamkos is falling down the totem pole of most important members of the team.

Injuries have for sure been a bummer for him but he was also top 10 in scoring a year ago.

 

[MadLuke]

In hindsight how many of the Ewing Theory candidates panned out (Kobe Bryant once split out from Shaq) ?

And Ewing was past is prime in that example.

A better way to approach that would have been to list 50 cases of stars (that are big name but not Lebron, Jordan) going down for an injury or traded in a uninterested way and calculated from that "random" sample how many time a rally actually occur, because when looking at multiple league over multiple season you will obviously be able to see what look like it even if it does not exist.

 

[HolyGhost]

The biggest difference between the NHL and the NBA, is the fact that NHL has ALWAYS had either Ernst and Young or Pricewaterhousecoop over see the lotto. THe NBA did not until they were forced to. For those who do not know what those two companies do, I suggest you look into the companies. A key part of both companies is that they investigate financial irregularities not only in business but governments as well. So for those who think either company would be willing to "turn" a blind eye to letting the NHL rig the draft? IF the company did it and it was found out? You would be seeing trillion dollar lawsuits and a lot of white color criminal trying to get out of jail claiming the company lied and that is why they got convicted. For what either Ernst and Young or PWC do? The NHL is very small spuds

 

[GlitchMarner]

The narrative around McCauley/Roberts & Sundin and the 2002 playoffs is highly exaggerated, almost to a ridiculous point.

McCauley/Roberts "led" Maple Leafs won against the Senators in the 2nd round of the 2002 playoffs. This is a team that the Maple Leafs had already dismantled rather comfortably both in the 2000 & 2001 playoffs with Sundin. Sundin had also already been to the Conference Finals with the Maple Leafs in 1999, without any of McCauley and Roberts, so it's not like the team charted completely undiscovered territories with said folk heroes steering the ship.

Sundin in 2001 in the 2nd round against the defending Stanley Cup champions NJD had 9 points in 7 games. He recorded points in 10 out 11 playoff games that year. Quite a difference playing the early 00s Senators and the Stanley Cup champions (00)/defending SC champions (01) NJD. Sometimes so-so teams makes the CFs depending on matchups, like the 2012 Coyotes. It happens.

Sundin must have had some real high bad teammate powers though, in light of McCauley/Roberts mutual disappearance act during the 3rd round in 2002 against Carolina.

I was going to make these exact points.

The Leafs beat the Islanders twice in a row with Sundin in the line up. He got hurt in game three and they went 2-3 the rest of the way (not exactly immensely impressive). I mean, I'm glad they won, but I am sure they could have beaten the Islanders with Sundin healthy for the entire series and it might have been a shorter series if not for his injury.

They always beat OTT back then. That was nothing new. The Sens weren't even particularly good in 2002. I think they were the seventh seed.

And yeah, Sundin played some of his best hockey in the 2001 series versus New Jersey and in the '01 playoffs in general.

 

[vadim sharifijanov]

My issue with the theory is whether it is about the individual or simply the phenomenon where a team immediately steps up in the absence of any star player.

There’s an odd assumption in sports that a team will automatically suck when a star player or two goes down.

My issue is that anecdotally, with the Senators, there are a host of examples where not only did they play better, but it can often be a turning point in the entire season for the better.

A similar situation happens when a player returns from injury. Fans assume the team will improve when the change to ice time and distribution messes with the chemistry, or the team breathes a collective sigh of relief, and starts to lose. That and the star may not be at his best.

So I guess my point is whether this Ewing theory is particular to specific individual players or just simply the natural result of teams stepping up in the absence of any star, Ewing or not.

I’m wondering if we are being unfairly selective in choosing players on teams that underperformed when you can find similar situations on teams that did win championships but we just don’t go looking for them.

i made a related comment nine years ago: is it more productive to think of ewing theory not as an indictment of certain superstars but as something about how teams cohere?

maybe the more interesting question isn't why sundin and turgeon never led their teams to glory, but why the leafs led by mccauley and an aging gary roberts, or the islanders led by stumpy thomas and ray ferraro were able to do what they did in the playoffs.