SNPA wrote: Owly wrote:
SNPA wrote:The argument about how good the Kings were when Webb got hurt is silly. He was replaced by an all star with similar offensive skills in Miller. An all star, the lack of drop off needs context.
relevant context. As is:
1) Miller is around for precisely 1 of the seasons cited (albeit in the one with Webber's largest absence).
2) Miller's mpg after Webber's return is 32mpg. Versus 36.4 overall on the season. Miller took a handful of extra minutes with Webber out, but he'd play a lot anyhow. Others gained the bulk of "Webber's" minutes (at first glance Tony Masenburg seemingly taking the largest share).
3) People bullish on him aren't advocating for Webber to be "roughly in the ballpark around where Brad Miller is".
4) In a strictly Miller-era conversation "lack of drop off" is incorrect. There was a significant drop off. When Webber played. Of course the mitigating circumstances of injury and Miller as one player who can take some extra minutes or may sub for him but nonetheless it's Webber's furthest on-off from 0 in his Sacramento and it's a negative one.
Not all minutes are of equal value. Miller moved into the starting lineup and took over Webberâ€™s role, others backfilled Millerâ€™s role.
Not sure what the not all minutes are equal thing means (to my understanding all minutes are counted the same on the scoreboard - unless this is to suggest Massenburg, and with Webber available, Miller, would play mostly just garbage time?).
I think the implication seems to be that Miller was stepping into a role where it was easy to seem important (an all-star even, from a player fit for this lesser, unimportant bench role)? I really don't know.
Regardless, as before highlighting Miller and not Massenburg et al is misleading.