RealGM

Who wins?

Lakers win easier than they ended up doing. That Kings roster was deep but ably led by their star, Chris Webber. Pau Gasol was not a star or a true 1st option like Webber. He was more akin to Peja, in terms of being a #2 or #3.... and I'd have preferred prime Peja for my Lakers between the two for the spacing, just my personal preference. Anyway, the reason I bring up the Peja comparison is you can't have a team with 2x Paus or Pejas take on Shaq and Kobe and win. It's very simplistic of me to put it like that, but am I wrong?

Also, I shudder to think of what 2001-02 Shaq would've done to Pau and Vlade. Look at what he was doing to Duncan and Robinson.

LAL1947 wrote:Lakers win a lot easier. That Kings roster was deep but ably led by their star, Chris Webber. Pau Gasol was not a star or a true 1st option like Webber. He was more akin to Peja, in terms of being a #2 or #3.... and I'd have preferred prime Peja for my Lakers between the two. Anyway, the reason I bring up the Peja comparison is you can't have a team with 2x Paus or Pejas take on Shaq and Kobe and win. It's very simplistic of me to put it like that, but am I wrong?

Pau's reputation is definitely helped by favorable circumstances in Los Angeles. Kobe was an ATG passer to Bigs and the triangle offense really suited Pau's strengths. Good court vision for a big, strong post skills and minimized his weaknesses, non-elite athleticism. So yea, I agree with you Pau isn't a true number 1. But I don't think Webber was either.

Webber was willing to shoot more so his volume scoring was always higher but he was always inefficient. Even when you look at Memphis Gasol his efficiency really dwarfs Webber. In point of fact I consider Pau's Memphis career to be more impressive than Webber's pre Sacramento career.

So in both cases Sacramento still has a pseduo #1. The question than turns on whether Pau maintains similar effectiveness in the Princeton offense.

LAL1947 wrote:
Also, I shudder to think of what 2001-02 Shaq would've done to Pau and Vlade. Look at what he was doing to Duncan and Robinson.

He kicked the crap out of the Twin Towers in 01. No Question. But 2002 Robinson only played in 3 games (25 mpg) in the series) He was injured as hell. It was also easily the worst series Shaq had from 00-02.

sp6r=underrated wrote:

LAL1947 wrote:Lakers win a lot easier. That Kings roster was deep but ably led by their star, Chris Webber. Pau Gasol was not a star or a true 1st option like Webber. He was more akin to Peja, in terms of being a #2 or #3.... and I'd have preferred prime Peja for my Lakers between the two. Anyway, the reason I bring up the Peja comparison is you can't have a team with 2x Paus or Pejas take on Shaq and Kobe and win. It's very simplistic of me to put it like that, but am I wrong?

Pau's reputation is definitely helped by favorable circumstances in Los Angeles. Kobe was an ATG passer to Bigs and the triangle offense really suited Pau's strengths. Good court vision for a big, strong post skills and minimized his weaknesses, non-elite athleticism. So yea, I agree with you Pau isn't a true number 1. But I don't think Webber was either.

Webber was willing to shoot more so his volume scoring was always higher but he was always inefficient. Even when you look at Memphis Gasol his efficiency really dwarfs Webber. In point of fact I consider Pau's Memphis career to be more impressive than Webber's pre Sacramento career.

So in both cases Sacramento still has a pseduo #1. The question than turns on whether Pau maintains similar effectiveness in the Princeton offense.

You bring up some good points. Just some things to consider:

1) I guess it's easier to look back at this point in time and consider Webber a #2 now... but he was a star player back then. How many other #1s were there in the league at the time and playing as #1s, that he could realistically be expected to take a back seat to in 2001-02? There weren't many. He would've been a superb #2 though, that I don't disagree with. In fact, I briefly dreamed about Webber joining the Lakers when Shaq sabotaged our team. That would've been cool.

2) Willingness to shoot and inefficiency shouldn't be mixed up with the ability to create for himself and/or be the "go-to guy" on a team. When things go south or aren't going to plan, who does this hypothetical team go to in order to make things happen... Pau, Peja, Bibby, Christie, Vlade? Chris Webber had the ability to be a consistent "go-to guy". You were also right about Shaq's drop-off starting in 2001-02 too in that other post, but the Kings only didn't win that year because Kobe-Shaq were still rolling.

If you look at Pau's playoff numbers at Memphis...

2003-04: 33.3 MPG, 12.3 FGA, 57.1 FG%
2004-05: 33.5 MPG, 20.0 FGA, 48.8 FG%
2005-06: 39.5 MPG, 16.8 FGA, 43.4 FG%

With some leeway to my interpretation granted for match ups, these basic stats say that Pau's efficiency as a #1 went down as he first took more shots and second played more minutes.

Contrast that with Chris Webber's playoff run that year:
2001-02: 41.7 MPG, 19.9 FGA, 50.2 FG%

If Pau is taking less shots so he can be more efficient, who is going to take those shots instead?

3) It's been a long time but I remember Webber being a better/stronger defender too. Pau's defensive stats take a huge jump when he joined the Lakers and was covered by Artest, Odom, Kobe, Bynum, etc... but they weren't great before and after 2007-08 to 2009-10.

4) Effectiveness in the Princeton system: this is where I bow out, so people with more knowledge on the game can say their piece.

LAL1947 wrote:You bring up some good points. Just some things to consider:

1) I guess it's easier to look back at this point in time and consider Webber a #2 now... but he was a star player back then.

I agree Webber is perceived differently than Gasol was. But I think it was primarily (i) Webber being an American NCAA star who had really dramatic NCAA career while Gasol was a foreigner; and (ii) Webber having a great, and now underappreciated rookie campaign while Gasol emerged under Hubie Brown who always loved playing very deep benches.

Gasol spent 6 years in Memphis. I'm not counting the 7th year when he was traded mid-season. Compare that to Webber's first 6 seasons, with only the last occurring in Sacramento.

Each were ROY. Each made 1 all star team. Webber made an All-NBA 2nd team in his 6th year. Both made the playoffs 3 times with very little notable about either team's squads. Adjusted for pace their basic stat lines are almost identical. 28/13/5 vs 27/14/6.

How many other #1s were there in the league at the time and playing as #1s, that he could realistically be expected to take a back seat to in 2001-02? There weren't many. He would've been a superb #2 though, that I don't disagree with. In fact, I briefly dreamed about Webber joining the Lakers when Shaq sabotaged our team. That would've been cool.

True #1 options are extremely valuable but a big mistake NBA teams make is forcing their best options into that role. Webber hits me as a case of very artifical number 1. The only years he got his non-pace adjusted ppg number up to high levels (24ppg) required him over using that jumper of his which was never great.

So I wouldn't Webber or Gasol trying to take on the #1 role. Instead I think Sacramento would have been better if he passed slightly more with the rest of those shots distributed to teammates.

2) Willingness to shoot and inefficiency shouldn't be mixed up with the ability to create for himself and/or be the "go-to guy" on a team. When things go south or aren't going to plan, who does this hypothetical team go to in order to make things happen... Pau, Peja, Bibby, Christie, Vlade? Chris Webber had the ability to be a consistent "go-to guy".

I cover most of this above

Webber's made shot creation move was unleashing that jumper of his which was always iffy. The only stretch he scored at a #1 level was that early 00s Sacramento years. He did it mainly by shooting more long 2s, this is usually an iffy shot, and in Webber's case it was. I wouldn't want Gasol shooting a lot of em either but he actually hit em at a similar clip.

You were also right about Shaq's drop-off starting in 2001-02 too in that other post, but the Kings only didn't win that year because Kobe-Shaq were still rolling.

If you look at Pau's playoff numbers at Memphis...

2003-04: 33.3 MPG, 12.3 FGA, 57.1 FG%
2004-05: 33.5 MPG, 20.0 FGA, 48.8 FG%
2005-06: 39.5 MPG, 16.8 FGA, 43.4 FG%

With some leeway to my interpretation granted for match ups, these basic stats say that Pau's efficiency as a #1 went down as he first took more shots and second played more minutes.

Contrast that with Chris Webber's playoff run that year:
2001-02: 41.7 MPG, 19.9 FGA, 50.2 FG%

If Pau is taking less shots so he can be more efficient, who is going to take those shots instead?

I mostly cover this above. But the plan would be have Gasol replace Webber and have the extra shots Webber took distributed among teammates. I think it could work. Though not sure which is why I opened this up.

FT% by series is totally noise so I would never use that to pick a winner in a comparison but good god Webber and the Kings shot themselves in the foot with their FT shooting in that classic series. I forgot he shot 46% from the line that series. Like everyone I remember Sacramento G7 yips at the line but I forgot it was a series long problem. If I was a Sac fan I'd be as angry as that as I would be about 4Q,G6.

3) It's been a long time but I remember Webber being a better/stronger defender too. Pau's defensive stats take a huge jump when he joined the Lakers and was covered by Artest, Odom, Kobe, Bynum, etc... but they weren't great before and after 2007-08 to 2009-10.

FWIW, I consider them very similar defensively. Neither was anything close to an anchor for a big. Both had some real weaknesses that had to be hidden. Webber tended to concede deep post space and then try to recover with athleticism. Gasol similarly tried to use his length to get away with under activity.

But despite that both were genuinely positives on that end, despite what their critics claim. They generally followed team schemes well and could play their defined roles well.

You can certainly make the case for Pau having a better peak than Webber, but i don’t think it’s by enough to change the outcome of that series.

If Pau was actually better at all than Webber (I'm biased but don't think he was), the difference would be negligible. Moreover, as others said, Webber was a more willing first option. Along with this, while Pau is one of the best passing bigs ever, IMO Webber is still clearly a better passer, which is obviously crucial with the Princeton. I'd say Pau is probably a better shooter, which is relevant, and better in general working off the ball, which is...kinda relevant, at least when things were running through Vlade.

One other thing to consider is that that team had all-time elite chemistry. Pau is certainly no chemistry-killer, but this was the kind that's definitely a product of just the right mix of players coming together. Any replacement of anyone is something to be wary of for this reason.

Over all, the series was so close that Vlade having something different for breakfast on a given day could have swayed things one way or another. So replacing one player with a similarly talented player could make a difference, but on average, if you play that series 100 times with Webber and 100 times with Pau, I'd guess it's at best similar.

Get worse.

LAL1947 wrote:
If you look at Pau's playoff numbers at Memphis...

2003-04: 33.3 MPG, 12.3 FGA, 57.1 FG%
2004-05: 33.5 MPG, 20.0 FGA, 48.8 FG%
2005-06: 39.5 MPG, 16.8 FGA, 43.4 FG%

With some leeway to my interpretation granted for match ups, these basic stats say that Pau's efficiency as a #1 went down as he first took more shots and second played more minutes.

Contrast that with Chris Webber's playoff run that year:
2001-02: 41.7 MPG, 19.9 FGA, 50.2 FG%

If Pau is taking less shots so he can be more efficient, who is going to take those shots instead?

3) It's been a long time but I remember Webber being a better/stronger defender too. Pau's defensive stats take a huge jump when he joined the Lakers and was covered by Artest, Odom, Kobe, Bynum, etc... but they weren't great before and after 2007-08 to 2009-10.

4) Effectiveness in the Princeton system: this is where I bow out, so people with more knowledge on the game can say their piece.

The effectiveness numbers you quote are a bit misleading because Webber was both poor at drawing fouls and poor at shooting them. So, his 2002 playoff efficiency is still only a .523ts% despite his .502 fg%. Whereas over the 3 years you mention, Gasol's efficiency averaged .537 ts% (one very good year making up for 2 weak ones). So, even using this measure, Gasol was the more effective scorer.