Where do we put Chris Webber if they go on to win the 02 ring?

Gibson22 · Post #1 » by **Gibson22** » Mon Sep 13, 2021 5:44 pm

I was thinking about the fact that, maybe, for how much we (as in real gm, and this type of basketball circles) pride ourselves in being anti-ringzzz culture, we are still a bit too much dependant on resultatism. Chris Webber isn't at all the prime example of this, but maybe it's one of them.
Now I'm not saying that Chris Webber was an all-time caliber of player, like, he was very good, but, even if his career turned out perfect, he wasn't some absolute franchise altering player, mvp level. Now, with our traditional criteria (career value, peak+prime+longevity, team success + accolades + stats) chris webber is one of those guys who aren't close to top 50, and doesn't really have a case over guys who are in that group from 50 to 75. He is in the group where there are a lot of guys from like 80 to outside the top 100. When you look at his career, he was relevant only from like 99 to 04. 5x all-nba, 5x top 10 in mvp, 5x all-star, roty. Only one conference finals appearance. Obviously a great career, but a lot of guys have done better.

But, where would we rank him if the kings get past the lakers, they go on to beat the nets and he wins fmvp?
Now, chris webber isn't Kevin Garnett, he just isn't as good as most top 30 players, he isn't this perennial mvp, god-like peak player, but he was an hell of a good player.

-Chris Webber was a beast talent wise. He was a 6-9 power forward who was athletic and fluid (at least until his injury), could handle, was a great passer, could shoot, could post up. One of the most versatile bigs ever, and there aren't many pfs that I would put above him offensively in general (bigs, I can think of quite a few, but traditionally listed pfs, not many). Defensively, he wasn't great but he was good, and then again, he was very versatile.

-People believe that he wasn't very longeve because he was only relevant in his sacramento stint, and yeah, he was only selected for all-league or all star teams for those years, but if you really take a look:
-Chris Webber basically had 20/10/4-5 assists/1.5/1.5 for basically 13 seasons in a row. Like, some seasons he averaged slightly less than 20 points, sometimes slightly less than 10 rebounds, but he was always in that ballpark. He even averaged 27 and he was a 25/10/5 guy with decent defense for 3 years. So, it's not like he was good just for a couple of years
-About that, this guy averaged for his first 13 years (excluding his last 2 when he didn't play a lot) 21.6/10.1/4.4/1.5/1.5/2.9 TOVs, and this was in the lowest scoring, lowest pace, lowest percentage era ever. I admit that he was probably below league average TS by 1 or 2% on average, and this is really important to notice.

-He was winning only with the kings, but he made the playoff with 4 other different teams, and in 3 of those 4 he was the best or one of the best players in the team.

-(Obviously not relevant to his nba career, but) to testify to his talent, webber was probably of the 20/30 best high school basketball players ever, went on to have a great college career, was the consensus n.1 pick and won ROTY.

-There is also something to say about how futuristic he and the kings were

All in all, this is chris webber, great talent but not as great as others, great career but not as good as many others. Not good enough to drag a trash team to the playoffs or an average team deep in the playoffs, good piece in a good team but wasn't lucky enough to win a ring, and he was never in the position to just be added to an already good team, or play second fiddle to a great player etc.

Now the question is: we all know how close the kings were to beating the lakers. Many think they were robbed. If they win, they probably beat the inferior nets and chris webber is favored for fmvp. Where do we rank him with 1 ring with finals mvp? His career also probably turns out better in general after that.
In general, do you feel like, even if you are anti-ringz culture, that you are still too heavily influenced by this type of things?

Stalwart · Post #2 » by **Stalwart** » Mon Sep 13, 2021 6:03 pm

Chris Webber becomes a top 10 PF of all time

HeartBreakKid · Post #3 » by **HeartBreakKid** » Mon Sep 13, 2021 6:12 pm

lebron3-14-3 wrote:I was thinking about the fact that, maybe, for how much we (as in real gm, and this type of basketball circles) pride ourselves in being anti-ringzzz culture, we are still a bit too much dependant on resultatism. Chris Webber isn't at all the prime example of this, but maybe it's one of them.
Now I'm not saying that Chris Webber was an all-time caliber of player, like, he was very good, but, even if his career turned out perfect, he wasn't some absolute franchise altering player, mvp level. Now, with our traditional criteria (career value, peak+prime+longevity, team success + accolades + stats) chris webber is one of those guys who aren't close to top 50, and doesn't really have a case over guys who are in that group from 50 to 75. He is in the group where there are a lot of guys from like 80 to outside the top 100. When you look at his career, he was relevant only from like 99 to 04. 5x all-nba, 5x top 10 in mvp, 5x all-star, roty. Only one conference finals appearance. Obviously a great career, but a lot of guys have done better.

I feel like your message is jumbled up. You're saying that realgm (this sub section in particular) is anti-ring, but part of "our traditional criteria" is team success and accolades?

And if we are too dependent on resultism (your words not mine), we should rank Chris Webber higher if he won a hypothetical ring in 2002? Isn't that a conflicting statement?

Furthermore, you've said multiple times that Chris Webber is not an MVP caliber player. So realistically, what else are people supposed to say? He wasn't that great of a player.

Not trying to be antagonistic, just don't think what you said is very clear. It really just seems like you want to give Chris Webber props.

Post #4 » by **penbeast0** » Mon Sep 13, 2021 7:01 pm

Webber winning FMVP goes against the thread of his career from college onward where he has traditionally frozen up in clutch time and produced some memorable chokes so it would make a significant difference. It could be that he is too intellectual and not instinctual enough (also said at times about Wilt), it could be just something in his makeup, or it could be just a run of bad luck as the sample size is pretty small. But yeah, the FMVP makes a difference even if winning the title wouldn't by itself.

SHAQ32 · Post #5 » by **SHAQ32** » Mon Sep 13, 2021 7:30 pm

If only Webber went along with Don Nelson. He could've been the one to turn the Warriors franchise around. Instead, he wasted away in Washington for four seasons.

xinxin · Post #6 » by **xinxin** » Mon Sep 13, 2021 8:30 pm

Webber, for those too young to know, always choked in the biggest moments ..

Bibby would have been FMVP in 2002, not Webber

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

falcolombardi · Post #7 » by **falcolombardi** » Mon Sep 13, 2021 9:24 pm

little nitpick but the early 2000's was not the lowest efficiency era ever, all nba seasons before the 3 point line had lower efficiency

lowest pace may be correct although i am not sure, lowest scoring i dunno. probably not because pre shot lock era exists

Stalwart · Post #8 » by **Stalwart** » Mon Sep 13, 2021 11:08 pm

As it stands now Webber has the distinction of anchoring one of the greatest NCAA teams and one of the greatest NBA teams....not to win the title.

Even though this speaks to him not being able to get the job done I still feel like he deserves some credit that. Webber was a much more significant figure in basketball than he gets credit for these days.

Post #9 » by **penbeast0** » Tue Sep 14, 2021 1:23 am

He was a talented whiny brat in Washington; better in Sacramento but they didn't seem to miss him much when he was injured as Divac could handle the post passing and Peja and Bibby the scoring plus they had solid depth.

Post #10 » by **HomoSapien** » Tue Sep 14, 2021 3:46 am

He'd be neck and neck with Dirk. CWebb was great and was robbed of a championship which ultimately hurt his legacy.

Statlanta · Post #11 » by **Statlanta** » Tue Sep 14, 2021 4:04 am

He'd still be behind guys like Pau, Rasheed, KG, Dirk, Tim because that team was an ensemble team and the other guys had more featured/important roles on their team.

Post #12 » by **pillwenney** » Tue Sep 14, 2021 11:16 am

Statlanta wrote:He'd still be behind guys like Pau, Rasheed, KG, Dirk, Tim because that team was an ensemble team and the other guys had more featured/important roles on their team.

Hard disagree there. The Kings were very much an ensemble team...much like Detroit with Sheed. But he was still the clear best player on the team, unlike Pau.

But because of that, I do agree he'd still be well behind Dirk and KG. Duncan is a given. Their longevity would still be far better

It would make an impact for sure. He gets left off of some peoples' top 100 lists, and that would cease. Might crack an optimist's top 50.

feyki · Post #13 » by **feyki** » Tue Sep 14, 2021 11:20 am

HomoSapien wrote:He'd be neck and neck with Dirk. CWebb was great and was robbed of a championship which ultimately hurt his legacy.

Is this an irony?

I'd evaluate his game at the same level with KG till the 2003, so he was a top 5 player level in the league, in the few years. Not a good longevity but great prime and has to be on the top 100 as the careers.

Who cares about the fmvp or the ring?

Stalwart · Post #14 » by **Stalwart** » Tue Sep 14, 2021 1:28 pm

Webber put up 27/11/4 in his prime. Thats MVP level. Stop comparing him to guys like Pau and Rasheed.

LA Bird · Post #15 » by **LA Bird** » Tue Sep 14, 2021 2:30 pm

Stalwart wrote:Webber put up 27/11/4 in his prime. Thats MVP level. Stop comparing him to guys like Pau and Rasheed.

Yeah and DeMarcus Cousins put up 27/11/5 in his prime.

Thank goodness the Kings didn't win the title. Webber would have been so ridiculously overrated if they had won.

Stalwart · Post #16 » by **Stalwart** » Tue Sep 14, 2021 2:43 pm

LA Bird wrote:
Stalwart wrote:Webber put up 27/11/4 in his prime. Thats MVP level. Stop comparing him to guys like Pau and Rasheed.

Yeah and DeMarcus Cousins put up 27/11/5 in his prime.

Thank goodness the Kings didn't win the title. Webber would have been so ridiculously overrated if they had won.

Huh? When Webber put up those numbers his team was one of the best of the decade. They weren't empty stats.

LA Bird · Post #17 » by **LA Bird** » Tue Sep 14, 2021 3:06 pm

Stalwart wrote:
LA Bird wrote:
Stalwart wrote:Webber put up 27/11/4 in his prime. Thats MVP level. Stop comparing him to guys like Pau and Rasheed.

Yeah and DeMarcus Cousins put up 27/11/5 in his prime.

Thank goodness the Kings didn't win the title. Webber would have been so ridiculously overrated if they had won.

Huh? When Webber put up those numbers his team was one of the best of the decade. They weren't empty stats.

The Kings were also one of the best teams even when Webber wasn't playing. They went 80-34 without him from 2001 to 04 which is equivalent to a 57.5 win rate. Webber jacking up 23 shots per game on below league average efficiency was not the reason why the Kings were good.

Stalwart · Post #18 » by **Stalwart** » Tue Sep 14, 2021 3:12 pm

LA Bird wrote:
Stalwart wrote:
LA Bird wrote:Yeah and DeMarcus Cousins put up 27/11/5 in his prime.

Thank goodness the Kings didn't win the title. Webber would have been so ridiculously overrated if they had won.

Huh? When Webber put up those numbers his team was one of the best of the decade. They weren't empty stats.

The Kings were also one of the best teams even when Webber wasn't playing. They went 80-34 without him from 2001 to 04 which is equivalent to a 57.5 win rate. Webber jacking up 23 shots per game on below league average efficiency was not the reason why the Kings were good.

Whatever

SNPA · Post #19 » by **SNPA** » Tue Sep 14, 2021 3:20 pm

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.

Webb was robbed by Stern.

Kings are the real 2002 champs and everyone but Lakers fans and casuals knows that. Shaq should give Webber that ring, it belongs to him.

With his rightful ring Webber is viewed in Dirk territory.

Owly · Post #20 » by **Owly** » Tue Sep 14, 2021 3:52 pm

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.

Miller is 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.