Replace Chris Webber with Nikola Jokic on the Kings

[Narigo]

How many rings 20-25 Jokic gets on the Kings if he replacing Webber?

[GeorgeMarcus]

Well, on one hand, Jokic/Divac is a lot more exploitable defensively. I'm guessing they'd want to start Turk and bump Vlade to the bench. Joker is basically a (very) rich man's Divac, which I say as someone who had great respect for Vlade's game. In that sense there would be some diminishing returns IMO because he's essentially replacing both Webber and Divac's role as inside-out facilitator.

On the other hand, Jokic is a lot better than Webber, and it's scary to think how good the offense would have been with all the shooting he'd have at his disposal.

The question is does the offense improve more than the defense declines? I say yes however I'm not sure the team would be THAT much better than the actual Kings or current Nuggets. I'm thinking 1-2 rings... Voting 1 because not even Donaghy could prevent it from happening in 02.

Shaq v Jokic matchup would be really interesting. Shaq would have an easier time feasting offensively but would also become a liability defending a well-spaced Jokic-led offense. His best bet would be to get Joker in foul trouble, which seems like an achievable goal without having the likes of Millsap/Gordon to help out in the post. I also think Duncan would be the perfect defensive counter, so those Spurs teams would give him hell (especially when they also had D Rob).

[Peregrine01]

I mean, the Bibby/C Webb/Peja/Vlade Kings really only had one healthy postseason together and that was 2002 and they almost beat (and probably should've beaten) the Lakers. C Webb hurts his knee in 2003 and was never the same thereafter and that basically ended the Kings' run as contenders.

You put Jokic in there who is a superior player to C Webb in almost every way and I think they get more than one. For people thinking that Jokic/Divac would be redundant consider that the synergy between Webb and Divac was based off how good both of their passing was and how that fed into the Kings' Princeton offense. Now you got Jokic who might be the GOAT passer and you just take an offense that was already great for its era multiple levels even higher.

As for defense, I think Jokic would have a much easier time during the dead-ball era when everyone was in the paint. He's also bigger than C Webb and adds a bigger body to help on Shaq.

[Doctor MJ]

How many rings 20-25 Jokic gets on the Kings if he replacing Webber?

I don't know how to do the number of rings thing, but they would have instantly been far better than their competition.

[lessthanjake]

Okay, so Webber had 6 seasons that he finished with the Kings. Here were the Kings’ SRS in those years, along with the corresponding year we’d be putting Jokic on the team:

1999: -0.89 (we add: 2020 Jokic)
2000: 3.04 (we add: 2021 Jokic)
2001: 6.07 (we add: 2022 Jokic)
2002: 7.61 (we add: 2023 Jokic)
2003: 6.68 (we add: 2024 Jokic)
2004: 5.41 (we add: 2025 Jokic)

And we should note that the 2004 season happened with only 23 games from Webber, and Webber only played 54 games in 2002.

The 1999 Kings weren’t a super good team with Webber, and Jokic himself wasn’t at his current level in 2020, so I don’t think they’d win a title that year, though I think they’d have been good enough to make a decent playoff run.

The 2000 Kings were notably improved, and 2021 Jokic was notably improved from 2020 Jokic. So we are looking at a great team. As it was, they only lost 3-2 to the Lakers. I think with Jokic this team could win the title, but I don’t think they’d be the clear favorite.

In 2001-2004, I think the Kings with Jokic would be the clear favorite every year. The 2001 Lakers definitely would’ve been a huge hurdle to get over, and, more generally, injuries and upsets can happen, so I definitely wouldn’t assume they win every one of those years. But I think they get 2 or 3 titles in that timeframe, and if they got some luck falling their way then it is *possible* they could’ve run the table.

Ultimately, that basically gets me an estimate of 3 total titles. Could be more or less, depending on luck, but that’s what I’d estimate.

I’ll note that my analysis isn’t really talking about fit on the team, but the reason for that is that I think Jokic would slot pretty seamlessly into that Kings team, so I wouldn’t expect there to be fit issues that’d mitigate the fact that he is a lot better than Webber.

[parsnips33]

Would starting Jokic next to Divac be that problematic in the early 2000s? Certainly seems more feasible back then than in today's league

[tone wone]

Would starting Jokic next to Divac be that problematic in the early 2000s? Certainly seems more feasible back then than in today's league

Webber had really poor/slow feet. By 2002 his lateral quickness was basically gone. I guess Jokic wouldn't be any worse in space. In 2004 most of that season was Vlade and Brad Miller together with Webber out.

Webber would probably be more of PF/C hybrid today as opposed to a pure PF he was back in the day.

[penbeast0]

Okay, so Webber had 6 seasons that he finished with the Kings. Here were the Kings’ SRS in those years, along with the corresponding year we’d be putting Jokic on the team:

1999: -0.89 (we add: 2020 Jokic)
2000: 3.04 (we add: 2021 Jokic)
2001: 6.07 (we add: 2022 Jokic)
2002: 7.61 (we add: 2023 Jokic)
2003: 6.68 (we add: 2024 Jokic)
2004: 5.41 (we add: 2025 Jokic)

And we should note that the 2004 season happened with only 23 games from Webber, and Webber only played 54 games in 2002.

The 1999 Kings weren’t a super good team with Webber, and Jokic himself wasn’t at his current level in 2020, so I don’t think they’d win a title that year, though I think they’d have been good enough to make a decent playoff run.

The 2000 Kings were notably improved, and 2021 Jokic was notably improved from 2020 Jokic. So we are looking at a great team. As it was, they only lost 3-2 to the Lakers. I think with Jokic this team could win the title, but I don’t think they’d be the clear favorite.

In 2001-2004, I think the Kings with Jokic would be the clear favorite every year. The 2001 Lakers definitely would’ve been a huge hurdle to get over, and, more generally, injuries and upsets can happen, so I definitely wouldn’t assume they win every one of those years. But I think they get 2 or 3 titles in that timeframe, and if they got some luck falling their way then it is *possible* they could’ve run the table.

Ultimately, that basically gets me an estimate of 3 total titles. Could be more or less, depending on luck, but that’s what I’d estimate.

I’ll note that my analysis isn’t really talking about fit on the team, but the reason for that is that I think Jokic would slot pretty seamlessly into that Kings team, so I wouldn’t expect there to be fit issues that’d mitigate the fact that he is a lot better than Webber.

Be it coaching or whatever, most coaches wouldn't play two centers together in that era. Adelman might, he played Vlade and Brad Miller together. On the other end of the spectrum, Washington had a period where their two best players were arguably Moses Malone and Manute Bol and never ran out a lineup with them together that I remember though I used to argue that they should. What would probably happen is that they would deal Vlade for a "true" PF of lesser talent and, if healthy, would still be significantly improved.

[lessthanjake]

Okay, so Webber had 6 seasons that he finished with the Kings. Here were the Kings’ SRS in those years, along with the corresponding year we’d be putting Jokic on the team:

1999: -0.89 (we add: 2020 Jokic)
2000: 3.04 (we add: 2021 Jokic)
2001: 6.07 (we add: 2022 Jokic)
2002: 7.61 (we add: 2023 Jokic)
2003: 6.68 (we add: 2024 Jokic)
2004: 5.41 (we add: 2025 Jokic)

And we should note that the 2004 season happened with only 23 games from Webber, and Webber only played 54 games in 2002.

The 1999 Kings weren’t a super good team with Webber, and Jokic himself wasn’t at his current level in 2020, so I don’t think they’d win a title that year, though I think they’d have been good enough to make a decent playoff run.

The 2000 Kings were notably improved, and 2021 Jokic was notably improved from 2020 Jokic. So we are looking at a great team. As it was, they only lost 3-2 to the Lakers. I think with Jokic this team could win the title, but I don’t think they’d be the clear favorite.

In 2001-2004, I think the Kings with Jokic would be the clear favorite every year. The 2001 Lakers definitely would’ve been a huge hurdle to get over, and, more generally, injuries and upsets can happen, so I definitely wouldn’t assume they win every one of those years. But I think they get 2 or 3 titles in that timeframe, and if they got some luck falling their way then it is *possible* they could’ve run the table.

Ultimately, that basically gets me an estimate of 3 total titles. Could be more or less, depending on luck, but that’s what I’d estimate.

I’ll note that my analysis isn’t really talking about fit on the team, but the reason for that is that I think Jokic would slot pretty seamlessly into that Kings team, so I wouldn’t expect there to be fit issues that’d mitigate the fact that he is a lot better than Webber.

Be it coaching or whatever, most coaches wouldn't play two centers together in that era. Adelman might, he played Vlade and Brad Miller together. On the other end of the spectrum, Washington had a period where their two best players were arguably Moses Malone and Manute Bol and never ran out a lineup with them together that I remember though I used to argue that they should. What would probably happen is that they would deal Vlade for a "true" PF of lesser talent and, if healthy, would still be significantly improved.

Yeah, unfortunately you’re probably right about how that would go in reality. But I guess I was assuming the rosters stayed the same. It wouldn’t be totally unprecedented anyways though. Teams did actually play two centers in that era—they just called one of the centers a PF. Most prominently, this was the case with Duncan. Maybe Jokic would have been called a PF?

[penbeast0]

AS I said, if anyone could be trusted to do it, Adelman is one of the ones I would say is most likely. Brad Miller wasn't significantly more mobile than Jokic.

[Peregrine01]

AS I said, if anyone could be trusted to do it, Adelman is one of the ones I would say is most likely. Brad Miller wasn't significantly more mobile than Jokic.

If anything he was significantly less.

[magicman1978]

AS I said, if anyone could be trusted to do it, Adelman is one of the ones I would say is most likely. Brad Miller wasn't significantly more mobile than Jokic.

If anything he was significantly less.

I don't think that's accurate for the seasons being discussed here. You might need to rewatch some of the Kings games. I think penbeast is correct - Miller was more mobile, even if slightly so. Jokic is just bigger for one so not really surprising.

Just look at how Miller moves around in this game compared to Jokic last night as an example:

Watch on YouTube

[Peregrine01]

AS I said, if anyone could be trusted to do it, Adelman is one of the ones I would say is most likely. Brad Miller wasn't significantly more mobile than Jokic.

If anything he was significantly less.

I don't think that's accurate for the seasons being discussed here. You might need to rewatch some of the Kings games. I think penbeast is correct - Miller was more mobile, even if slightly so. Jokic is just bigger for one so not really surprising.

Just look at how Miller moves around in this game compared to Jokic last night as an example:

Watch on YouTube

Jokic also carries a much larger load, especially on offense, so he conserves his energy a great deal. His offensive load this year is pretty obscene and is a big reason why he's looked like a statue a lot of times on defense. Brad Miller never had to bear this kinda burden nor did he play against the pick and roll spread out offenses of today.

But if you look at the offensive side of the ball where the comparison is more apples to apples, there's a huge difference in the way the two players move.

[penbeast0]

Offense would not be where the mobility problem is.

[tsherkin]

I struggle to envision a world where the Kings wouldn't be MUCH better off with Jokic over Webber.

[Peregrine01]

Offense would not be where the mobility problem is.

What I was trying to get at is that the mobility advantage that Jokic has over Brad Miller really shows on offense. Jokic conserves himself on defense to varying degrees - a lot this year so his defense has taken a big step back - and less when he had more of team around him - like in 2023 when the Nuggets were actually one of the top defensive teams in the playoffs.

[magicman1978]

What you see on offense is more fluidity, smoothness, body control, etc. more than mobility. Miller is not super mobile guy, especially in terms of lateral quickness, and Jokic is such a huge upgrade over Webber (minimum 2 chips, likely 3 in this scenario) so I don't want to belabor the point. A Jokic / Divac pairing would not be any cause for concern, but Divac's probably gets moved anyways - or they'd have Miller / Jokic pairing more.

[atlantabbq99]

I don't think Horry makes that miracle 3 with Jokic on the floor.

[penbeast0]

I don't think Horry makes that miracle 3 with Jokic on the floor.

You think Jokic guards him better out at the 3 point line than Webber or do you think Jokic is just luckier?

[Warspite]

Jokic cant guard Shaq or Duncan so I think the question is moot.

Divac isnt going to get you a pf in a trade that is going to improve Divac/CWeb. Vin Baker, Reaf Lafrenz are realistic gets and then there is Juwon Howard who forced a trade to the Nuggets so maybe you can get him. 01 is just a bad year for quality PFs. Several get hurt or begin to decline. If Christian Laettner would have had 2 more prime years and not hurt his knee he would be a great fit.