How Highly Do You Rate Chris Webber?

[tsherkin]

Pollard has talked about how the team knew what just happened as they walked off the floor in game six. It was clear to them. He said it had major psychological impact going into game seven. They knew it was Shaq/Kobe/Phil/3 refs and the league against them. They knew they were screwed. No team has played under the conditions Sac did in that series. Judging them based on it is gross.

No, it's not gross. That's just nonsense. You're free to disagree with my assessment, but let's not level pejoratives diminishing the opposing position, yes?

If you think *2002 was on the up and up there’s no reason for me to continue. It was obvious in real time.

You have your opinion, I've mine. *shrugs*

[Bidofo]

There was not a single Kings fan in the 99 to early aughts period that thought Webber was not the leader of that team. It was far and wide considered the case without question.

Right, I never contended otherwise. He was the "star" and leader in that he was the most recognizable, took the most shots, and had the prettiest game. But that's not an exact correlation to goodness.

Peja coming into his own at the physical prime of his career at that point skews the numbers in favor of Miller. Miller had a fringe MVP candidate in Peja, that matters a lot. Plus, that whole team had more time together under the same coach and system. These things all add up.

It's true that Peja had an outlier shooting year compared to the rest of his career, but his role in the offense also changed. 2004 was his career peak in minutes played, FGA, and USG%. He was assisted on his 2pFG more than ever before. The Kings offense as a whole went from +2.5 eFG% to +3.6 eFG%. They also went from 28th in FTAs to 9th (FT drawing being a notable weakness of Webbers). It would be quite a stroke of coincidence that Peja and the Kings just happened to peak right as Webber was injured and Miller got more time; I think the more likely conclusion is staring at you in the face but you may not want to see it.

Consistency goes a long way, but the results are too damning to flimsily credit the historic offense to that. Take a look at the Kings offensive evolution from Webber's inaugural season to the 2005 season:
+0.5 --> +0.9 --> +2.6 --> +4.5 --> +2.3 --(Miller now arrives and Webber is hurt)--> +7.4 --(Miller and Webber are both hurt, though Miller plays about 400 more minutes)--> +4.4
Teams don't just jump 5 points in rORTG because of being together for so long even when their supposed best player gets hurt...

I’m happy to concede Miller was a better jump shooter from the elbow to three. He wasn’t as dynamic a player overall though. He was a super high level replacement, not the cornerstone of the Greatest Show on Court. Give a healthy Webber that version of Peja… And shooting mid rangers was never what Webb was best at, again, he was doing what the team needed to win. He was fitting in with the Princeton and it was working beautifully. He was sacrificing elements of his game for the greater good of his teammates. He should be rewarded for that, not put down for it.

At this point it seems like we are just talking past one another. Yes I know the general NBA fandom and media labeled the early aughts Kings as the Greatest Show on Court, that doesn't take away from the fact that they were at their most potent in 2004 and just as potent in 2005. Webber generally had the same Peja, he was just taking more inefficient shots because...sacrifice or something. I am NOT saying Webber was bad or what he was doing didn't work, simply that Miller was BETTER at it. If you consider that an attack on Webber then you may have some personal, nostalgic biases in the way.

Surely you can understand why I think it is ridiculous to claim Webber was sacrificing for his teammates, when they shot better and had a much better offense without him, right?

As for Webber’s legacy and what tier he belongs in, if he is not screwed in the biggest screw job in the history of the sport what happens? He wins a title, beating the prime Kobe/Shaq/Phil Lakers (Nets were not a factor). Yeah, I think that massively changes the narrative of his career. I don’t see how it can be argued otherwise. Generally, I’m open to counter evidence but the odds of convincing me that outcome doesn’t dramatically change his legacy is damn near zero. He’d have a humongous accomplishment that would rival his competitors. Would he be considered the best amongst them? That’s not the argument.

Again, seems important to mention that Peja was out so that's a huge loss. And regular season matchups aren't the best indicators, but the Nets at least showed some capability in beating the Kings comfortably, something they didn't show with the Lakers. Ironically, the Nets lost to the Kings by 1 early in the season when Webber wasn't playing, and then whooped the Kings by 34 later in the season when Webber was playing. I only use these data points to say it's not a certainty that the Kings even beat the Nets in the finals, nothing more. If they do win the finals, then his reputation certainly gets a huge boost. It wouldn't change how good he actually was though, and in a conversation of GOODNESS, he still wouldn't belong in the Dirk/KG/Duncan tier.

[HeartBreakKid]

Everything I pointed out has proven the case in this thread.

Here it is as clear as possible: Webber was screwed out of his ring. Webber with a ring having beat the peak Shaq/Kobe/Phil Lakers is viewed incredibly differently and posters here would be having a totally different conversation.

In some respects Webber is a top tier tragic character in the history of basketball.

Ironically, you are saying rings make the difference yet your argument for him is based on a phantom ring. You are basically treating him like a champion and thus elevating his status - you're using the ring argument.

I think you might even be the only person who is using the ring argument in this thread.

[pillwenney]

Another post that glosses over his--by far--most valuable skill.

Not really?

His offensive impact went only so far. His mediocre scoring, mediocre to bad defense and solid rebounding don't really add up to much just because he was a sexy passer. Leastwise not compared to true high-end, ATG players. Webber was good; he merited an ASG a couple of times, sure. He was a marvelous passer. He slotted nicely into the Princeton offense until facing good defenses, where taxing him as a scorer was a major part of Sacramento's ultimate undoing, along with attacking him on D.

There's nothing being glossed over, it's just that being a good passer from the elbow means only so much when you shoot a lot and you're a weak volume scorer and an uninspiring defensive presence.

If it's not being discussed in the context of his offensive impact, I'd say it's being glossed over.

The team's undoing was very simply (ignoring any officiating-related stuff) free throw shooting. If they have a merely below average and not terrible free throw shooting game 7, then there is no undoing. They're seen as, I'd guess about average NBA champions.

Anyway, I'm not here to claim he's way higher than people have him ranked. I think it just tends to drive Kings fans like myself nuts when his scoring efficiency isn't contextualized in what was--in large part due to him--an elite offense specifically because of his passing. His passing (which again, had a dimmed apparent statistical impact because one of him or Vlade was always on the floor) allowed the team to run an offense in a way most of the other guys in these rankings simply couldn't have run it. Does that mean it's automatically better than a PF who scores more efficiently but isn't the same level as a passer? Could go either way depending on who we're talking about and extents and all of that. My main point is that it's apples and oranges. Merely pointing at Webber and going, "Look! His TS is lower!" is painting an incomplete picture.

[Tomtolbert]

Webber used his power and quickness to dominate the paint in college. He was so difficult to stop near the basket, and was a terror on the offensive glass. But with his relative physical advantages being less pronounced in the pros, he didn't have or develop a refined post game to fall back on.

Had he not been so physically mature as a freshman at Michigan, I wonder if he would have been forced to develop other aspects of his game that would have served him well down the road.

[SNPA]

Everything I pointed out has proven the case in this thread.

Here it is as clear as possible: Webber was screwed out of his ring. Webber with a ring having beat the peak Shaq/Kobe/Phil Lakers is viewed incredibly differently and posters here would be having a totally different conversation.

In some respects Webber is a top tier tragic character in the history of basketball.

Ironically, you are saying rings make the difference yet your argument for him is based on a phantom ring. You are basically treating him like a champion and thus elevating his status - you're using the ring argument.

I think you might even be the only person who is using the ring argument in this thread.

Sure, if you want to call it a ring argument go ahead.

It is nothing like the classic ring argument though. In this case a player had a massive, history, career and legacy altering accomplishment taken away illegitimately from him. It isn’t a typical my guy has 3 but your guy has 2 rings take. There is no parallel in Webber’s case. Fast forward and this theft is used against him in debates like this. I think that’s gross, weak and in poor form. I’m entitled to that view of that perspective as much as some else is entitled to that perspective.

The fact only one poster, non-Kings fan, has admitted in this thread that if all was straight up and he beats the prime Shaq/Kobe/Phil Lakers his legacy is greatly changed shows a lot IMO and is a big driver of my first post in this thread. Others are free to disagree.

[penbeast0]

IT would change his legacy; not that significantly if he makes it to the finals and loses, but more significantly if he wins a title. One of the knocks on Webber, going back to college, is that he committed stupid stunts in key late game moments under pressure . . . choking if you will. A title would be at least a partial answer to that claim if he played well in the finals and didn't actually choke away another opportunity.

He still would be a tier or two below the best; the playstyle and statistical weaknesses in his game would still be real. But the choking argument would indeed be weakened.

[OhayoKD]

Everything I pointed out has proven the case in this thread.

Here it is as clear as possible: Webber was screwed out of his ring. Webber with a ring having beat the peak Shaq/Kobe/Phil Lakers is viewed incredibly differently and posters here would be having a totally different conversation.

In some respects Webber is a top tier tragic character in the history of basketball.

Ironically, you are saying rings make the difference yet your argument for him is based on a phantom ring. You are basically treating him like a champion and thus elevating his status - you're using the ring argument.

I think you might even be the only person who is using the ring argument in this thread.

Sure, if you want to call it a ring argument go ahead.

It is nothing like the classic ring argument though. In this case a player had a massive, history, career and legacy altering accomplishment taken away illegitimately from him. It isn’t a typical my guy has 3 but your guy has 2 rings take. There is no parallel in Webber’s case. Fast forward and this theft is used against him in debates like this. I think that’s gross, weak and in poor form. I’m entitled to that view of that perspective as much as some else is entitled to that perspective.

The fact only one poster, non-Kings fan, has admitted in this thread that if all was straight up and he beats the prime Shaq/Kobe/Phil Lakers his legacy is greatly changed shows a lot IMO and is a big driver of my first post in this thread. Others are free to disagree.

Since your entire case is predicated on the idea that the refs rigged things against the kings, why don't we start with some proof for that. Do you have a list of incorrect calls for both teams handy?

[tsherkin]

If it's not being discussed in the context of his offensive impact, I'd say it's being glossed over.

I can't say I agree with that. Everyone knows he was a very good passer in a system which maximized that skill set. It's been mentioned, it just (at least for those critiquing Webber) doesn't matter as much as his inefficient scoring and lack of post/foul pressure, and his mediocre defense.

The team's undoing was very simply (ignoring any officiating-related stuff) free throw shooting. If they have a merely below average and not terrible free throw shooting game 7, then there is no undoing. They're seen as, I'd guess about average NBA champions.

That was definitely a huge problem, for sure.

Anyway, I'm not here to claim he's way higher than people have him ranked. I think it just tends to drive Kings fans like myself nuts when his scoring efficiency isn't contextualized in what was--in large part due to him--an elite offense specifically because of his passing.

There's a limit to how much equivocation can go into something like that. Webber's scoring efficiency was a problem and a limitation. That didn't stop him from contributing to a broader offense that was beautiful to watch and quite successful, title considerations aside. They ran into the Lakers; that's like running into the Bulls in the 90s, or the Celtics/Lakers in the 80s. It's permissible not to defeat such a team, and the Kings even came close. If Peja had been healthy for the Lakers series, we'd have almost assuredly seen a different outcome. He was absent for like half the series and limited when he returned, and it was still close. That, more than anything, shot them in the foot.

Merely pointing at Webber and going, "Look! His TS is lower!" is painting an incomplete picture.

I mean, eh. He was their primary volume scorer. He wasn't good at it relative to his peers. Maybe you don't like the portability argument, and it surely isn't the be-all, end-all, but if he had been a better scorer, it would have opened more doors. Also, given the success they had at plugging in Brad Miller, I think it's possible to overstate the impact of his passing to at least a small extent (acknowledging that Miller wasn't the only change, as others have discussed earlier ITT).

[Owly]

IT would change his legacy; not that significantly if he makes it to the finals and loses, but more significantly if he wins a title. One of the knocks on Webber, going back to college, is that he committed stupid stunts in key late game moments under pressure . . . choking if you will. A title would be at least a partial answer to that claim if he played well in the finals and didn't actually choke away another opportunity.

He still would be a tier or two below the best; the playstyle and statistical weaknesses in his game would still be real. But the choking argument would indeed be weakened.

I will mostly agree here.

I would agree that his legacy (understood here to mean something like popular standing) would be elevated.

I would want to add further context as to whether any actual (good) arguments about his standard of play need be weakened. If he plays the same as he did that playoff and all that's changed is refs calls then there's nothing that should really change.

A slightly greater sample in one of his better playoffs probably helps at the margins.

If the take was as simplistic and narrative driven as just "choker" then a narrative change helps the narrative argument. If it's something more complex then things get more complex. You discuss the specific example of him "playing well" and that version adds something at the margins but I don't think they need him to play well to win and I don't think per above a continuation of what he was need change much in how we understand him. What him "playing well" is understood as may vary, but regardless it is not a given and so his doing that would not be part of my baseline assumptions.

It's not like they need him to hold to his average that playoff in order to beat the Nets. Games 3 through 6 of his playoff run versus the Jazz and Mavericks see his average game BPM below 0 and the Kings win 3 of 4 and are +17 over the games (average opponent a little weaker than the Nets based on SRS but not massively so).

Then too, and as ever caveat emptor on playoff on-off especially in single seasons, whilst the other 3 consistent starters correlate with better point margins, Webber being on the floor coincided with them being slightly worse than on average (Christie the clear positive outlier, Divac and Bibby more normal). So continuing at present trajectory would have made Webber as some "carrying" or even "driving force" would have been an uphill battle versus what the numbers suggest.


So I don't think the general lines of argument here in this thread is primarily pertaining to "legacy". A title as the top scorer, high draft pick, "star" will help that. But in terms of serious analysis of who he was and how good he was as a player, there's little evidence given here that shifting referee calls should change how we perceive Webber as a player.

[Cavsfansince84]

I will mostly agree here.

I would agree that his legacy (understood here to mean something like popular standing) would be elevated.

I would want to add further context as to whether any actual (good) arguments about his standard of play need be weakened. If he plays the same as he did that playoff and all that's changed is refs calls then there's nothing that should really change.

A slightly greater sample in one of his better playoffs probably helps at the margins.

If the take was as simplistic and narrative driven as just "choker" then a narrative change helps the narrative argument. If it's something more complex then things get more complex. You discuss the specific example of him "playing well" and that version adds something at the margins but I don't think they need him to play well to win and I don't think per above a continuation of what he was need change much in how we understand him. What him "playing well" is understood as may vary, but regardless it is not a given and so his doing that would not be part of my baseline assumptions.

It's not like they need him to hold to his average that playoff in order to beat the Nets. Games 3 through 6 of his playoff run versus the Jazz and Mavericks see his average game BPM below 0 and the Kings win 3 of 4 and are +17 over the games (average opponent a little weaker than the Nets based on SRS but not massively so).

I agree with you and I think how he played in those 02 finals is also a big factor that has to be considered. If he averages 27/12 while winning fmvp its a big difference from if he goes for 22/10 and isn't all that great but maybe still gets fmvp in terms of how we remember him. So in a hypothetical case of 'the Kings hit their ft's and pull out game 7 then win the title' I would lean towards Webber having a decent but not great finals. Which when discussed in things like a top 100 project helps him but I don't think we'd be jumping him up like 30 spots based on that. I wouldn't be at least because I still see significant weaknesses in how his career played out. I'd probably have him in the 90-100 range.