So my friend BB from Brooklyn sent me this little ditty from deadspin because he knows how irritated The Celt’s, er, Sports Guy’s take on Ewing makes me. In a nutshell, Celt’s Guy himself was always was REALLY PISSED that Ewing was mentioned in the same breath (OH THE HORROR) as Bill Russell when he came out of college by the basketball media. Yeah, those comparisons stopped after Ewing became his own brand.

Obviously, he must have really hated when Ewing hit the three from the corner against the Celtics on the parquet floor back in 1990, or any other moment pre-millennium where NY had Boston’s numbah. Maybe he felt the need to make New England-ers feel better after coming thisclose to NFL history by renaming The Ewing theory after Tiki Barber.

Very cute. As cute as Brady getting the snot kicked out of him by the Giants D-Line.

You hate New York sports Bill, we get it. But hey, to be fair I have a sense of humor and found this effort to be hilarious.

That shot Ewing hit, much like the Knicks sweeping Barkley’s Sixers, became over-hyped via the NY media because the Knicks never went on to win titles and I understand.

But to flip it the other way and hype up a fictional theory about Ewing to irritate Knicks fans, seems petty. Petty because it’s inaccurate.

The following is an excerpt from an email sent to Simmons that he has has yet to respond to, written by the former star of “Brooklyn Bridge” and HAY-uge Ewing supporter.

If any of you know Danny Lanzetta, please send this along to him. I’d like to shake his hand.

“…There are other flaws in your “theory.” Before the Lang-induced injury, Ewing had missed 20 games in the previous ten seasons. So what is your “theory” based on pre-1997-1998? Just want to discount that entire body of work when there clearly isn’t a large enough sample to say whether the Knicks would’ve been better without him? (Ask Gerald Wilkins and Johnny Newman what they think.) And if your point is that post-injury Camby, Sprewell and Houston were more responsible for the Knicks’ success than Patrick, well, that’s debatable (we can go playoff game-by-playoff-game if you’d like at some point), but at this point you’re also judging Ewing post-injury, in the twilight of his career.

As if I needed more evidence of your bias against all things orange and blue, how about your more recent column in which you lump Larry Johnson in with a bunch of former NBA superstars who (unlike Jason Kidd) didn’t realize their limitations late in their careers? Ask Jeff Van Gundy about that. Or Knicks longtime NY Daily News beat writer Frank Isola. They’ll both tell you that soon after LJ’s back injury (and subsequent trade to the Knicks), he stopped pounding the dribble and forcing his awkward low post moves. He became adept at passing out of the double team and defending the post and on the perimeter…

…You are unfairly representing a terrific player. So here’s a challenge. Post my email. See what your readers think. This concept that has helped you achieve (pseudo) fame is bogus, at least as it pertains to the man whose name it bears. Quite simply, The Ewing Theory is a sham…”