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

[HeartBreakKid]

Chris Webber was not a real MVP player. Guy was not a real scorer, just one of the many players who jacked up shots during that period. He was very good at everything else though. Kind of like a crappy Kevin Garnett.

He was on a mega stacked team for that era..not sure how people in 2021 can still not know that.

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.

Then that would make him about as good as Brad Miller...how highly ranked is Brad Miller?

[Stalwart]

Chris Webber was not a real MVP player. Guy was not a real scorer, just one of the many players who jacked up shots during that period. He was very good at everything else though. Kind of like a crappy Kevin Garnett.

He was on a mega stacked team for that era..not sure how people in 2021 can still not know that.

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.

Then that would make him about as good as Brad Miller...how highly ranked is Brad Miller?

Chris webber shot 48% during the Kings run. Same as Garnett. Better than Dirk. And slightly behind Tim.

You were saying?

[Owly]

Chris Webber was not a real MVP player. Guy was not a real scorer, just one of the many players who jacked up shots during that period. He was very good at everything else though. Kind of like a crappy Kevin Garnett.

He was on a mega stacked team for that era..not sure how people in 2021 can still not know that.

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.

Then that would make him about as good as Brad Miller...how highly ranked is Brad Miller?

Chris webber shot 48% during the Kings run. Same as Garnett. Better than Dirk. And slightly behind Tim.

You were saying?

I think, not to speak for others, that Webber was somewhat inefficient in general (and especially so for a player of his status - moreso where some apparently perceive it).

cf: -450.6 career TS add. TS% drops in the playoffs though I couldn't say if by more so than is typical.

Re: FG% (in a single playoff run) Webber was ineffective at the line and didn't shoot 3s and thus ultimately less efficient than might see just on fg%. Dirk's 02 playoff TS% is .577, or way ahead of Webber's .523. Duncan in the middle at .550. Garnett worst (though only 3 games) at .514.

[Stalwart]

Chris Webber was not a real MVP player. Guy was not a real scorer, just one of the many players who jacked up shots during that period. He was very good at everything else though. Kind of like a crappy Kevin Garnett.

He was on a mega stacked team for that era..not sure how people in 2021 can still not know that.



Then that would make him about as good as Brad Miller...how highly ranked is Brad Miller?

Chris webber shot 48% during the Kings run. Same as Garnett. Better than Dirk. And slightly behind Tim.

You were saying?

I think, not to speak for others, that Webber was somewhat inefficient in general (and especially so for a player of his status - moreso where some apparently perceive it).

cf: -450.6 career TS add. TS% drops in the playoffs though I couldn't say if by more so than is typical.

Re: FG% (in a single playoff run) Webber was ineffective at the line and didn't shoot 3s and thus ultimately less efficient than might see just on fg%. Dirk's 02 playoff TS% is .577, or way ahead of Webber's .523. Duncan in the middle at .550. Garnett worst (though only 3 games) at .514.

Fair enough. But its hard to call him a shot jacker when he shot a good fg% on a great team.

[SNPA]

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.

Not all minutes are of equal value. Miller moved into the starting lineup and took over Webber’s role, others backfilled Miller’s role.

[Owly]

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.

Not all minutes are of equal value. Miller moved into the starting lineup and took over Webber’s role, others backfilled Miller’s role.

Not sure what the not all minutes are equal thing means (to my understanding all minutes are counted the same on the scoreboard - unless this is to suggest Massenburg, and with Webber available, Miller, would play mostly just garbage time?).
I think the implication seems to be that Miller was stepping into a role where it was easy to seem important (an all-star even, from a player fit for this lesser, unimportant bench role)? I really don't know.

Regardless, as before highlighting Miller and not Massenburg et al is misleading.

[HomoSapien]

Who cares about the fmvp or the ring?

Have you ever been part of a basketball discussion on this forum?

[HomoSapien]

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.

Hard disagree for me too. I certainly have him way ahead of Rasheed. I probably would have him ahead of Pau as well. I think CWebb vs Dirk would be a pretty close debate if Chris had a ring. Their prime stats were very comparable. Dirk has him beat because of the ring but also because of the longevity. He played nearly twice as many games than CWebb which is crazy when you think about it.

[SNPA]

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.

Not all minutes are of equal value. Miller moved into the starting lineup and took over Webber’s role, others backfilled Miller’s role.

Not sure what the not all minutes are equal thing means (to my understanding all minutes are counted the same on the scoreboard - unless this is to suggest Massenburg, and with Webber available, Miller, would play mostly just garbage time?).
I think the implication seems to be that Miller was stepping into a role where it was easy to seem important (an all-star even, from a player fit for this lesser, unimportant bench role)? I really don't know.

Regardless, as before highlighting Miller and not Massenburg et al is misleading.

It means Miller took over the starting minutes against first team guys and others back filled his off the bench minutes. Others did not gain the bulk of Webb’s minutes as you suggested. Miller gained the bulk and others gained Miller’s. So Webb got replaced by an all star, thus the lack of drop off isn’t what it appears at first glance.

Plus those were system teams. Guys stepped into roles in the system which also helps explain the lack of drop off. Peja could go down and Hedo could step in. That’s how those teams rolled.

[No-more-rings]

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.

Hard disagree for me too. I certainly have him way ahead of Rasheed. I probably would have him ahead of Pau as well. I think CWebb vs Dirk would be a pretty close debate if Chris had a ring. Their prime stats were very comparable. Dirk has him beat because of the ring but also because of the longevity. He played nearly twice as many games than CWebb which is crazy when you think about it.

Dirk blows Webber away as an all around player.

You're not trolling are you?

[Cavsfansince84]

As is I have Webber on the periphery of the top 100 or just inside. With a ring in 02 I think I'd have him at about 80-85 most likely. One of the major issues for Webber is injuries and missed games. He only played in 75+ games twice and 70 or more games 6 times in his whole career.

[HomoSapien]

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.

Hard disagree for me too. I certainly have him way ahead of Rasheed. I probably would have him ahead of Pau as well. I think CWebb vs Dirk would be a pretty close debate if Chris had a ring. Their prime stats were very comparable. Dirk has him beat because of the ring but also because of the longevity. He played nearly twice as many games than CWebb which is crazy when you think about it.

Dirk blows Webber away as an all around player.

You're not trolling are you?

Trolling how? I should ask you the same. Dirk can score in more diverse ways, but how exactly was he more all-around? Webber at his best averaged more assists, rebounded better, and got more steals and blocks.

Again, Dirk ultimately had the better career but I think if Webber had a ring it'd be a pretty close debate.

[pillwenney]

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.

Hard disagree for me too. I certainly have him way ahead of Rasheed. I probably would have him ahead of Pau as well. I think CWebb vs Dirk would be a pretty close debate if Chris had a ring. Their prime stats were very comparable. Dirk has him beat because of the ring but also because of the longevity. He played nearly twice as many games than CWebb which is crazy when you think about it.

I still can't agree with this. CWebb's ring in Sac would be considerably less impressive as the team around him was much stronger, and like you said, Dirk would still have major longevity over him.

[Texas Chuck]

Man those early 00's Kings teams were so much fun. Kings and Mavs met 3 straight years with the Kings getting the upper hand twice.

In 02 Webber did outplay Dirk and Bibby held his own with Nash and that combined with a superior cast around them led to a fairly easy Kings win.

In 03 Raef injures Webber and Dallas wins in 7 with Webber playing what 6 quarters? Dirk was good, but this was a big NVE series.

In 04, the Kings win in 5, but its closer than that. Games 2, 4 and 5 of the series Dallas has a possession to win or tie the game at the end and they got each of their 3 best players isolated on Peja and each time they missed the shot.

But worth noting Dallas lost because the whole team save Dirk absolutely could not make a shot to save their life. Just awful, awful. And the Kings won overcoming Webber being as bad as the rest of the Mavs were while Bibby saved the day(he was a real Mavs killer).

But those were really entertaining games with a lot of offensive talent on both sides and man that ARCO Arena was so loud.


Webber was a good player, but he's not remotely in Dirk's class as a player. Major misconception to look and see more well-rounded and conclude superior.

[HeartBreakKid]

Chris Webber was not a real MVP player. Guy was not a real scorer, just one of the many players who jacked up shots during that period. He was very good at everything else though. Kind of like a crappy Kevin Garnett.

He was on a mega stacked team for that era..not sure how people in 2021 can still not know that.

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.

Then that would make him about as good as Brad Miller...how highly ranked is Brad Miller?

Chris webber shot 48% during the Kings run. Same as Garnett. Better than Dirk. And slightly behind Tim.

You were saying?

1) Using fieldgoal percentage...okay.

2) He shot the same as Kevin Garnett and Dirk Nowitzki...have you ever actually seen any of them play? You're saying Chris Webber shot the same from the field as players who shoot further from the rim. Hope you can piece that one together.

[pillwenney]

Man those early 00's Kings teams were so much fun. Kings and Mavs met 3 straight years with the Kings getting the upper hand twice.

In 02 Webber did outplay Dirk and Bibby held his own with Nash and that combined with a superior cast around them led to a fairly easy Kings win.

In 03 Raef injures Webber and Dallas wins in 7 with Webber playing what 6 quarters? Dirk was good, but this was a big NVE series.

In 04, the Kings win in 5, but its closer than that. Games 2, 4 and 5 of the series Dallas has a possession to win or tie the game at the end and they got each of their 3 best players isolated on Peja and each time they missed the shot.

But worth noting Dallas lost because the whole team save Dirk absolutely could not make a shot to save their life. Just awful, awful. And the Kings won overcoming Webber being as bad as the rest of the Mavs were while Bibby saved the day(he was a real Mavs killer).

But those were really entertaining games with a lot of offensive talent on both sides and man that ARCO Arena was so loud.


Webber was a good player, but he's not remotely in Dirk's class as a player. Major misconception to look and see more well-rounded and conclude superior.

Still have nightmares about him in that series, not that it really mattered because the Kings were pretenders without Webber anyway.

[Texas Chuck]

Still have nightmares about him in that series, not that it really mattered because the Kings were pretenders without Webber anyway.

This is how I felt about Bibby. I mean the dude was totally washed by the 2011 Finals, but I'll admit to remembering what he did to Nash every year in the playoffs and going please not this guy.

And NVE was only a Mav for a little more than a year, but such a beloved guy. Really good player and brought that Mavs team some much needed swagger.

[homecourtloss]

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.

CWebb might not even be the best player on that Kongs’ team and wasn’t the most impactful.

[feyki]

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.

This is totally false. Cousins was playing with more turnovers than assists. On the other hand, Webber had almost 2,0 ast/to rate in his prime. Huge playmaking efficiency gap between the two. It's like comparing Dirk and Embiid regarding of playmaking. You can't evaluate scoring rate without shot efficiency and same goes for assists without turnovers.

[LA Bird]

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.

This is totally false. Cousins was playing with more turnovers than assists. On the other hand, Webber had almost 2,0 ast/to rate in his prime. Huge playmaking efficiency gap between the two. It's like comparing Dirk and Embiid regarding of playmaking. You can't evaluate scoring rate without shot efficiency and same goes for assists without turnovers.

You missed the point. I wasn't comparing Cousins and Webber. I was using Cousins as an example of how a 27/11/4 statline does not mean a player was MVP level. As you pointed out, there is more to it than just point/rebound/assist. Webber is better than Cousins but he still not MVP level.