LaMarcus Aldridge or Chris Webber?

[penbeast0]

Better peak? Better prime? Better career?

[tsherkin]

Webber's one of those guys who is largely overrated due to aesthetics. He was finished being an efficient scorer before he even left Washington (really, after his 3rd season), finished with good offensive rebounding after his 4th year, but memory of him as a player orbits his time in Sacramento, where they had an up-tempo (for the time), high-octane offense. His passing was a part of that, but was also largely replaced by Brad Miller.

Trash on D and a guy who produced more based on minutes and touches than by quality of finishing. I love listening to him talk about the post on TNT whenever he's on, because it's the most hypocritical horsecrap you'll hear on that show, even with Barkley and Shaq.

He played 6 seasons of 70+ GP in his entire career (one with Philly near the end), rarely healthy.

Aldridge was overused in Portland, but got somewhat better in San Antonio. He wasn't an efficient guy. Your prototypical mid-2000s shooting big who wasn't any good at drawing fouls or dominating in FG%. Staggeringly low-turnover. Nice, if brief, peak for the Spurs in 2018.

I think I'd take Aldridge over Webber all across. He wasn't a lot better, he certainly wasn't the same kind of passer, but he was a better offensive player and generally more available.

[SHAQ32]

Trash on D

You're thinking of Juwan Howard

[tsherkin]

Trash on D

You're thinking of Juwan Howard

No, I'm not.

[penbeast0]

I'm not as low on Webber as tsherkin but he was not a particularly good defender. What he did well was use his extraordinary athleticism to get blocks, particularly on his own man. What he did poorly was keep his man from getting to his favorite spots and getting excellent post position (back in the days when big men played in the post). He didn't like contact as much as most big men so he would let his man get the good position then try to make up for it by going for the highlight block. Sometimes it worked. He was also reasonably quick laterally for a guy his size which is important in NBA defense.

He also never really seemed put effort into blocking his man out, instead (again) letting his man get offensive rebounding position then trying to leap over his reach to grab defensive boards that should have been easy positional rebounds. He was like the anti-Nene. Sometimes that worked too, but if we are counting defensive rebounding as part of defense, then in that part of the game, yeah, he was trash.

[tsherkin]

I'm not as low on Webber as tsherkin but he was not a particularly good defender. What he did well was use his extraordinary athleticism to get blocks, particularly on his own man. What he did poorly was keep his man from getting to his favorite spots and getting excellent post position (back in the days when big men played in the post). He didn't like contact as much as most big men so he would let his man get the good position then try to make up for it by going for the highlight block. Sometimes it worked. He was also reasonably quick laterally for a guy his size which is important in NBA defense.

In his early days, he did that more than he did later. By the time he hit Sacramento, that sort of effort was rare.

Webber's problem was never one of ability, but always one of effort. He was a lazy player very easily intimidated by physicality. And very early in his career, he stopped driving aggressively and began growing extremely content bombing nothing but 17- to 20-foot Js all game long.

What he could do and what he DID do consistently were very, very far apart.

[One_and_Done]

Webber is the better theoretical player, Aldridge is the better actual player. I think in a different team environment Webber would have had a top 35-40 player type career. That's not what happened though.

[tsherkin]

Webber is the better theoretical player, Aldridge is the better actual player. I think in a different team environment Webber would have had a top 35-40 player type career. That's not what happened though.

I don't think the team environment is what cost him. I think his between-the-ears game cost him, and wasted what was otherwise a pretty impressive collection of instincts and skills. He really was an excellent passer, and although he overused it, he was quite a proficient perimeter shooter. I know SOME of the drop-off for him as a scorer was due to health concerns and being robbed of some foot speed for that first step explosion, but a lot of it was that he didn't like pressure or physicality. He was much overrated in his career due to his scoring volume, particularly with the Kings, but he wasn't actually that good at supporting that volume. In 2000 and again in 2002, he was a light positive on that end, and that coincides with his peak form as an impact offensive player but he wasn't ever a tier 1 guy in that regard.

It's not that Aldridge is a lot better, he was never a particularly efficient scorer either. He was just more available, was less negative from a TSAdd POV and he was much better at possession protection. I was never a huge LMA fan; he epitomizes what I didn't like about Toronto's offense last year: possession control isn't enough if you aren't that hot at actually making shots. It'll make for a really nice ORTG: Aldridge averaged an ORTG of 113 on his career and Webber 104, but that goes only so far.

[One_and_Done]

I feel like if he waa drafted by OKC or the Spurs today he'd be fine. People forget how insanely athletic he was. Unfortunately he came up in an era of player entitlement, where a rookie could sign a 15 year $74.4 mill contract with a 1 year opt out, meaming he'd be able to demand a trade as a rookie. 74.4 million dollars is $158 million today, and the salary cap in 1993 was only $15 mill.

[homecourtloss]

Pretty easily Aldridge for better peak, prime, and career. Aldridge was a better offensive player and better defender.

I'm not as low on Webber as tsherkin but he was not a particularly good defender. What he did well was use his extraordinary athleticism to get blocks, particularly on his own man. What he did poorly was keep his man from getting to his favorite spots and getting excellent post position (back in the days when big men played in the post). He didn't like contact as much as most big men so he would let his man get the good position then try to make up for it by going for the highlight block. Sometimes it worked. He was also reasonably quick laterally for a guy his size which is important in NBA defense.

He also never really seemed put effort into blocking his man out, instead (again) letting his man get offensive rebounding position then trying to leap over his reach to grab defensive boards that should have been easy positional rebounds. He was like the anti-Nene. Sometimes that worked too, but if we are counting defensive rebounding as part of defense, then in that part of the game, yeah, he was trash.

He wasn’t the greatest defender because part of it is that he was lazy, and the other part is that he wasn’t really great at any aspect of defense, but he was more impactful defensively than he was offensively. I think many of the comments here are spot on — theoretically and philosophically his skill set should’ve made him a better player than he actually was. Honestly, in a more structured environment like today’s NBA that asks players to play specific roles, and only those roles, might’ve been good for him.

[tsherkin]

I feel like if he waa drafted by OKC or the Spurs today he'd be fine. People forget how insanely athletic he was. Unfortunately he came up in an era of player entitlement, where a rookie could sign a 15 year $74.4 mill contract with a 1 year opt out, meaming he'd be able to demand a trade as a rookie. 74.4 million dollars is $158 million today, and the salary cap in 1993 was only $15 mill.

I'm not with that. I don't really think it would have made a difference. His athleticism was initially quite impressive, yes. I don't really think discussing the "era of player entitlement" of the late 90s really makes a lot of sense, particularly relative to now.

He had attitude issues. They remained with him his whole career. Just because he was well-spoken and put up flashy box score numbers and had great promise doesn't change that. Going to Pops' Spurs wouldn't have mattered. Being drafted a dozen years later and playing for PJ Carleisimo or Scott Brooks wouldn't have changed that. Playing for Rick Adelman didn't change that. Playing on Don Nelson's Warriors didn't change that.

[SHAQ32]

I thought Webber was a decent post-defender due to his size and athleticism

[tsherkin]

I thought Webber was a decent post-defender due to his size and athleticism

He could be, when he wanted to be. But he was largely soft and uninterested in wielding strength or dealing with heavy physical contact. Didn't work out super well for him when people took him down to the block. Like so much with him, he COULD have been far better than he was, and he flashed it often enough that he was hella frustrating.

[SHAQ32]

I thought Webber was a decent post-defender due to his size and athleticism

He could be, when he wanted to be. But he was largely soft and uninterested in wielding strength or dealing with heavy physical contact. Didn't work out super well for him when people took him down to the block. Like so much with him, he COULD have been far better than he was, and he flashed it often enough that he was hella frustrating.

Fair enough, but there are other guys that people consider 'good' defenders who were 'soft' or non-physical.

[tsherkin]

Fair enough, but there are other guys that people consider 'good' defenders who were 'soft' or non-physical.

Who would you describe that way that actually played good post defense? Defending there is explicitly about physicality and effort, areas where Webber was always deficient.

[SHAQ32]

Fair enough, but there are other guys that people consider 'good' defenders who were 'soft' or non-physical.

Who would you describe that way that actually played good post defense? Defending there is explicitly about physicality and effort, areas where Webber was always deficient.

Just off the top of my head, Webber teammate Vlade Divac.

[tsherkin]

Just off the top of my head, Webber teammate Vlade Divac.

But he wasn't soft. He just wasn't cut, and he was European. There was a great deal of calling Europeans "soft" in the 90s and early 2000s for no particularly good reason. He took charges and leaned into contact from back-downs. He hustled for offensive boards, and was an okay shot blocker for his first decade or so.

So I don't really agree with that at all.

[ronnymac2]

I'm taking Aldridge for all three.

Webber is basically the prototype PF. It's between him and 90's contemporary Derrick Coleman, who himself never maximized his talent, though for Coleman it's much more understandable if you know his story.

But Webber wasted a lot of time being immature at the start of his career, and by the end, he was too frail to be impactful in a positive way. The trade to Philly was a disaster. Like, on paper, AI, Korver, Iggy, Webber, Dalembert is kind of a sweet lineup if you catch them at the right times in their careers. Instead, Webber made Iverson look like Jokic ITO efficiency.

To defend C-Web a bit though...the early 2000s WAS the golden age of the PF. Webber was going up against Duncan, KG, Dirk, Sheed, Malone, J.O...and from 1999-2003, Webber actually competed with those monsters head-to-head and at times won those matchups. Nobody has a shot at those matchups unless they're putting work in and are THAT good.

All that said, I'm taking Aldridge. He was great in multiple contexts with different types of rosters around him, he was consistent, he had his head on straight for the majority if not all of his career, and had superior durability to Webber. Portland was set to be something special; nearly a decade later, San Antonio WAS pretty special, with Aldridge being a key component. Definitely comparable players at the peaks of their powers...good comparison.

[tsherkin]

To defend C-Web a bit though...the early 2000s WAS the golden age of the PF. Webber was going up against Duncan, KG, Dirk, Sheed, Malone, J.O...and from 1999-2003, Webber actually competed with those monsters head-to-head and at times won those matchups. Nobody has a shot at those matchups unless they're putting work in and are THAT good.

His team won those matchups. Webber put up numbers, and a lot of the time he did that by virtue of minutes rather than rate, which means less. Sacramento was a fantastic team, of course, I don't mean to take away from that. But they had Bibby and Peja and Vlade and Christie and Bobby Jackson and Adelman coaching, and and and and. They were staaaacked. That was an extremely good team.

Webber fit well into it because his passing and perimeter shooting did work out well in Adelman's high post offense. But like I said earlier, he was replaced by Brad Miller. And when they did that, the Kings were instantly much better on O than they had been at any point during Webber's career. They shifted offensive load from Webber to Peja's peak season, distributed the ball well and looked much better for it.

[The Explorer]

I'm talkng Webber for all 3.