RealGM

i rarely see webber discussed here, and he didn't make the last top 100 list. i get the impression in the mainstream that he's considered a bona fide hof player who was somewhat overshadowed by duncan/kg/dirk, and some of the older top 100 lists seem to reflect that (he is on all of this board's older lists, peaking at 68th).

how does webber hold up against other power forwards that aren't on the duncan tier?

I have Elton Brand as having a slightly superior prime [I compared best 6 years, you can extend Webber to 7 but it gets very inefficient and he misses a ton of games]. I also have Brand for Peak, his 2006 season is really good. You watch him, squint, and think maybe he is a Duncan/Amar'e combination. You start to dig into the advanced metrics and +/- family stuff and man, it doesn't look too good for Webber here. Find a couple articles, listen to a podcast or two which expands on just how good those Kings teams were without Webber [They were really] good, and it looks bleak for Chris Webber even compared to Elton Brand.

Blake Griffin--both uber-hyped players when entering the NBA, injuries couldn't stay away from either, seems like a good comparison.

The issues I have(as well as others most likely) with Webber is injuries/missed games throughout his career and by the time his skill set filled out he had lost a lot of his athleticism and was relying too much on his jumper. So he's not a great choice as a #1 scorer on a title contender, not really great on defense and a lot of his team success comes from playing on extremely deep teams. His efficiency also sort of nose dives in the playoffs.

This conversation is always so far off. For three main reasons (already playing out in this thread), first is Webber got screwed out of his ring. If he has his rightful ring the Elton Brand comparison stuff goes away (as it should) and he is talked about the top tier of PF’s of his era. The second part he was to reliant on the jumper and thus wasn’t as efficient. People don’t understand the Princeton the Kings ran. Webber was sacrificing for the team. He was doing exactly what he was requested to do and from a team standpoint it work. The third is how well Sac played without him…this generally ignores the fact that his replacement was an all star level player with a overlapping skillset.

Until a conversation fully engages with these facts it’s just standard Webber bashing and is boring.

Add in his immaturity (particularly in Washington), his history of choke worthy moments in the clutch (probably overstated a bit), and his dislike of physical contact in the post leading to his weaknesses in man defense and foul drawing despite his great physical skills and this starts making sense despite his first glance wonderful athleticism, passing, finishing skills, and how he appears quite intelligent and articulate when he appears on NBA TV.

Very disappointed how his career turned out. And this is one of the rare if only instances I could ever say this about someone that made the HOF.

He was seen by many as the future GOAT PF coming into the NBA and was supposed to take the torch from both Barkley and Malone. He had all the physical tools and skillset to do so.

Tried to see himself as the 6'10" version of his hero Magic Johnson instead of being a real go to guy that his teams could count on when needed in the playoffs.

Not a all time top 10 PF.....but should've retired as a top 3 PF ever. His game 7 disappearance act vs the Lakers in 02 still gives me migraines to this day.

I'm still punching my tv screen to this day anytime that game 7 appears like I was 20 years ago......probably THE most haunting loss I've ever witnessed in sports history. Just like much of his NBA career....he didn't want accountability.

SNPA wrote:This conversation is always so far off. For three main reasons (already playing out in this thread), first is Webber got screwed out of his ring. If he has his rightful ring the Elton Brand comparison stuff goes away (as it should) and he is talked about the top tier of PF’s of his era.

But it's not like Brand won a ring or anything. So doesn't that mean the comparison between the two is purely merit-based and directly tied to their goodness as opposed to the goodness of their entire team? Or would you rather a championship cloud the analysis with winning bias? Also is it really a given that the Kings would beat the Nets that year? It'd be one thing if the reffing nonsense happened in the Finals, but it didn't.

SNPA wrote: The second part he was to reliant on the jumper and thus wasn’t as efficient. People don’t understand the Princeton the Kings ran. Webber was sacrificing for the team. He was doing exactly what he was requested to do and from a team standpoint it work.

I would like for you to articulate how exactly Webber was sacrificing his stats for the betterment of the team, simply saying that he did isn't quite sufficient for me. On a quick glance, he did reduce his shot attempts from his 2001 FGA-peak, and the Kings offense was better for it, so there's that (though that should make one question if he should have continued that trend...). Generally though, it didn't really seem to matter whether Webber was playing or not.

2001 - 2005 Kings
With Webber on: 10027 min, 107.6 ORTG, +5.96 Net
With Webber off: 9833 min, 108.1 ORTG, +5.47 Net

Not really moving the needle. I'm not exactly sure how to get his WOWY data, which could be pretty telling since he missed a lot of games to injury in this span. I can at least look at the 2005 Kings season pre and post trade though. Important to keep in mind he's 31 and falling out of his prime + all the injuries took their toll, but ofc he's still taking 19.9 FGA and sporting a team high 30 USG%. The Kings also didn't get back much for Webber.

2005 Kings
Pre-Webber Trade: 110.5 ORTG, +2.9 Net
Post-Webber Trade: 112.2 ORTG, +1.2 Net

Defense actually falls off a good amount, but the offense improves. Again, not much to indicate "sacrifice for the betterment of the team." The Sixers actually improve by 1 ORTG upon Webber's arrival, but that tracks well: the team with actual capable and better options were better without him and the team getting carried by AI gets better (marginally) with him.

SNPA wrote: The third is how well Sac played without him…this generally ignores the fact that his replacement was an all star level player with a overlapping skillset.

Well you can't really proclaim Webber as one of the great but forgotten legends because of the oh-so crooked refs in one sentence and then (rightfully) point out he wasn't even outplaying his backup who's a LOT more forgotten in the annals of NBA history. There is more evidence to suggest Miller was better for that team than Webber than the other way around.

2001 - 2005 Kings
With Webber on, Miller off: 8349 min, 107.4 ORTG, +6.42 Net
With Miller on, Webber off: 3041 min, 113.6 ORTG, +9.63 Net

There's a bit of a minute disparity, but the disparity in results is even larger. Keep in mind the best offense in Kings history and one of the best all time (+7.4 in 2004) happened with Webber playing 23 games and Miller playing 72. The next year Webber only plays 46, Miller only 56, and they have an offense that matches Webber's peak offense in Sacramento (2002 when he only played 54 games), and easily beats every other year he was there, including more healthy years.

Idk. Other than his neat passing skills and other aesthetic stuff, he never really showed off as high impact. I am missing playoffs analysis, though my recollection of his time there was he'd come back from injury, take way too many inefficient shots, and kinda stunk up the place. Adelman trusted him too much imo and should have went to Miller more. Feel free to correct me here.

SNPA wrote:Until a conversation fully engages with these facts it’s just standard Webber bashing and is boring.

My opinion definitely is not a new one, there are some Miller champions on this board for sure. The stats in this post are probably what people are referring to when they diminish his impact. Hope it wasn't too boring

Bidofo wrote:

SNPA wrote:This conversation is always so far off. For three main reasons (already playing out in this thread), first is Webber got screwed out of his ring. If he has his rightful ring the Elton Brand comparison stuff goes away (as it should) and he is talked about the top tier of PF’s of his era.

But it's not like Brand won a ring or anything. So doesn't that mean the comparison between the two is purely merit-based and directly tied to their goodness as opposed to the goodness of their entire team? Or would you rather a championship cloud the analysis with winning bias? Also is it really a given that the Kings would beat the Nets that year? It'd be one thing if the reffing nonsense happened in the Finals, but it didn't.

SNPA wrote: The second part he was to reliant on the jumper and thus wasn’t as efficient. People don’t understand the Princeton the Kings ran. Webber was sacrificing for the team. He was doing exactly what he was requested to do and from a team standpoint it work.

I would like for you to articulate how exactly Webber was sacrificing his stats for the betterment of the team, simply saying that he did isn't quite sufficient for me. On a quick glance, he did reduce his shot attempts from his 2001 FGA-peak, and the Kings offense was better for it, so there's that (though that should make one question if he should have continued that trend...). Generally though, it didn't really seem to matter whether Webber was playing or not.

2001 - 2005 Kings
With Webber on: 10027 min, 107.6 ORTG, +5.96 Net
With Webber off: 9833 min, 108.1 ORTG, +5.47 Net

Not really moving the needle. I'm not exactly sure how to get his WOWY data, which could be pretty telling since he missed a lot of games to injury in this span. I can at least look at the 2005 Kings season pre and post trade though. Important to keep in mind he's 31 and falling out of his prime + all the injuries took their toll, but ofc he's still taking 19.9 FGA and sporting a team high 30 USG%. The Kings also didn't get back much for Webber.

2005 Kings
Pre-Webber Trade: 110.5 ORTG, +2.9 Net
Post-Webber Trade: 112.2 ORTG, +1.2 Net

Defense actually falls off a good amount, but the offense improves. Again, not much to indicate "sacrifice for the betterment of the team." The Sixers actually improve by 1 ORTG upon Webber's arrival, but that tracks well: the team with actual capable and better options were better without him and the team getting carried by AI gets better (marginally) with him.

SNPA wrote: The third is how well Sac played without him…this generally ignores the fact that his replacement was an all star level player with a overlapping skillset.

Well you can't really proclaim Webber as one of the great but forgotten legends because of the oh-so crooked refs in one sentence and then (rightfully) point out he wasn't even outplaying his backup who's a LOT more forgotten in the annals of NBA history. There is more evidence to suggest Miller was better for that team than Webber than the other way around.

2001 - 2005 Kings
With Webber on, Miller off: 8349 min, 107.4 ORTG, +6.42 Net
With Miller on, Webber off: 3041 min, 113.6 ORTG, +9.63 Net

There's a bit of a minute disparity, but the disparity in results is even larger. Keep in mind the best offense in Kings history and one of the best all time (+7.4 in 2004) happened with Webber playing 23 games and Miller playing 72. The next year Webber only plays 46, Miller only 56, and they have an offense that matches Webber's peak offense in Sacramento (2002 when he only played 54 games), and easily beats every other year he was there, including more healthy years.

Idk. Other than his neat passing skills and other aesthetic stuff, he never really showed off as high impact. I am missing playoffs analysis, though my recollection of his time there was he'd come back from injury, take way too many inefficient shots, and kinda stunk up the place. Adelman trusted him too much imo and should have went to Miller more. Feel free to correct me here.

SNPA wrote:Until a conversation fully engages with these facts it’s just standard Webber bashing and is boring.

My opinion definitely is not a new one, there are some Miller champions on this board for sure. The stats in this post are probably what people are referring to when they diminish his impact. Hope it wasn't too boring

While detailed this misses and conflates several things. Webber got hurt in May 2003. Running comparisons of his impact going from 2001-2005 doesn’t really capture true Webb, post injury he was never the same, which explains your statement of why Sac didn’t get much back for him. Post injury he wasn’t worth much, guy was a shell and couldn’t move. There is also a Peja peaking element and timing to all of this not accounted for in your analysis.

As for Miller, guy was an all-star with overlapping skillset. Take out one all-star, replace them with a somewhat similar style all-star in an established system and what happens? The fact the Kings keep chugging along makes sense (especially adding the Peja factor). There is no surprise here or reason to use it against Webber. It’s a testament to the Kings system and depth, not a knock on Webber.

As for sacrificing, Webber was fitting into the Princeton. The Princeton wasn’t designed specifically for Webber. His best usage isn’t as a 15 ft jump shooter. But he had to play there to open up cutting lanes and he had to take that shot to keep bigs from sagging. He was doing what made the system work. He wasn’t maximizing himself in a system built around himself as the sole focal point a la James or something.

This isn’t a “rangz” GOAT ranking argument, but it is fairly clear in Webber conversations that he gets downgraded from the top tier of PF’s of his era, at least in part (large part IMO), because those other PF’s got a title. There’s a period where Webber, a PF, was the best player on the best team in a league full of HOF PF’s. If he isn’t robbed of his ring he is viewed differently IMO. And of course they would beat the Nets. Everyone at the time knew the WCF were the real Finals. The Nets had no chance either way, I don’t think I’ve ever seen anyone argue the Nets would have beat Sac.

So Webber took better shots in Washington? Not what I remember and I saw of lot of him there. I think that was just his game; he would pull up rather than finish through contact at times though if he had an open lane, he had excellent hands and hops and would show off highlight finishes. He was a very good player, he just never did what it took to turn into a great one despite having the tools to arguably do so.

Overrated in the 2000s due to volume box score production. Very much not a particularly worthwhile scorer after the injury, and really post Washington. Outstanding post passer. Solid rebounder. Unremarkable defender. Good but not great mid-range J for a 80s/early 00s big.

Doesnt have the accolades or other achievements to stand with the real top tier at his position, let alone overall. Might jave been a different story if he'd remained healthy and especially if he'd been tougher... but that wasnt how his career went down. Sacramento was very good with him on offense, of course, so it's not like he was garbage, but there is little mystery why he is rated low and rarely discussed, IMHO.

Below Kemp and Brand. His weak defense devalued him much as he was a good offensive player, not great. Ben Wallace and Rodman were more impactful. Think Jermaine O'Neal in Indiana was a better player with two way ability.

SNPA wrote:While detailed this misses and conflates several things. Webber got hurt in May 2003. Running comparisons of his impact going from 2001-2005 doesn’t really capture true Webb, post injury he was never the same, which explains your statement of why Sac didn’t get much back for him. Post injury he wasn’t worth much, guy was a shell and couldn’t move. There is also a Peja peaking element and timing to all of this not accounted for in your analysis.

Yeah probably the biggest hindrance to Webber's impact and legacy was his health. An average of 58 games per year from 2000 - 2004 isn't pretty, and it's not his fault but still something that counts against him. In any case we can look at a shortened sample while he was more healthy (including 2003 since he got hurt at the end anyway)

2001 - 2003 Kings
With Webber on: 7525 min, 107.7 ORTG, +7.75 Net
With Webber off: 4408 min, 104.7 ORTG, +5.47 Net

Much more flattering for Webber for sure, a +3 boost in ORTG is not insignificant, and he was bringing them up from about league average efficiency. It should be noted that Miller was not on the team during this span, and generally on/off tells more about a player relative to their sub than pure goodness. It'd be nice if there was some more data from Adelman's first two years in 99 and 00 but it's not on pbpstats.com. Basically, we can confirm that Webber was indeed a net positive player when compared to your more average replacement. This still doesn't really change my mind about Webber vs. Miller though.

As for Peja, box stats + composites would indicate he was roughly the same player those 3 years of healthy Webber, yet in 2004 during Webber's injury he vaults into the MVP conversation as the Kings put up the aforementioned historic +7.4 ORTG. Well what changed? Perhaps some age related improvement as he turned 26, but his volume also increased. Turns out giving the more efficient player more touches and shots is better for the offense. Again, the "sacrifice" concept would hold more water for me, if we saw at least some kind of reduction in offensive efficiency for the Kings, but the fact that they SOARED makes me very dubious.

SNPA wrote:As for Miller, guy was an all-star with overlapping skillset. Take out one all-star, replace them with a somewhat similar style all-star in an established system and what happens? The fact the Kings keep chugging along makes sense (especially adding the Peja factor). There is no surprise here or reason to use it against Webber. It’s a testament to the Kings system and depth, not a knock on Webber.

We are just going to disagree here I guess. It's not just that the Kings were "chugging along", they arguably got BETTER. Clearly they benefitted more from Peja taking supremacy over the offense and being more egalitarian in general. It's definitely not a good look if Webber can't even win his minutes better than his backup.

Basically my point is, if you want Webber to be in the conversation among the great PFs (even though he did it for like...3, 4 healthy years?), then you'd have to put Miller in that conversation too. And he's never in that conversation.

SNPA wrote:As for sacrificing, Webber was fitting into the Princeton. The Princeton wasn’t designed specifically for Webber. His best usage isn’t as a 15 ft jump shooter. But he had to play there to open up cutting lanes and he had to take that shot to keep bigs from sagging. He was doing what made the system work. He wasn’t maximizing himself in a system built around himself as the sole focal point a la James or something.

Again, I'm going to keep going back to 2004. +7.4 offense is no joke, and if you look at Miller's shot profile, it actually comes pretty close to what Webber did. In 04+05, he took 9.6% of his shots from 10-16ft and 33.7% from 16-3p. These values are 12.8% and 36.8% for Webber from 01-03. Except Miller shot WAY better from 16-3p (and the occasional 3). Frankly, it seems like Miller was just better than Webber at what Webber does best.

SNPA wrote:This isn’t a “rangz” GOAT ranking argument, but it is fairly clear in Webber conversations that he gets downgraded from the top tier of PF’s of his era, at least in part (large part IMO), because those other PF’s got a title. There’s a period where Webber, a PF, was the best player on the best team in a league full of HOF PF’s. If he isn’t robbed of his ring he is viewed differently IMO. And of course they would beat the Nets. Everyone at the time knew the WCF were the real Finals. The Nets had no chance either way, I don’t think I’ve ever seen anyone argue the Nets would have beat Sac.

Oh come on. You don't seriously think Webber belongs in the conversation with KG, Dirk, and Duncan do you? Because he is at least a couple tiers below. Again, Webber doesn't even decisively best Brand in a 1v1 comparison and he has no such ring to boost him. Even if Webber was the best player on the team, it's incredibly close considering it was such a balanced team and he had his own injury woes. If you think a team achievement is what's separating Webber from being discussed in that tier...I'd just say box scores can belie impact.

And no I didn't say the Nets would beat the Kings, but it's certainly possible. Kidd + Martin is a pretty good matchup vs Bibby + Webber, and Peja was hobbled from the series prior. Not really as foregone as you may want to think.

Bidofo wrote:

SNPA wrote:While detailed this misses and conflates several things. Webber got hurt in May 2003. Running comparisons of his impact going from 2001-2005 doesn’t really capture true Webb, post injury he was never the same, which explains your statement of why Sac didn’t get much back for him. Post injury he wasn’t worth much, guy was a shell and couldn’t move. There is also a Peja peaking element and timing to all of this not accounted for in your analysis.

Yeah probably the biggest hindrance to Webber's impact and legacy was his health. An average of 58 games per year from 2000 - 2004 isn't pretty, and it's not his fault but still something that counts against him. In any case we can look at a shortened sample while he was more healthy (including 2003 since he got hurt at the end anyway)

2001 - 2003 Kings
With Webber on: 7525 min, 107.7 ORTG, +7.75 Net
With Webber off: 4408 min, 104.7 ORTG, +5.47 Net

Much more flattering for Webber for sure, a +3 boost in ORTG is not insignificant, and he was bringing them up from about league average efficiency. It should be noted that Miller was not on the team during this span, and generally on/off tells more about a player relative to their sub than pure goodness. It'd be nice if there was some more data from Adelman's first two years in 99 and 00 but it's not on pbpstats.com. Basically, we can confirm that Webber was indeed a net positive player when compared to your more average replacement. This still doesn't really change my mind about Webber vs. Miller though.

As for Peja, box stats + composites would indicate he was roughly the same player those 3 years of healthy Webber, yet in 2004 during Webber's injury he vaults into the MVP conversation as the Kings put up the aforementioned historic +7.4 ORTG. Well what changed? Perhaps some age related improvement as he turned 26, but his volume also increased. Turns out giving the more efficient player more touches and shots is better for the offense. Again, the "sacrifice" concept would hold more water for me, if we saw at least some kind of reduction in offensive efficiency for the Kings, but the fact that they SOARED makes me very dubious.

SNPA wrote:As for Miller, guy was an all-star with overlapping skillset. Take out one all-star, replace them with a somewhat similar style all-star in an established system and what happens? The fact the Kings keep chugging along makes sense (especially adding the Peja factor). There is no surprise here or reason to use it against Webber. It’s a testament to the Kings system and depth, not a knock on Webber.

We are just going to disagree here I guess. It's not just that the Kings were "chugging along", they arguably got BETTER. Clearly they benefitted more from Peja taking supremacy over the offense and being more egalitarian in general. It's definitely not a good look if Webber can't even win his minutes better than his backup.

Basically my point is, if you want Webber to be in the conversation among the great PFs (even though he did it for like...3, 4 healthy years?), then you'd have to put Miller in that conversation too. And he's never in that conversation.

SNPA wrote:As for sacrificing, Webber was fitting into the Princeton. The Princeton wasn’t designed specifically for Webber. His best usage isn’t as a 15 ft jump shooter. But he had to play there to open up cutting lanes and he had to take that shot to keep bigs from sagging. He was doing what made the system work. He wasn’t maximizing himself in a system built around himself as the sole focal point a la James or something.

Again, I'm going to keep going back to 2004. +7.4 offense is no joke, and if you look at Miller's shot profile, it actually comes pretty close to what Webber did. In 04+05, he took 9.6% of his shots from 10-16ft and 33.7% from 16-3p. These values are 12.8% and 36.8% for Webber from 01-03. Except Miller shot WAY better from 16-3p (and the occasional 3). Frankly, it seems like Miller was just better than Webber at what Webber does best.

SNPA wrote:This isn’t a “rangz” GOAT ranking argument, but it is fairly clear in Webber conversations that he gets downgraded from the top tier of PF’s of his era, at least in part (large part IMO), because those other PF’s got a title. There’s a period where Webber, a PF, was the best player on the best team in a league full of HOF PF’s. If he isn’t robbed of his ring he is viewed differently IMO. And of course they would beat the Nets. Everyone at the time knew the WCF were the real Finals. The Nets had no chance either way, I don’t think I’ve ever seen anyone argue the Nets would have beat Sac.

Oh come on. You don't seriously think Webber belongs in the conversation with KG, Dirk, and Duncan do you? Because he is at least a couple tiers below. Again, Webber doesn't even decisively best Brand in a 1v1 comparison and he has no such ring to boost him. Even if Webber was the best player on the team, it's incredibly close considering it was such a balanced team and he had his own injury woes. If you think a team achievement is what's separating Webber from being discussed in that tier...I'd just say box scores can belie impact.

And no I didn't say the Nets would beat the Kings, but it's certainly possible. Kidd + Martin is a pretty good matchup vs Bibby + Webber, and Peja was hobbled from the series prior. Not really as foregone as you may want to think.

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.

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. 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.

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.

Webber was a mystery to me because here goes this guy who's basically Baby Shaq, as far as the cat-like reflexes and size, but for some reason doesn't want to play physical in the post. I don't want to play center, boo-hoo.

SHAQ32 wrote:Webber was a mystery to me because here goes this guy who's basically Baby Shaq, as far as the cat-like reflexes and size, but for some reason doesn't want to play physical in the post. I don't want to play center, boo-hoo.

Had he had stayed I n GS and been Center that team would've been a contender for years.

migya wrote:

SHAQ32 wrote:Webber was a mystery to me because here goes this guy who's basically Baby Shaq, as far as the cat-like reflexes and size, but for some reason doesn't want to play physical in the post. I don't want to play center, boo-hoo.

Had he had stayed I n GS and been Center that team would've been a contender for years.

And imagine Hardaway and Marčiulionis don't get injured. That team would be loaded.

SHAQ32 wrote:

migya wrote:

SHAQ32 wrote:Webber was a mystery to me because here goes this guy who's basically Baby Shaq, as far as the cat-like reflexes and size, but for some reason doesn't want to play physical in the post. I don't want to play center, boo-hoo.

Had he had stayed I n GS and been Center that team would've been a contender for years.

And imagine Hardaway and Marčiulionis don't get injured. That team would be loaded.

The following season,1995, they would've been a top team, a real contender. Hardaway, Sprewell, Mullin, Owens, Webber = loaded for sure.

I think he gets underrated on here because, to put it simply those Kings teams were extremely unique.

The first thing is that people underrate the impact of passing bigs, so they falsely equate his offensive impact as being similar to a bunch of bigs who scored similarly or better. His passing is an extremely unique and valuable skill. With that said...

The impact doesn't look as stark on those Kings teams because one of him and Vlade--another all-time elite passing big--was on the court at all times. The machine didn't stop running without Webber. Without Vlade on the team, I'm pretty confident Webber would have 7-8apg seasons, and it would change the context of some of these conversations--albeit the team would also likely be worse.

migya wrote:

SHAQ32 wrote:Webber was a mystery to me because here goes this guy who's basically Baby Shaq, as far as the cat-like reflexes and size, but for some reason doesn't want to play physical in the post. I don't want to play center, boo-hoo.

Had he had stayed I n GS and been Center that team would've been a contender for years.

I don't think he could possibly player center in the 90's. He was 6-8 240 without great length iirc. He wasn't even that large by pf standards back then when you had guys who were 6-10 with long arms at that position on some teams.

SHAQ32 wrote:Webber was a mystery to me because here goes this guy who's basically Baby Shaq, as far as the cat-like reflexes and size, but for some reason doesn't want to play physical in the post. I don't want to play center, boo-hoo.

He had strength and explosiveness but size wise he wasn't really close at all to Shaq. I think he sort of slimmed down too by the time he went to the Kings while Shaq goes from 300lb to 350. Though I agree that unwillingness to be physical is a criticism he gets. I think that happens to a lot of guys who have some injuries though.