What was most important 2 your success during the Webber era

[SacTown Kings]

My Mitch jersey is framed and hanging on the wall. I wear my Webber jersey to school. That should sum up where I stand on the issue of the Rock and Webber.

Mitch single-handedly kept many Kings' fans from committing suicide.

Yep. I feel bad for the Rock because he played on so many lame ass teams, Webber was always surrounded by talent, even in college. Webber is obviously the more popular and sexy player, but overall Richmond is the greatest Sac King. It's close but the Rock gets my vote.

Richmond wasted his career playing on some of the worst teams and never complained. Webber played on some great teams and bitched constantly.

[BMiller52]

My Mitch jersey is framed and hanging on the wall. I wear my Webber jersey to school. That should sum up where I stand on the issue of the Rock and Webber.

Mitch single-handedly kept many Kings' fans from committing suicide.

Yea it says Mitch was your favorite player.

That doesn't change the fact that Chris was A BETTER player.

Mitch's stats all time are something like 23/4/3/1stl

Webber's are like 21/10/4/1stl/1.4blks

Big men are better/worth more than guards. Webber was also a better passer, rebounder, shotblocker, and equal at getting steals. He was a better post player. Really what the hell was Mitch better at besides handling the ball, shooting 3s, and perimeter D? Webber was one of the best ball handlers/passers at PF I've seen. Mitch is nothing more than a 90s version of Paul Pierce. Webber was a great talent and a much better WINNER. I don't give a damn if Mitch kept you guys from committing suicide. Hell if he wasn't on the team they probably would've been bad enough to get a top 3 pick in some of those years and probably would've been better way before the Webber trade.

Yes Mitch played on horrible teams, but lets not forget that the team Webber got into the playoffs the year he got here wasn't great either. The only real improvements were Vlade and rookie JWill that year. Corliss was still a top 3 scorer on that team. Rookie JWill was exciting but he was not some top 10 PG. He was a damn rookie. Peja during that year sucked. So you are telling me that Vlade Divac and a rookie were worth an extra 20% in wins? The team went from winning roughly 33% of their games in Mitch's last year to roughly 54% in Webber's first year.

[SacKingZZZ]

Without question it was chemistry. It wasn't any one player. Not even the mighty C-Webb. We were still one of the best teams in the league without him.

It was all about style.

[VeeJay24]

Obviously, Webber was big because he gave them that star power but I think it was the chemistry. The Kings couldn't be touched when they moved the ball on offense. When they were clicking they were like a clinic out there. And they don't get enough credit for basically changing the NBA back to the days of the fluid, exciting offensive basketball.

It was the Kings, not the Mavs or the Suns. The Kings made those teams want to play offense like they did.

All that said.....I think bringing in Bibby to replace White Chocalate (J. Williams) was a big impact. Bibby was the final piece. I loved J Will but he just didn't get it and never really grew up. In came Bibby and he was a god send plus he and Webb had so much chemistry. They took the team to another level.

Too bad for the Horry shot, Game 6 robbery and the Game 7 choke, they would've brought a championship to Sacremento. And then Webb's knee.

I am with you ICMTM..........The trade was stupid!!!!! Webb bad knee and all should have retired a King!!!!!!

[BMiller52]

Obviously, Webber was big because he gave them that star power but I think it was the chemistry. The Kings couldn't be touched when they moved the ball on offense. When they were clicking they were like a clinic out there. And they don't get enough credit for basically changing the NBA back to the days of the fluid, exciting offensive basketball.

It was the Kings, not the Mavs or the Suns. The Kings made those teams want to play offense like they did.

All that said.....I think bringing in Bibby to replace White Chocalate (J. Williams) was a big impact. Bibby was the final piece. I loved J Will but he just didn't get it and never really grew up. In came Bibby and he was a god send plus he and Webb had so much chemistry. They took the team to another level.

Too bad for the Horry shot, Game 6 robbery and the Game 7 choke, they would've brought a championship to Sacremento. And then Webb's knee.

I am with you ICMTM..........The trade was stupid!!!!! Webb bad knee and all should have retired a King!!!!!!

So would you agree with me that Webb>Mitch?

[VeeJay24]

-= original quote snipped =-



So would you agree with me that Webb>Mitch?

Mitch was great and contrary to what people are saying around here....his team wasn't that bad. He had some talent around him. The coach wasn't too great, though.

But, you ask me of all people if Webb>Mitch. You know how much I like Webb!!!! Without a doubt Webb>Mitch.

[BMiller52]

-= original quote snipped =-




Mitch was great and contrary to what people are saying around here....his team wasn't that bad. He had some talent around him. The coach was too great, though.

But, you ask me of all people if Webb>Mitch. You know how much I like Webb!!!! Without a doubt Webb>Mitch.

Yeah I agree with you about Mitch. But like you said Webber was better than Mitch without a doubt. I don't get why people disagree so I just had to get a written statement

[Smills91]

Fellas, Mitch Richmond was a GREAT all-star caliber guard who kept the Kings on the franchise on the map, but give me a break. He's not even in the same league as a Chris Webber. While the Kings greatest success was their team chemistry during those 3-4 years, the reason they could be so successful was due to Chris Webber who was easily an MVP candidate each of those years. He was one of the top 5 players in the entire LEAGUE while he was with us. Mitch was AWESOME, I'd put him at #2 in the Sacramento era, but FIRMLY behind Chris Webber. I'm 27 years old, I'm plenty old to remember the good old Richmond days...eee gads they were horrible overall when 8th seed was an accomplishment.

[SacTown Kings]

Fellas, Mitch Richmond was a GREAT all-star caliber guard who kept the Kings on the franchise on the map, but give me a break. He's not even in the same league as a Chris Webber. While the Kings greatest success was their team chemistry during those 3-4 years, the reason they could be so successful was due to Chris Webber who was easily an MVP candidate each of those years. He was one of the top 5 players in the entire LEAGUE while he was with us. Mitch was AWESOME, I'd put him at #2 in the Sacramento era, but FIRMLY behind Chris Webber. I'm 27 years old, I'm plenty old to remember the good old Richmond days...eee gads they were horrible overall when 8th seed was an accomplishment.

That's funny because the Kings had their best record EVER when Webber was out due to injury. So there goes that theory.

And I love how people keeep putting up stats to prove their point. Again, a big reason Webber got those stats was because of all the talent he had around him. He had a top 5 center in Divac, a top 3 sf in Peja, a perinial second team defensive player in Christie, and a top 5 pg in Bibby, one of the top coaches, and great chemistry. Richmond put up similar stats with far less talent to help him.

Again Richmond 6 time all star, Webber 5 time all star. I guess even the league believes Richmond was the better player. Oh check out this site it has a % of probability that players will be in the hall a fame (last stat on the bottom). Webber's % was .697, while Richmond's was .735 .

http://www.basketball-reference.com/pla ... mmi01.html

I guess if I grew up watching Webber more I would be somewhat bias, however, I am 35 and I grew up watching them both the same amount. But I digress.

[Bibbinator]

If only the Kings had Webber and Artest.

[pillwenney]

I still don't recall the season where we didn't have Webber but had the best record. 03-04 was our only real season without him and we finished with 55 wins. We had him in 01-02 and finished with 61 wins.

And if anything, Vlade hurt Chris's stats (but helped the team of course). Vlade kept the offense from being run through Chris full-time. When you look at what they both averaged, I think that if Vlade had been replaced with a normal, average center, that Chris really could have put up something like 29/10.5-11/7.5-8 in his prime when you consider everything. The team wouldn't have been as good, but it still would've been pretty damn good. But still, the fact that those stats really aren't far-fetched is really a good indicator of just how good Chris was.

[Smills91]

[quote="SacTown Kings"][/quote]

The other funny thing you forget to mention was that was during the easiest part of the strength of schedule when the Kings got that record as well. They had a treacherous finale to that season in terms of the schedule. I can't even believe your using a 40 game sample to illustrate a point that is lasting over numerous seasons. It's absurd and makes you look silly.

[Ballings7]

I still don't recall the season where we didn't have Webber but had the best record.

I think what that is, is when we finished with the best record at the AS-break.

[BMiller52]

-= original quote snipped =-



That's funny because the Kings had their best record EVER when Webber was out due to injury. So there goes that theory.

And I love how people keeep putting up stats to prove their point. Again, a big reason Webber got those stats was because of all the talent he had around him. He had a top 5 center in Divac, a top 3 sf in Peja, a perinial second team defensive player in Christie, and a top 5 pg in Bibby, one of the top coaches, and great chemistry. Richmond put up similar stats with far less talent to help him.

Again Richmond 6 time all star, Webber 5 time all star. I guess even the league believes Richmond was the better player. Oh check out this site it has a % of probability that players will be in the hall a fame (last stat on the bottom). Webber's % was .697, while Richmond's was .735 .

http://www.basketball-reference.com/pla ... mmi01.html

I guess if I grew up watching Webber more I would be somewhat bias, however, I am 35 and I grew up watching them both the same amount. But I digress.

Peja a top 3 SF back in 2000-2002? That's one of the most hilarious things I've ever read. I mean obviously he was sooooooooo important, because it's not like the team didn't miss a beat with a rookie Hedo starting over him in the conference finals or anything . Bibby wasn't a top 5 PG either. He was top 10 but not top 5. Top 5 is like Jason Kidd territory, Mike was never that good. You are grossly overrating our players and underrating Webber.

If anything playing with that much talent HURT his stats. Being a stat whore on a bad team is really easy(not saying Mitch was one), getting your stats to stand out on a good team is MUCH MORE DIFFICULT. Have you watched the Detroit Pistons or Boston Celtics at all? KG was averaging like 22/13/5/2blocks in MN and in Boston he's averaged like 18/9/4/1.5blks. You play with a more talented cast and you will have a harder time getting your numbers. Proven fact.

Smills is also right when he says that stretch we played without Chris was one of the easiest schedules in the league. We finished that season playing the Spurs multiple times in the last 20 games, the lakers twice, the twolves I think, and more good teams. If you flipped the schedule so that the games at the beginning were at the end, and vice versa, everyone would've say "hey Webber brought that team together and got them to win a bunch of games at the end of the season".

[ICMTM]

I can't believe this is an argument...

They didn't play the same position even! Richmond was a nice player, but I seriously have a hard time saying he was the best King ever (sac era). When Richmond played the Eastern Conference was the better conference, so I can understand him making so many all star appearances.

Anyhow, I think this is a preference vote and nothing you can prove. I don't think anyone was wondering who I was thinking of.

[Smills91]

I can't believe this is an argument...

They didn't play the same position even! Richmond was a nice player, but I seriously have a hard time saying he was the best King ever (sac era). When Richmond played the Eastern Conference was the better conference, so I can understand him making so many all star appearances.

Anyhow, I think this is a preference vote and nothing you can prove. I don't think anyone was wondering who I was thinking of.

This doesn't pertain to you ICMTM

Even if you prefer Mitch to C-Webb this isn't close comparison. If you can't own up to Chris Webber > Mitch Richmond then that explains your overall basketball IQ and/or irrational hated toward Chris Webber. I mean just ludicrous that any of you are supporting Mitch as greater than C-Webb talent-wise on the court. It's NOT close, AT ALL.

[Wolfay]

-= original quote snipped =-



This doesn't pertain to you ICMTM

Even if you prefer Mitch to C-Webb this isn't close comparison. If you can't own up to Chris Webber > Mitch Richmond then that explains your overall basketball IQ and/or irrational hated toward Chris Webber. I mean just ludicrous that any of you are supporting Mitch as greater than C-Webb talent-wise on the court. It's NOT close, AT ALL.

To say it's not even close... I think that's irrational hatred towards The Rock. I admit C-Webb is the greater overall player (Mitch is still closer to my heart), but it's not quite as hands down as you make it seem. Even the great Michael Jordan admitted that Mitch was the hardest guy for him to contain. Both are destined for the Hall of Fame, so whatever. If either gets snuffed, then I think we all can agree thats just irrational KINGS hatred.

[Smills91]

I have no HATRED for Mitch whatsoever, in fact I label him as numero DOS is Sacto Kings history AFTER C-Webb. But I just don't see how Mitch is HOF worthy. I just don't see. Great player, but definitely NOT a HOF guy. I don't even know if C-Webb is a HOF guy.

[Wolfay]

I have no HATRED for Mitch whatsoever, in fact I label him as numero DOS is Sacto Kings history AFTER C-Webb. But I just don't see how Mitch is HOF worthy. I just don't see. Great player, but definitely NOT a HOF guy. I don't even know if C-Webb is a HOF guy.

Rookie of the Year, 6 time All-Star, All-Star MVP, olympic gold medalist, NBA Champion, one of only seven players in NBA history to average at least 21 points per game for his first 10 seasons... Maybe I'm a biased hardcore Kings fan, but I think that's HOF worthy.

And for C-Webb, I think just his dunks are enough to justify the HOF. C-Webb in his prime was literally unstoppable.

[BMiller52]

-= original quote snipped =-



Rookie of the Year, 6 time All-Star, All-Star MVP, olympic gold medalist, NBA Champion, one of only seven players in NBA history to average at least 21 points per game for his first 10 seasons... Maybe I'm a biased hardcore Kings fan, but I think that's HOF worthy.

And for C-Webb, I think just his dunks are enough to justify the HOF. C-Webb in his prime was literally unstoppable.

Yeah NBA champion as the 13th man on the Lakers.